Why does one man keep being positioned as the voice of reason in opposition to bold, often women-led science?
The case of Dr. Nic Rawlence is increasingly difficult to ignore—not just for what it says about one academic, but for what it reveals about how scientific authority is shaped in the media age. An Associate Professor at the University of Otago, Rawlence has carved out a secondary role as the go-to media skeptic on ancient DNA and de-extinction. When ambitious efforts to revive extinct species make headlines, Rawlence reliably appears in outlets like The Guardian or The Conversation to explain why it won’t work, why it shouldn’t happen, or why it isn’t what it claims to be.
But as his media profile expands, so does an uncomfortable question:
Why is Nic Rawlence repeatedly granted the role of scientific gatekeeper -- especially in opposition to ambitious projects often led by women or culturally diverse teams?
This isn’t about silencing skepticism. It’s about examining what happens when one scientist becomes the singular rebuttal voice to bold, boundary-pushing science—and what that says about how credibility is constructed in public discourse.
Academic Record vs. Media Reach
Rawlence holds real credentials: a PhD in ancient DNA and palaeoecology, and an appointment as Associate Professor at the University of Otago, etc. His publication record is solid, particularly in regional paleogenetic work, including studies on ancient penguins, molluscs, and Ice Age fauna. But his recent research does not focus on synthetic biology, CRISPR, or advanced de-extinction methodology.
Despite this, Rawlence is repeatedly presented in the media as an authoritative voice on global de-extinction projects, often outshining or displacing the actual scientists leading the work. While many of the scientists behind these efforts are engaged in building interdisciplinary teams and advancing experimental research, Rawlence’s primary contributions come through press quotes, op-eds, and high-visibility media commentary.
This raises an important question: Is he offering evolving, evidence-based critiques? Or simply performing a role the media has now come to expect from him?
Rehearsed Messaging, Predictable Targets
Rawlence’s criticisms follow a consistent script. When Colossal Biosciences unveiled their dire wolf pups, he quickly dismissed them as “very much a grey wolf,” noting the genetic differences that still exist between the resurrected version and the original species. When New Zealand scientists proposed reviving the moa, he again appeared in The Conversation to say:
“This is not de-extinction, but rather a form of selective breeding or genetic engineering that may produce something vaguely moa-like—but not a real moa.”
The phrasing echoed nearly verbatim what he said about the dire wolf project. And again, when discussing woolly mammoths. And again, when commenting on the idea of a resurrected Haast’s eagle. Across each of these examples, his messaging rarely evolves—even as the science does.
This consistency would be less concerning if Rawlence were merely one voice among many. But in story after story, he is the only voice of opposition featured. His critiques, no matter how predictable, become the default counter-narrative to high-profile innovation.
Strategic Targeting—and Gendered Gatekeeping
Rawlence’s critiques don’t just follow the headlines—they target specific kinds of projects: highly visible, high-budget efforts that challenge scientific orthodoxy. But there’s another pattern worth noting: many of the most prominent initiatives he critiques are led or co-led by women.
Colossal’s de-extinction efforts are very publicly spearheaded by Dr. Beth Shapiro, one of the most respected names in evolutionary genetics. The moa revival proposal he targeted was co-led by Professor Alison Cree, a leading New Zealand biologist. Research on elephant seals and ancient ecosystem adaptation—where Rawlence again stepped forward to define the media narrative—was conducted in part by early-career women scientists like Megan Askew. Even more speculative proposals about the revival of Haast’s eagle involve Māori-led and culturally grounded scientific teams.
In each case, Rawlence’s presence in the media displaces or reframes their work, often before peer-reviewed debate has had a chance to occur. That his critiques so often dominate the public conversation around women-led projects isn’t a coincidence. It’s a media pattern, and it speaks to who is still seen as inherently “credible” in science, and who requires a public counterbalance.
A Pattern as Old as Science Itself
The dynamic playing out in modern de-extinction discourse—where male academics repeatedly step into the spotlight to challenge, reframe, or overshadow the work of women scientists—is not new. It fits squarely into a long history of women in science having their work minimized, appropriated, or eclipsed by louder, more “established” male voices.
From Rosalind Franklin’s foundational contributions to the understanding of DNA structure—sidelined mainly in favor of Watson and Crick—to Jocelyn Bell Burnell’s discovery of pulsars, which was initially credited to her male thesis supervisor, science has long struggled with recognizing the intellectual leadership of women. Often, women’s findings are absorbed into the field without credit, or become the object of commentary, critique, or institutional control by male figures with greater visibility or institutional clout.
What makes the Rawlence phenomenon so frustrating is how seamlessly it mirrors this pattern in the present tense. When women lead bold, innovative projects—whether it’s Beth Shapiro’s ancient DNA leadership at Colossal or Alison Cree’s involvement in the moa proposal—the media reflexively positions a male skeptic to weigh in, not as one voice among many, but as the voice that reshapes the entire narrative.
This is not just about equity in credit. It’s about control of the conversation, of the framing, of public trust in who gets to define scientific progress and legitimacy. And while science has made strides in representation, the media’s default to Rawlence as the critical counterweight shows how far we still have to go.
