Colossal Biosciences reportedly in talks to raise new capital at $20B–$30B valuation 83%

By Marina Temkin65%

7/20/2026, 11:39:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Recency Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 30.8% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 948 faulty-reasoning hits from 377 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.1% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,521 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.80% of the article peer group.

When de-extinction startup Colossal Biosciences revealed last year that it was attempting to “resurrect” the dire wolf from genetic material found in fossils, we argued that, despite the controversy surrounding the project, the company was building valuable technologies that justify its $10.2 billion valuation. 
Now, roughly 16 months later, the startup is in talks to raise new funding at a $20 billion to $30 billion valuation, Axios reported. 
It’s not clear who is leading the new round, or how much capital the five-year-old company is looking to raise. 
But we do know, according to the report, that Colossal has started generating revenue over the last year. 
Colossal co-founder and CEO Ben Lamm told TechCrunch last year that the company sees three revenue streams for the business. 
The company has offered its conservation technology to the U.S. government and the UAE, which recently invested $60 million in the company, according to Wired. 
Colossal has spun out three startups, including Breaking, a company that helps break down plastics; Form Bio, a computational biology platform secured $30 million in funding; and Astromech, an AI-driven predictive modeling company focused on biology and life sciences, which was valued at $2 billion in March. 
The company, which operates out a 55,000-square-foot headquarters in Dallas, keeps finding new applications for its core science, too. 
In late April, it added the bluebuck antelope as its sixth target species, while late last month, its nonprofit conservation arm, the Colossal Foundation, struck a University of Tasmania partnership to help protect Tasmanian devils from a contagious facial cancer. 
Lamm told TechCrunch last year that the company also plans to spin off its artificial animal womb technology, which could have applications for human fertility treatment. 
In May, he told Rolling Stone that the technology is expected to be ready next year. 
If the company manages to reintroduce extinct animals, including the woolly mammoth and the dodo bird, to their native habitats, it may eventually generate revenue through the sale of biodiversity credits, a market-based mechanism similar to carbon credits, according to Lamm. 
The new fundraising effort comes amid a boom in longevity tech, alternative energy, and other deep-tech sectors. 
Colossal didn’t respond to our request for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Marina Temkin: 3.3%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 9.5%Marina Temkin: 6.1%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias9.5%This article: 11.1%Marina Temkin: 5.2%TechCrunch: 3.4%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 12.5%Marina Temkin: 2.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.5%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 1.5%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 3.0%TechCrunch: 4.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.0%Marina Temkin: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 27.1%Marina Temkin: 10.2%TechCrunch: 5.0%Optimism Bias27.1%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Marina Temkin: 1.0%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 2.5%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 30.8%Marina Temkin: 12.0%TechCrunch: 3.3%Halo Effect30.8%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 21.2%Marina Temkin: 4.9%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias21.2%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.6%Marina Temkin: 7.7%TechCrunch: 4.3%Appeal to Authority23.6%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 1.4%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 10.9%Marina Temkin: 0.6%TechCrunch: 0.6%Slippery Slope10.9%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.6%Marina Temkin: 7.2%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization10.6%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Marina Temkin: 3.8%TechCrunch: 1.2%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.9%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.9%Marina Temkin: 2.7%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.9%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 1.1%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 12.5%Marina Temkin: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division12.5%This article: 4.8%Marina Temkin: 1.9%TechCrunch: 2.3%Anecdotal4.8%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Marina Temkin: 4.1%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.2%Marina Temkin: 4.7%TechCrunch: 1.9%Unattributed Quote12.2%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.4%Marina Temkin: 5.2%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Temkin: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Marina Temkin: 6.5%TechCrunch: 4.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.4%

377 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker27%attributed speech274writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageBen Lamm • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageBen Lamm • 26 words • 100.0% coverageBen Lamm • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBen Lamm • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ben Lamm

100%flagged-word coverage
103 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote+44.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Ben Lamm: 44.7%44.7%Biased Writer Voice-22.6 ptsWriter: 22.6%Ben Lamm: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Ben Lamm: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.