Fact-Checking a Frozen Mammoth

How could the ancient carcass contain liquid blood?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Russian researchers recently announced a mind-blowing discovery: a 10,000-year-old woolly mammoth carcass containing blood that resists freezing even at −17 degrees Celsius. The Siberian Times quoted team leader Semyon Grigoriev of North-Eastern Federal University in Yakutsk as speculating that the blood contains “a kind of natural anti-freeze.” An Agence France-Presse report, meanwhile, quotes Grigoriev as saying “this find gives us a really good chance of finding live cells,” which would be a windfall for his institution's international project to clone a mammoth.

I wondered if it might be too good to be true. But according to the outside experts I contacted, this mammoth really is an incredible find. Some of the reported claims about it are questionable, however.

“They have not found any ‘living cell’—at most they could hope to find what the cloning enthusiasts might call a cell with ‘viable’ DNA, meaning that it would be intact enough to use in the context of a cloning effort,” explains Daniel Fisher of the University of Michigan. But he cautions that “in general, ancient DNA is highly fragmented and by no means ‘ready to go’ into the next mammoth embryo.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Kevin Campbell of the University of Manitoba doubts that circulating mammoth blood could resist freezing at −17 degrees C. Maybe, Campbell offers, the Russian team's liquid sample contains an antifreeze that was concentrated during the preservation. Or, he says, maybe antifreeze-secreting bacteria contaminated the sample.

As for cloning, Fisher thinks other research deserves priority. “For all I want to learn about the lives of mammoths, I have more confidence in our ability to generate new knowledge from the fossil record than in our ability to learn from cloned mammoths,” he says.

Adapted from Observations at blogs.ScientificAmerican.com/observations

Kate Wong is an award-winning science writer and senior editor for features at Scientific American, where she has focused on evolution, ecology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology and animal behavior. She is fascinated by human origins, which she has covered for nearly 30 years. Recently she has become obsessed with birds. Her reporting has taken her to caves in France and Croatia that Neandertals once called home to the shores of Kenya’s Lake Turkana in search of the oldest stone tools in the world, as well as to Madagascar on an expedition to unearth ancient mammals and dinosaurs, the icy waters of Antarctica, where humpback whales feast on krill, and a “Big Day” race around the state of Connecticut to find as many bird species as possible in 24 hours. Wong is co-author, with Donald Johanson, of Lucy’s Legacy: The Quest for Human Origins. She holds a bachelor of science degree in biological anthropology and zoology from the University of Michigan. Follow her on Bluesky @katewong.bsky.social

More by Kate Wong
Scientific American Magazine Vol 309 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Fact-Checking a Frozen Mammoth” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 309 No. 2 (), p. 19
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0813-19b

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe