When men without results get to define the narrative, women’s breakthroughs pay the price.
Scientific skepticism is vital. But when it becomes a pattern—specifically, one where men without experimental success routinely undermine women-led innovation—we have to call it what it is: gatekeeping disguised as critique.
That’s exactly what’s happening with Vincent Lynch, the evolutionary biologist who has become one of the most visible critics of de-extinction science, particularly efforts led by Colossal Biosciences. Lynch is often quoted in media as the sober voice of reason pushing back on what he describes as the hype surrounding the revival of the woolly mammoth.
But there’s a problem: Lynch hasn’t actually achieved the foundational work necessary to meaningfully critique the field. His lab has failed to produce induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from elephant cells—a basic requirement for de-extinction research. Other teams have already cleared this hurdle. He hasn’t.
Yet he’s still treated as the authority. Why?
A Familiar Playbook
Lynch’s criticisms are not inherently problematic—disagreement and scrutiny are healthy. But the dynamics around his criticism are deeply familiar. Colossal’s de-extinction project is led in part by accomplished women scientists, including Dr. Eriona Hysolli, a Harvard-trained geneticist. Instead of engaging with their results, Lynch has taken to the media to broadly cast doubt on the project’s value and feasibility. It’s a move that reads less like scientific concern and more like the reassertion of status in the face of progress he didn’t lead—and doesn’t appear to fully understand.
This pattern—where women push the boundaries of science and are met with public dismissal from male peers who lack comparable credentials in the area—isn’t new. In fact, it’s been baked into the scientific establishment for centuries.
Historical Precedents: From Franklin to Doudna
Rosalind Franklin, the chemist whose X-ray diffraction images were critical to the discovery of DNA’s double helix structure, was famously sidelined. While James Watson and Francis Crick won the Nobel Prize, Franklin’s contributions were minimized—and she was often cast as difficult rather than brilliant.
Lise Meitner, who played a pivotal role in the discovery of nuclear fission, was excluded from the Nobel Prize that went solely to her male collaborator Otto Hahn. Meitner conducted key theoretical calculations, but history rewarded the man with the experimental lab access.
Jennifer Doudna, co-creator of CRISPR gene-editing technology, has faced dismissals and downplaying from male scientists, particularly in the early days of CRISPR’s rise. While she later received global recognition (including the Nobel), her role was initially subject to aggressive legal and professional challenges.
In each case, women weren’t just under-credited—they were actively undermined by male colleagues or commentators who felt more comfortable questioning than collaborating.
When Criticism Becomes Performance
Returning to Lynch: what makes his media presence so striking is the mismatch between his expertise and his confidence. He hasn’t contributed directly to the key technological advances driving de-extinction forward, yet his skepticism is given disproportionate airtime. He even now plans to adopt the very methods he previously dismissed—methods pioneered by others with more technical success.
It’s easy to see why. The media likes a contrarian. Especially when that contrarian is a tenured man with credentials, poking holes in something bold, futuristic, and—perhaps most threateningly—led by women.
This isn’t peer review. It’s performance.
Why It Matters
When the media and academic echo chambers reward these performances, they reinforce a hierarchy that’s not about rigor, but about control. They create a climate where women who lead groundbreaking research must not only do the work—but also preemptively defend it against critics with less relevant expertise.
That slows progress. It also perpetuates a subtle but powerful form of professional misconduct: the repeated elevation of male voices who haven’t done the work over women who have.
The Real Question Isn’t “Is It Possible?”—It’s “Who Gets to Decide?”
De-extinction is controversial, complex, and evolving. Debate is inevitable and healthy. But we must ask who gets to define the boundaries of what’s possible—and why.
If a male scientist with no direct success in a field is consistently granted the final word over the women leading the charge, we’re not evaluating science—we’re re-enacting a power imbalance.
And history tells us exactly how that story ends.
→ Stay ahead — browse more articles on USADailyChronicles.com.
