One-third of the 2,300 animal and plant species protected under the US Endangered Species Act are considered critically endangered, yet no comprehensive genetic archive existed for this group until now. That changes on June 25, 2026: the US Interior Department and Colossal Biosciences plan to build BioVault, a cryogenic archive at minus 196 degrees Celsius in liquid nitrogen that will for the first time comprehensively capture all ESA-listed species with living cells, reproductive tissue, and fully sequenced genomes. Unlike existing biobanks, all genome data will flow freely into public repositories.
What BioVault stores
The collection encompasses three categories of biological material. Living cells are frozen cryogenically in liquid nitrogen at minus 196 degrees Celsius and stored at Colossal's headquarters in Dallas and at additional facilities. Reproductive tissue such as sperm cells and eggs supplement the collection for species where future breeding might be biologically feasible. Complete genome sequencing rounds out the archive: one reference genome per species plus population data flowing into public databases.
According to Colossal, sample collection will be predominantly non-invasive. Blood draws and skin biopsies can be taken from animals already in care or scientific observation. Tissue samples from deaths in cooperating zoos provide broad access to otherwise hard-to-reach species. For rare field animals seldom in human contact, sample collection remains the most difficult part of the entire effort.
Why now
The Endangered Species Act currently protects more than 2,300 species in the USA, including mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, insects, and over 800 plant species. The IUCN estimates the global extinction rate at up to a thousand times higher than the natural background rate. One-third of all ESA-protected species is considered critically endangered. Until now, no comprehensive genetic archive existed for this group.
Colossal Biosciences brings a platform honed through its core work in paleogenetics that can expand to living endangered species. For its de-extinction projects, including the woolly mammoth and Tasmanian tiger, the company already sequences genomes of extinct and closely related living species. The US Interior Department brings access to governmental expertise, field teams, and a complete database of all ESA-listed species. This combination of commercial genomic infrastructure and governmental network is novel.
What other biobanks do and how BioVault differs
Genetic archives for endangered species have existed since the 1970s. The San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance's Frozen Zoo now houses cell lines from over 1,300 species and ranks among the largest of its kind. The British nonprofit Frozen Ark specializes in coordinated biobank networks for endangered animals and links collections at over 30 institutions worldwide. The Smithsonian National Zoo operates a cryo-initiative with gametes and tissues of endangered species.
What distinguishes BioVault is the open-access approach: all genome data will flow freely into public repositories available to research groups worldwide, including those without institutional ties to major biobanks. The Frozen Zoo and similar collections often operate with restricted data access for external researchers. The second difference is systematic scope: comprehensively capturing 2,300 species from a single government protection list, rather than making resource-dependent decisions case by case, represents different logic.
What critics point out
Colossal Biosciences is not a neutral conservation company. The firm specializes in restoring extinct species, including the woolly mammoth and the thylacine. In spring 2025, Colossal presented three genetically modified wolves as "dire wolves". Colossal's own chief scientist Beth Shapiro acknowledged according to an NPR report from March 2026 that it was "impossible to bring back an organism identical to the extinct species" and the animals were essentially modified gray wolves. Critics call the company's communication misleading at best.
Beyond definitions lies a deeper objection. Biologists and ecologists quoted in the NPR report warn of a moral shortcut: if the public believes extinct species can be brought back through genetic engineering if needed, political pressure for active habitat protection declines. BioVault itself is separated from this concern: it secures living, not extinct species. Whether the conservation argument holds depends on how the project is communicated. A second criticism argues that funding for genomics and cryopreservation would be more immediately effective in concrete habitat protection. This debate fundamentally accompanies biobanks generally.
Three conditions for genuine benefit
First, the collection must actually become complete. More than 2,300 species sounds like a list. Many ESA-protected animals live in hard-to-reach ecosystems or exist in populations so small that any sampling means an intensive field operation. Without complete coverage, the archive remains incomplete, especially among species where need is greatest.
Second, data integrity must be secured long-term. Cryogenic collections are technically stable but expensive to maintain. Institutions operating such archives have had to reduce or consolidate holdings during funding shortages. The US Interior Department as a partner increases institutional stability, but long-term funding commitments are absent from the current announcement.
Third, genome data must flow into concrete species conservation programs. An archive dormant in databases while population geneticists never derive management recommendations from it is a safety net that catches no one. The promise of open data is a first step. The second would be a mechanism ensuring data actually gets used for inbreeding prevention, reintroduction programs, and climate adaptation.