These issues are not unique to Jainism. Among vegetarians and vegans of multiple
religions, the ethical permissibility of employing insulin made from animals—or
created through the utilization of animal cell lines—is often contested. While insulin is
still crucial to treating diabetes, religiously and ethically driven adherents of various
faiths are often hard-pressed to reconcile its medical importance with their spiritual or
moral principles. Jainism is perhaps one illustration, but this struggle is pervasive in
many religious groups.
A qualitative research entitled “The Role of Religion, Spirituality, and Fasting in Coping with Diabetes among Indian Australians” examined how religious beliefs
affect attitudes toward medication and fasting. Indian migrants with diabetes held
conflicting opinions regarding the use of animal-derived insulin and other
medications. While some put health above dietary restrictions, others avoided
medicines containing pork, beef, or any animal-derived ingredient on religious
grounds.
Attitudes toward fasting were also diverse. Muslim participants, for instance,
managed to fast during Ramadan by adjusting their medication schedule and often
reported no adverse effects. Others, however, avoided fasting entirely, believing it
interfered with diabetes management, which requires regular meals. Some
individuals also admitted to fasting due to social pressure rather than genuine
religious conviction, revealing a complex interplay between faith, health, and
community expectations. In some instances, misconceptions or incomplete
understanding of religious doctrine affected insulin use and fasting decisions.
Participants of all faiths also spoke highly of the beneficial influence of religious
practices on diabetes care. Many attributed their vegetarian eating
habits—underpinned by religious principles—as useful in blood sugar control.
Practices such as yoga and meditation, consistent with Hindu thought, were also
presented as mechanisms for promoting self-knowledge, stress management, and
overall wellbeing.
The theory of Health Locus of Control (HLC) is key to understanding these
dynamics. HLC is an individual’s perception of who or what is in charge of their
health outcomes. Both internal HLC—personal responsibility—and external
HLC—spiritual leaders or divine will—are important in decision-making around
health. This implies that healthcare providers need to work with religious leaders to
dispel myths and promote medication compliance.

A paper entitled \”Animal-derived Medications: Cultural Considerations and Available Alternatives\” analyzed the ways in which religious and cultural beliefs
influence the acceptability of drugs. The review revealed that most patients,
particularly those with strong religious backgrounds, prefer to be notified about
animal-derived compounds in drugs and frequently choose alternatives, even at an
additional expense. Most physicians were not aware of these ingredients and did not
usually reveal them. Though religious leaders ordinarily allowed for exceptions
during emergencies, their interpretations diverged. The results emphasize the
necessity of physician sensitization, better labeling of ingredients, and inclusion of
spiritual history in patient treatment to promote culturally appropriate medical
practices.

Common Alternatives for the same include: Recombinant (man-made) insulins,
Vegetable-based capsules (e.g., hypromellose) and Animal-free injectables such as
fondaparinux.
Religious beliefs remain extremely influential in how individuals view and accept
insulin therapy—particularly its origin. Although recombinant insulin has countered
much of the ethical opposition, continuous communication between healthcare
providers and patients is essential. To be respectful of religious viewpoints within
medicine involves more than familiarity—it involves cultural humility rather than
mere cultural competence. This strategy advocates for more inclusive and
compassionate care through plant-based medication options, veganism, spiritual
practices, and open dialogue around religion in medicine.

Source: https://publications.aston.ac.uk/id/eprint/43238/1/Religion_and_Health_Final_Paper.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349864713_Animal- derived_medications_Cultural_considerations_and_available_alternatives

Long confined to the fossil records and HBO’s fantasy screens, the dire wolf (Canis dirus) is no longer just a relic of the Pleistocene epoch. Thanks to a bold effort by geneticists and biotechnologists, scientists are now on the verge of reintroducing this ancient predator—or at least, a modern proxy of it—back into existence. But the resurrection of such a creature is raising serious ethical, ecological, and philosophical questions.

What Is the Dire Wolf?

Often confused with its modern cousin, the gray wolf (Canis lupus), the dire wolf was a larger, more muscular predator that roamed North and South America until its extinction approximately 9,000 years ago. Fossils discovered in places like the La Brea Tar Pits have painted a picture of a robust carnivore capable of taking down massive prey like ancient bison and camels.

Unlike the gray wolf, the dire wolf may have had a less pack-oriented, more solitary or loose social structure—its jaws more powerful, its bones denser, its appearance more primal. Recent DNA analysis, however, revealed a shocking twist: the dire wolf wasn’t even a wolf at all. Genetic studies published in Nature in 2021 concluded that the dire wolf diverged from the lineage of modern canids millions of years ago, making it more distant from today’s wolves than previously assumed.

The Science of Resurrection

The company leading the charge to bring the dire wolf back is Colossal Biosciences, the same startup already attempting to revive the woolly mammoth and the dodo bird. Using a combination of ancient DNA sequencing, gene editing via CRISPR, and surrogate breeding, their plan is to create a “functional proxy” of the dire wolf.

Since no complete DNA of the dire wolf exists, the project involves genetically engineering a hybrid: inserting key dire wolf genes—reconstructed from fossilized remains—into the genome of a close relative, like the African hunting dog or a large canid breed such as the Alaskan malamute. The goal? To recreate the dire wolf’s look, behavior, and ecological function as closely as possible.

Colossal calls it “de-extinction,” but critics argue it’s more like reimagining. The result won’t be the same dire wolf that hunted in the Ice Age—it’ll be a synthetic stand-in, shaped by both nature and human design.

Why Bring Back a Predator?

At first glance, resurrecting a long-dead predator may seem like hubris. But scientists involved argue that reintroducing such apex species can help restore balance to ecosystems damaged by human interference.

“Predators like the dire wolf shaped the behavior of herbivores and maintained biodiversity,” says Dr. Samantha Velasquez, an ecologist advising Colossal. “Bringing something like it back could help rehabilitate degraded wilderness areas.”

The precedent exists. The reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone Park, for instance, revived entire ecosystems by keeping elk populations in check and reshaping grazing patterns. Proponents of the dire wolf project believe similar benefits could be achieved, particularly in North America’s fragmented wilderness.

The Moral Maze

However, critics are sounding alarms.

“Just because we can doesn’t mean we should,” says Dr. Arun Banerjee, a bioethicist from Oxford. “What will these animals eat? Where will they live? What happens if they escape, or if they suffer from health problems caused by incomplete DNA?”

There are also concerns about playing god with evolution. Creating an animal that never existed in its exact form raises questions about authenticity, animal rights, and the unintended consequences of synthetic biology.

Additionally, Native American communities and conservation groups have voiced concerns about tampering with nature, fearing cultural and ecological disruption.

A Glimpse into the Future

As of 2025, Colossal has successfully sequenced over 90% of the dire wolf genome and announced plans to attempt embryo implantation trials within the next two years. They are building a dedicated sanctuary in the Yukon region of Canada to house any future specimens in a controlled environment.

Whether this leads to a successful revival or a Jurassic Park-style cautionary tale remains to be seen. But what’s clear is that the age of de-extinction is no longer a distant dream—it’s a real, fast-approaching frontier.

The dire wolf’s haunting howl may yet echo through the wilderness once more.