A US science start-up claims it has revived the extinct dire wolf thanks to new gene-editing technology. Colossal Biosciences said it had used DNA from a "13,000-year-old tooth and a 72,000-year-old skull" to create three "healthy dire wolf puppies", said The Washington Post.

However, scientists have cast doubt on the genetic make-up of the litter, and whether it truly represents "de-extinction".

What is a dire wolf?
The dire wolf, native to the Americas, went extinct around 10,000 years ago. It was first described and named after the discovery of fossils in the 19th century. Distinct from modern wolves for their white coats and enormous size – "up to six feet in length", said Scientific American – they nonetheless "share 99.5% of their DNA with grey wolves", with whom they "last shared a common ancestor around six million years ago".

How were the new wolves created?
Colossal Biosciences extracted DNA from dire wolf fossils and used this as a basis to modify the genes of modern grey wolves. The main changes were "intended to alter the animals' size, musculature and ear shape", but it will be "a year or so" before the animals have grown enough to clarify if the changes have worked, said New Scientist.

The embryos were then implanted in domestic dogs, who gave birth to two male puppies, Remus and Romulus, in October and a female named Khaleesi (after the character in "Game of Thrones", the show which popularised dire wolves) two months later.

Are these really dire wolves?
Colossal's stance is "if they look like this animal, then they are the animal", according to its chief science officer, Beth Shapiro. But scientists outside the company have been more sceptical of the dire wolf's supposed "resurrection". 

This is "not a dire wolf – it's a grey wolf modified to be more like a dire wolf", Alexander Young, a professor of statistical genetics at UCLA, told TechCrunch. The technology behind the project is "impressive", Nic Rawlence, an associate professor at University of Otago in New Zealand, told The Washington Post. But insofar as the notion of actually reviving extinct species, the "DNA is just not well enough preserved" for cloning.

Have you 'liked' a model's beach photos on Instagram, exchanged direct messages with an ex, or had semi-flirty chats with a colleague? Then be careful, you might be "micro-cheating". These "seemingly small betrayals" are  being classified under a relationship "buzzword", said Self. But what is micro-cheating and is all this behaviour so sinister?

'Small breaches of trust'
Micro-cheating, a term popularised by Australian psychologist Mel Schilling, refers to "small breaches of trust" in a relationship that "don't pass the threshold into a physical affair", said Psychology Today. For instance, someone "may leave their wedding ring at home when they go out alone" or dress up to impress an office crush.

But the advance of technology and the work-from-home era has created more opportunities for micro-cheating, such as "liking a co-worker's photo on social media" or indulging in "furtive" online chats without a partner's knowledge, said The Associated Press.

Jealous couples are "monitoring and investigating" each other's "digital habits" for "signs of disloyalty", said The Washington Post, and because almost "everything we do online leaves a trail", those "breadcrumbs" can "become a sign of infidelity – real or perceived".

'There isn't a right and wrong in relationships'
Possibly, but these behaviours "may fall into an ethical grey area", said Psychology Today, making them "difficult to identify, confront, and discuss".

Micro-cheating can be unintentional, Molly Burrets, a clinical psychologist specialising in couples therapy, told CBS News. Someone who feels "dissatisfied or unfulfilled" in a relationship may be subconsciously "trying to meet those needs" without crossing a line into physical infidelity.

"There isn't a right and wrong in relationships," Abby Medcalf, a psychologist and host of the "Relationships Made Easy" podcast, told The Associated Press. When it comes to defining cheating, the most important factor is that your partner "doesn't like it, or doesn't know about it, or wouldn't like it if they knew about it".

Burrets said that micro-cheating can be avoided by honest conversations early in a relationship about each partner's definition of fidelity. "A lot of times we go in expecting that we both have the same concept of what exclusivity means," she said, "and we often don't." 

Fresh from his haul of Critics' Circle and Olivier Awards for his modern-day reimagining of "Oedipus", Robert Icke has turned his hand to the "sobering" story of Raoul Moat, said Dominic Cavendish in The Telegraph.

Over an absorbing 90 minutes, the writer-director reflects on the events that led to the UK's biggest manhunt, when Moat went on the run in 2010 following a "violent rampage" during which he shot his ex-girlfriend, murdered her new partner and blinded a police officer, finally ending his own life a week later.

Without trying to "excuse or explain" Moat's actions, Icke "pushes back" on the then prime minister David Cameron's "simplistic" statement that "Raoul Moat was a callous murderer. Full stop", said Dave Fargnoli in The Stage. Instead, he uses Moat's harrowing tale to explore "potent questions about toxic masculinity".

It's a "shattering and strikingly humane" play, propelled by Samuel Edward-Cook, who is "mesmerising" as Moat, storming around the stage in a "whirl of eruptive anger" one moment, the next curling up in a ball of "crumpled defeat". The real-life appearance of an "intoxicated Gazza", who turned up at the crime scene offering to negotiate with Moat, inspires a "moving" imagined conversation between the two men, said Fiona Mountford in The i Paper.

While Icke's latest offering isn't in the same league as "Oedipus" and more could have been made of the "national hysteria" surrounding the manhunt, said Cavendish in The Telegraph, this unflinching study "amply justifies main-stage attention" and makes for a "gripping" watch.

Could the US be about to seal a deal with Iran?
Mary Dejevsky in The Independent
The "direct talks" planned between America and Iran "may not be quite 'Nixon to China'", writes Mary Dejevsky, but they have the potential to "transform the politics of the region and beyond". Donald Trump "has a liking for the grand gesture", and "initiating talks" with Tehran after nearly 50 years "is surely that". If the stars align, it's "not impossible" that he could leave office "having normalised US-Iranian relations".

It might soon be time to welcome Harry back into the Royal family
Alan Cochrane in The Telegraph
Prince Harry has "behaved very badly", writes Alan Cochrane. But is there a "chance of cutting him some slack"? Could "the ill-feeling and wounded pride" finally "peter out"? Does no one see some of his words in this week's Appeal Court hearing "as a cri de cœur"? It is "past time for a rapprochement in the House of Windsor", but Harry "must show he wants to be part of it".

City of London terrorised by ducks
The Capitalist in City A.M.
A "new threat is upon the Square Mile – and it waddles", says The Capitalist. Two ducks are "terrorising" people outside St Paul's Cathedral. The "aquatic pair" seem to be waging a campaign of "mallard aggression" to lay claim to Festival Gardens, "a popular City lunch spot". As there's also a "belligerent" pigeon flock that "haunts the front steps of the Cathedral", I can "only advise one thing: stay vigilant".