Jurassic Park: Fiction, or Possible Future?
Jena Dorrington, Online Branch, Staff Writer
January 18th, 2023
Living in today’s age, it is difficult to imagine a time where dinosaurs, not humans, were the dominant species. The diverse range of dinosaur species is astounding, with the smallest recorded dinosaur fossil being that of a microraptor, merely weighing 162 grams, the Titanosaurs ranging upwards of 60 tons (1,2). Dinosaurs roamed the earth for an estimated 165 million years, with the great dinosaur extinction taking place 65 million years ago. Evidence suggests the extinction was likely a result of an asteroid impact with the surviving species having evolved into the reptiles and birds we are familiar with today. Jurassic Park, a fictional movie series, explores the idea of what the modern age would be like if dinosaurs were brought back from extinction. The movie series has captured the public’s imagination, specifically as it pertains to the real-life application of these fictional technologies.
The Jurassic Park films claims to have acquired dinosaur DNA through the discovery of mosquitoes that had ingested their blood prior to fossilization, thereby containing the DNA and were then preserved in ancient amber (3). The DNA from the blood was then extracted and, with the use of molecular technologies, combined with the DNA of frogs in order to complete the genome and bring them back to life (3).
Extraction of DNA from species preserved in amber is extremely unlikely as amber preserves the organism’s husk and not the soft tissues (4). Under specific conditions, ancient blood can be retrieved, however, the issue pertains to the quick breakdown of DNA, with degradation significantly increasing with exposure to sunlight, water and other elements, thereby making it unviable (4).
De-extinction remains possible via other methods and is characterized as the process of using complex DNA technologies, in particular, DNA cloning, which are then used to recreate clones of the desired organisms that were extinct in hopes of establishing a stable population followed by the re-introduction of this species back into their intended natural habitats. This form of science is referred to as “species revitalisation” and requires two main components; viable DNA from the species, paired with the use of established and emerging molecular technologies (5). This process begins with the sequencing of the extinct species genome followed by editing it with a genome of a closely related species. The main challenge associated with species revitalization concerns the formation of embryos followed by implantation into a suitable surrogate mother (5).
Currently, no species have been brought back from extinction however, over 20 extinct species have undergone the initial DNA sequencing which includes several species of mammoths, dodo birds and cave bears (5). To take it a step further, a company called Colossal Laboratories and Biosciences, aims to make de-extinction a reality with current projects focusing on revitalization of the Wooly Mammoth and Tasmanian Tiger (6). The company was founded by serial entrepreneur Ben Lamm, and George Church, a world renowned geneticist, with a main focus on development of reproductive and genetic engineering for conservation biology (6). In terms of the Wooly Mammoth initiative, the company has partnered with Vertebrates Genomes Project to complete the reconstruction of DNA from Asian Elephants to resemble that of Wooly Mammoths. They currently project that they expect to see their first batch of Wooly Mammoth calves as early as 2025 (6).
Conservationists describe their efforts as learning how to build hope upon hope with “species being brought back from extinction as the beacons of hope” (7). Other advantages of de-extinction is that the techniques developed can then be applied to existing species that are endangered in order to revitalize tiny populations and increase genetic variability in order to enhance their ability to thrive (7). Certain extinct species also represented important keystones to their native environments and so de-extinction of such species would go a long way in restoring ecosystems and environments back to their intended forms and enhance ecological richness. For instance, the Wooly Mammoth was a keystone species of the far North and in their absence, the once biome rich with grasslands wasted away to the wet tundra it is now (6). The melting permafrost results in significant emissions of carbon that was previously sequestered. By trying to achieve the de-extinction of the Wooly Mammoth it could reintroduce them to their native habitat in hopes of the gradual return of carbon-fixing grass and reduction of carbon emissions from the permafrost (5). The majority of extinctions that have occurred over the last couple of centuries are a direct result of human actions, making de-extinction a way for humankind to achieve a sense of redemption (7).
There is no shortage of debate surrounding the ethical concerns concerning this initiative. It is no question that perfecting the de-extinction techniques and technologies would allow humans to rectify past wrongs and expand genetic diversity of current animal populations, however, these animals became extinct for a reason. Whether it was due to habitat loss, hunting or other human causations, having the option to bring back these species later could inconsequently be a driving force for extinction or even condone it, as the severity of extinction would be devalued (8). Humans could be less inclined to actively make changes to preserve biodiversity as they can merely opt to bring these species back in the future. Another concern lies with the uncertainty that comes with de-extinction, such as their ability to adapt to their new environments, the effects reintroduction would have on current ecosystems, their fate, and the ability for these cloned species to produce viable offspring (8).
For extinction to suddenly skyrocket, other forces must be at play and with humankind’s destruction of habitats, overhunting, pollution and more, one identifiable cause is undeniably that of human causation. Colossal Laboratories and Biosciences states that, “while the last few centuries have been a boon to the human populace, the rest of Earth’s species, both flora and fauna, are paying the price as a result” (6). With the World Animal Foundation estimating that over 50 percent of species could become extinct by 2050, there is no doubt that change must occur in order to conserve ecosystems6. Although de-extinction could become possible, the question now becomes whether or not we should aim our focus on bringing back species of the past when our efforts can be centered around preserving currently existing species that so desperately need our help?
Citations
1. What is the smallest dinosaur: List of small species with Pictures & Info. Active Wild. (2016,
September 18). Retrieved December 3, 2022, from
https://www.activewild.com/what-is-the-smallest-dinosaur/
2. John, R. (n.d.). Titanosaurs: 8 of the World's biggest dinosaurs. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved
December 3, 2022, from
https://www.britannica.com/list/titanosaurs-8-of-the-worlds-biggest-dinosaurs
3. Broecker , K. (2009). Science behind Jurassic Park. The science behind Jurassic Park. Retrieved
December 3, 2022, from
http://academic.depauw.edu/aevans_web/HONR101-02/WebPages/Fall2009/Katie/the%20
science.html#:~:text=Dr
4. Osterloff, E. (n.d.). Could scientists bring dinosaurs back to life? Natural History Museum. Retrieved
December 3, 2022, from
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/could-scientists-bring-dinosaurs-back.html#:~:text=It%20is
%20around%20120%20million%20years%20old.&text=This%20means%20that%20Jurassic%
20Park,weren%27t%20found%20in%20amber
5. Penninsi, E. (2022). Bringing back the woolly mammoth and other extinct creatures may be impossible.
Science. Retrieved December 3, 2022, from
https://www.science.org/content/article/bringing-back-woolly-mammoth-and-other-extinct-
creatures-may-be-impossible#:~:text=To%20bring%20back%20an%20extinct,in%20a%20living
%20surrogate%20mother.
6. The woolly mammoth represents the beginnings of de-extinction. Colossal. (n.d.). Retrieved December
3, 2022, from https://colossal.com/de-extinction/
7. Brand, S. (2013, May 14). Why revive extinct species? Revive & Restore. Retrieved December 3, 2022,
from https://reviverestore.org/why-revive-extinct-species/
8. Rogers, K. (n.d.). Ethical considerations. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved December 3, 2022, from
https://www.britannica.com/science/de-extinction/Ethical-considerations