Prime Time Replay:
Rob DeSalle
on The Science of Jurassic Park
MsgId: *infinities(1)
Date: Sun Jun 8 21:52:31 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
Hello, and welcome to Infinities! We'll be starting in a few minutes. I'm your host, Rob Killheffer, senior editor and producer at Omni, and my guest tonight will be Rob DeSalle, co-author of THE SCIENCE OF JURASSIC PARK AND THE LOST WORLD. Are you here, Rob?
MsgId: *infinities(6)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:06:34 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
I'm ready.
MsgId: *infinities(7)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:09:12 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
Okay, then. The question I'm most interested in -- and I'm sure our viewers would agree -- is this: how possible is it that we'll really be able to bring dinosaurs back to life someday? First, your quick response; then let's get into some of the details.
MsgId: *infinities(8)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:10:20 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
At the risk of making this a short session, it is absolutely impossible, at least in my opinion. As to specifics: There are many premises set up in Jurrassic Park and The Lost World that, on the surface, seem simple. For instance, finding an insect from the age of the dinosaurs embedded in amber; isolating DNA from the stomach content of that insect; and manipulating that DNA to recover the genetic blue print for the dinosaur; getting the blueprint into a surrogate egg; and finally, having that develop into a dinosaur. Each step seems within the realm of possibility. But stringing all these steps together is, more or less, statistically impossible.
MsgId: *infinities(11)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:15:07 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
Which step do you think poses the most difficulty -- the technical aspects of splicing the DNA, cloning an organism, etc., or the simple good fortune of finding an insect with dinosaur blood in its belly?
MsgId: *infinities(12)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:15:22 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
There are also a couple of steps that are critical. Getter DNA from amber-preserved insects and/or their stomach contents. In some studies, isolation of DNA from such insects appears to be possible. Yet more recent studies reveal a complete failure to do this. This is the most difficult step. No matter how proficient you become at the other steps, if you cannot get DNA from the amber-preserved specimens, the game is over. This is THE roadblock.
MsgId: *infinities(15)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:20:18 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
It was my understanding that at least one researcher -- George Poinar of UC Berkeley -- had succeeded in isolating DNA from an amber-entrapped insect perhaps 125 million years old. Has that accomplishment been reconsidered -- or has no one else been able to repeat it?
MsgId: *infinities(16)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:21:42 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
No one has been able to repeat this. This was the topic of a study published a month ago by the British Museum. In all fairness, that study was critical of work done in my lab, too.
MsgId: *infinities(17)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:24:27 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
That's right, you isolated some very old DNA as well a few years back. If you don't mind, can you tell us on what basis the British Museum study criticized your work and Poinar's?
MsgId: *infinities(18)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:25:53 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
They could not get DNA from the amber pieces that they worked on. Their study plus ours indicate either there is no DNA in these insects, or it is very difficult to get the DNA out. We need to conclude that success will be infrequent, even if possible at all.
MsgId: *infinities(20)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:27:48 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
Why is it so hard to isolate this ancient DNA? If the specimens are so well preserved in the amber, why isn't it as easy as pulling DNA from a more recently-deceased insect?
MsgId: *infinities(21)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:30:14 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
There are exceptionally well-preserved specimens in amber, but the majority have gone through extensive degraded. Even when the DNA is not degraded, it's still broken down into tiny pieces. In the worst case, these things don't have DNA. In the best case, they are so degraded we face the Humpty Dumpty problem.
MsgId: *infinities(25)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:33:49 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
Is that degradation caused by the insects' digestive processes, or by the simple action of time -- or something else? And can you imagine any circumstances under which that degradation would be less significant -- just as other kinds of decay vary depending upon the environmental conditions?
MsgId: *infinities(26)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:35:54 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
A British scientist named Thomas Lindhal, studied the degradation of DNA over time. He showed that water, among other things, is deadly to DNA, in that water will cause the complete breakdown of DNA into single nucleotides. This degradation will take around 30,000 years. Water is very important here. Amber is thought to be a good preserver because it is a dessicant --it gets rid of water. DNA degrades as time goes on, even without the digestive process. Even with amber, other environmental factors will almost always come into play to destroy the DNA. Looking for the preserved DNA would be like looking for the needle in the haystack.
MsgId: *infinities(29)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:40:10 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
Well, I'm sure that puts a bit of a damper on the more speculative sorts out there -- though, considering what happens in the films, maybe it's just as well that we _can't_ bring back dinosaurs. Let's turn our attention to some of the other scientific issues of JURASSIC PARK and THE LOST WORLD. For instance, the portrayal of dinosaurs draws heavily on some of the more recent theories about dino biology and behavior, including their warm-bloodedness, swiftness, nesting and familial activities. How good do you think the films' presentation is, and do you see any major flaws in it?
MsgId: *infinities(31)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:43:57 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
The way paleontologists portray dinosaurs is through what they know from the bones and fossil sites --including placement of juveniles around adults, or one spaces next to another. These things suggest behavior and dinosaur biology. Other inferences come from how dinosaurs are related to living organisms. In the movies and the books, Crichton did his homework. In many ways, the movies' portrayal of the dinosaurs were not too much off the mark, although they were just guessing about the sounds. Most of the time, guesses in the movies were fairly educated.
MsgId: *infinities(36)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:47:20 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
I realize you're not a specialist in the dinosaur/palaeontology field yourself -- at least, that's what I infer from your residence in the Entomology division -- but, in the course of working on this book, did you come to any feeling yourself about the controversies about dinosaurs that are burning today -- such as their resemblance to birds, which JP and LW draw on fairly heavily?
MsgId: *infinities(37)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:49:29 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
Absolutely. In Jurassic Park, Crichton suggests that we repair the genomes of dinosaurs with frog DNA. He does this for a reason: So that they can control the sex of the dinosaurs. But this is odd, because he probably should have used bird DNA, since birds are considered descendents of dinosaurs by many paleonogigsts. This is just one instance.By the way, even though I am not a paleontologist, I am a systematist...
MsgId: *infinities(39)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:53:04 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
While you and Lindley aren't out to stomp Crichton or the films for their infidelities to known science, you certainly don't avoid outlining such departures, on both major issues and relatively minor ones (such as the point that you wouldn't find dino DNA in amber from the Dominican Republic, where Crichton gets it, since the amber there is only at max 35 million years old). On the whole, do you think all the interest the movies have spawned in dinosaurs, palaeontology, and genetics among the public has been a positive thing, or have the errors outweighed the education?
MsgId: *infinities(40)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:53:27 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
I have looked at the morphological data for birds and dinosuars. It is very convincing that birds possess a great many dinosaur characteristics that would make them descendants.
MsgId: *infinities(41)
Date: Sun Jun 8 22:56:21 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
We have not stomped Crichton. He has done his homework well enough to suspend believability, and in this respect has written first rate science ficiton. A phenomenon like Jurassic Park, as written by Crichton and brought to life by Spielberg, arises for scientists like myself and my co-author infrequently. It gives us the chance to explain difficult science to the general public. The goal of our book was to popularize molecular biology and paleontology, especially those areas of the fields Cricton and Spielberg touched on so well.
MsgId: *infinities(44)
Date: Sun Jun 8 23:02:11 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
And the American Museum of Natural History, where you work, took the opportunity as well, back when the first film came out. We're running out of time, so let me return to the Big Question once more here at the end: when those Scottish scientists succeeded in cloning an adult sheep, many of the naysayers who said it could never be done had to admit defeat (on at least some points). Do you think there could be new techniques or strategies coming in the next several years which could significantly improve our chances of recovering ancient DNA, and using it to recreate beasts from the past -- if not dinosaurs themselves, then extinct mammals and birds, even ones like the Dodo that have gone extinct more recently?
MsgId: *infinities(45)
Date: Sun Jun 8 23:05:02 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
Technology does make advances, and we will see some fantastic advances, even in our lifetimes. Even if our technology advances to the point where all of this is possible, there are the ethical questions. Scientists tend to ask how they should do things, not whether we should do things. Using the technology to preserve species we ourselves are driving to extinction would be a must better use of the technology. Thank you for having me on tonight. The questions were fantastic!
MsgId: *infinities(48)
Date: Sun Jun 8 23:08:24 EDT 1997
From: Rob_Killheffer At: 205.198.117.56
I heartily agree. Thanks, Rob, for appearing here on Infinities for a stimulating chat. For a more detailed and thorough exploration of the topic, I highly recommend the book, THE SCIENCE OF JURASSIC PARK AND THE LOST WORLD. For now, that's all for Infinities. Join us next week for a chat with Janine Benyus about "biomimicry" -- drawing on the designs of nature for new materials, drugs, etc. See you then!
MsgId: *infinities(49)
Date: Sun Jun 8 23:10:51 EDT 1997
From: Rob_DeSalle At: 168.100.204.58
Good night, and thanks again!
Home || Prime Time || Live Science || Machine Dreams || Project Open Book || SF-Fantasy-Horror
Continuum || Antimatter || Mind-Brain Lab || Interactive IQ || Gallery || OMNI ToonsQuestions, comments and suggestions can be mailed to the webmaster.
Copyright (C) 1997 by Omni Publications International, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.