De-extinction In ‘jurassic Park’: A Cautionary Tale About Genetic Engineering

Although the advancement of modern day technology can be hugely beneficial, it can also result in negative repercussions that impact not only mankind, but all species living on this planet. De-extinction, in particular, carries extreme importance as it allows for the reintroduction of historically extinct species to their former habitat through methods such as cloning or selective breeding. However, the rising popularity of de-extinction has spurred many ethical, social and technological debates among those in the scientific field as well as in the media. This controversy surrounding de-extinction has been widely discussed and depicted in a number of articles, books and films including the novel Jurassic Park and its movie adaptation of the same name. The film, directed by Steven Spielberg, sees dinosaurs brought back from extinction through genetic engineering only to backfire and threaten the survival of the characters in the film. Despite being highly exaggerated, Jurassic Park (1993) serves as an excellent example of what could occur if humans were to interfere with the natural course of life.

At the beginning of the movie, audiences are introduced to Jurassic Park, a dinosaur amusement park situated on the fictional island of Isla Nublar. Several scientists, including mathematician and chaos theorist Ian Malcolm, are invited into the park for an inspection after a handler is killed by a Velociraptor. It is soon revealed that cloning of the dinosaurs was made possible through DNA collected from a mosquito preserved in amber. Malcolm is first to point out the ramifications of bioengineering, “If there’s one thing the history of evolution has taught us, it’s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free”. One of the main concerns put forth by scientists is the potential threat of de-extinction to ecological or human health, if the revived species were to escape or be released. While dinosaurs may be a far stretch, it is entirely possible for a de-extinct species to become invasive and problematic to humans and other modern species. This concept is further touched upon in future installations of the Jurassic Park franchise, where the dinosaurs manage to escape the island and expand to more populated territories.

Moreover, de-extinction through cloning or selective breeding does not produce exact replicas of the extinct species but rather genetic proxies. In the film, all dinosaurs in the park were created female to prevent unauthorized breeding. However, geneticists failed to take into account the frog DNA used to fill in the dinosaurs’ gene sequence gaps, thus allowing them to spontaneously change sex and reproduce. Furthermore, not only would the resurrected animal be epigenetically different from their predecessors, but behaviorally different. This is supported by the fact that the first revivified animal would be raised by parents of a different species – the fetus’s host – resulting in the possibility of it adopting differing traits and behaviorisms. It is also argued in the film that the recreation of species is hubristic and against nature, “Dinosaurs had their shot. Nature selected them for extinction” (1993). Although this remains true for some species, like the dinosaur and the wooly mammoth; other species, like the passenger pigeon and the thylacine, were rendered extinct due to anthropogenic causes such as overpopulation, deforestation and global warming. Many of those who argue in favor of de-extinction propose that it serves as an opportunity to reverse prior environmental wrongdoings or make amends for our past ecological transgressions. However, by tampering and interfering with evolutionary processes, humans are overstepping their authority and breaking boundaries. By reanimating the dead and creating and cloning organisms, humans are “playing God” and engaging in roles only the divine should be capable of. It has been proposed that genetic engineering is not an appropriate solution and instead, mistakes of the past should be corrected by ensuring that current endangered species are conserved to prevent similar mistakes from happening in the future.

Additionally, if an extinct species were to be recreated, the environment and ecosystem in which the species lived would also have to be reproduced. In the film, paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler asserts, “How much can you know about an extinct ecosystem, and therefore, how could you assume you can control it (1993)?” This idea is reinforced after a Triceratops falls ill, likely as a result of ingesting the toxic berries of a West Indian Lilac plant. With limited knowledge about the environment in which the extinct species lived, it would be challenging, not to mention unethical, to introduce the animal to a foreign and inappropriate habitat. Sickness, stress and perhaps even death are all potential outcomes if the environment were not suitable to the species. Further, it could be more ecologically detrimental than favorable by introducing long extinct species to contemporary habitats. For example, native flora and fauna could be damaged and altered if the engineered species were to invade ecosystems that have changed significantly in their absence.

Lastly, it is important to consider the cost of de-extinction and the extensive research that goes into it. In the film, the theme park and the bioengineering company, InGen, was funded by billionaire John Hammond. In reality, the cost of reviving a single species could amount to millions of dollars – money which could be dedicated to conserving endangered species that might themselves go extinct. It is also practical to note the chances of a resurrected species surviving is slim, thus de-extinction may prove a bad investment. Although de-extinction was once considered a concept of science fiction, the expansion and development of genetics and synthetic biology have now rendered it a plausible pathway for bringing back long extinct species. Jurassic Park (1993) highlights the many harmful implications of genetic engineering, exploring a variety of ethical issues, such as human hubris and ecological and health concerns, while simultaneously providing audiences with a fun and entertaining film for all to enjoy. It portrays the use of science in a negative light, ultimately conveying the adverse consequences that could arise if humans were to interfere and tamper with the extinct.

References

1. Cohen, S 2014, ‘The Ethics of De-Extinction’, Nanoethics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 165-178, accessed 24 June 2019 from ProQuest, doi: 10.1007/s11569-014-0201-2
2. Cottrell, S, Jensen JL & Peck SL 2014, ‘Resuscitation and resurrection: The ethics of cloning cheetahs, mammoths, and Neanderthals’, Life Sciences, Society and Policy, vol. 10, no. 3, accessed 24 June 2019, < https://lsspjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2195-7819-10-3>
3. Crichton, M 1990, Jurassic Park, Alfred A. Knopf.
4. Diehm, C 2017, ‘De-extinction and Deep Questions About Species Conservation’, Ethics, Policy & Environment, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 25-28, accessed 24 June 2019 from Taylor & Francis Online, doi: 10.1080/21550085.2017.1291827
5. Jurassic Park, 1993, motion picture, distributed by Universal Pictures, California and Hawaii.
6. Minteer, BA 2015, ‘The Perils of De-Extinction’, Minding Nature, vol. 8, no. 1, accessed 24 June 2019, < https://www.humansandnature.org/the-perils-of-de-extinction>
7. Novak, BJ 2018, ‘De-Extinction’, Genes, vol. 9, no. 11, accessed 23 June 2019,
8. Sandler, R 2013, ‘The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species’, Conservation Biology, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 354-360, accessed 24 June 2019 from Wiley Online Library, doi: 10.1111/cobi.12198