Progress in resurrection biology - Is Jurassic world possible? Filza Fawad
http://straightfromamovie.com/jurassic-world-review/
Whether old or new, it remains as a well-recognised symbol in pop-culture today.
Old or new, who isn’t familiar with this icon? If you aren’t, then I apologies on your behalf. For many, it is symbolic of a series that they have grown up with and have nostalgia for. But keeping personal emotions aside, is there any truth to such a premise of resurrecting an extinct species? To respond with a cliché, the answer may just surprise you.
If humans can think it, science will immediately follow suit. Whether that is to explore, validate or critique the concept’s implementation in the real world. Reviving an extinct species, whether carnivorous dinosaur or a simple pigeon, is actually called “de-extinction.” Also called resurrection biology, the name is pretty self-explanatory (bring them back to life, in case if you didn’t get the memo).
The research carried out in this regard has identified a few methods that can be utilized in the pursuit of resurrection, which I shall overview (because blogs can be educational too!) and identify the one that actually holds valid for this sci-fi, action packed movie series and our reality.
The wonders of science - Techniques for de-extinction:
 |
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-dolly-sheep.html
The most popular (cloned) sheep in the land: Dolly! with the scientist behind it
| Out of all the methods, this might be the most recognisable one to a large audience not aware of biology lingo: Cloning. The technical (and fancier) term would be somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT for short). Either way, it boils down to creating an exact genetic copy of a living organism. We inject a nucleus from an adult cell into an egg cell with no nucleus (Shapiro, 2017), forming in into whatever information is provided by the injected nucleus. Pretty straightforward I would say, but not made use of in the movie. |
Next comes back breeding. It’s like selective breeding, but instead of breeding cows for domestic gains of producing more milk, it is done to resurrect ancestral traits that have been lost or diluted over evolutionary time (Shapiro, 2017).
 |
https://bitesizebio.com/47927/history-crispr/
This is where the real magic happens: editing biological blueprints!
Finally, we come towards the technique that was explicitly made use of in the movie: genetic engineering, specifically DNA and genome editing. Advances in technology means we can reconstruct full genome sequences from extinct species! Use the genome sequences from the extinct species’s next of kin as a reference to reconstruct, perform in vitro, and voila! We now have living, functioning cells composed of genes of an extinct species.
 |
https://bunker158.com/en/product/jurassic-world-film-indominus-rex-statue-by-prime1-ca-105-cm-breit/
Dang, look at the spikes and teeth on that thing!
| This is exactly how all the dinosaurs are revived in movie, and even utilised in creating Indominus rex (by combining DNA from other dinosaurs), who serves the role of an obstacle and spurs our main people Owen (and maybe even Claire) to be heroes of the day! Yay! (note that I say obstacle, and not villain. That titles goes to the big corporations who wanted to be “thrilled” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ) |
Is the impossible actually possible?!
Now I know what you’re thinking. A) this is too good to be true and B) this is too much power to yield for any human, which the movie clearly portrays. It manifests into a superiority complex that we, as humans, hold towards the rest of living creatures and the planet (the conception of Jurassic park itself in this 2015 movie) and biting off much more than we can chew (creating Indominus rex). Ultimately, ending up creating disasters that only ever does good for Hollywood to generate money.
But before we get to making a Jurassic park in real life, there are some limitations experienced. Can we truly resurrect an extinct species from millions of years ago exactly as is? And is it practical in our current world?
Too broken to fix:
The first thing that we should get out of the way is that science can never be 100% about the outcomes or the results. Same is the case with the resurrection of the species. Even with DNA and genome editing, it has been identified as to how the "greater the evolutionary distance is between the reference genome (living relative) and the extinct genome, the more difficult it is to assemble the extinct genome correctly and completely” (Shapiro, 2017). So even with such amazing advances, the distance in evolution and time means that we can’t actually recreate a true Jurassic World (not that I personally mind; we would essentially be instigating the end of the world).
Forgetting the big picture:
 |
| https://www.technologynetworks.com/genomics/articles/genotype-vs-phenotype-examples-and-definitions-318446 An imaginatively fun and accurate representation of phenotypes! |
In addition to this, interaction with the environment also plays a significant role in shaping the way the living organism’s physical adaptations form to survive in the world (known as the phenotype). Something we have not fully registered. Can we really expect dinosaurs to look and behave the way we perceive them to, based off our archeological findings and imaginations? In an entirely different and modernised world that is struggling to prevent any further damage to its eco-system? I’m not giving the benefit of doubt here, the answer is no. It’s poppycock!
Dinosaurs would end up adapting and sharply contrast with our perception of them. Furthermore, as easy as the movie makes it look to be, there aren’t any actual islands big and desolate enough to accommodate a park for dinosaurs without threatening the rest of the planet.
Thankfully some humans realise that. But instead of stopping it altogether, they are trying to be smart about the process. And no, it’s not to resurrect dinosaurs. The large evolutionary distance along with “an emphasis on resurrecting species that are iconic, beloved, and missed” (Seddon, Moehrenschlager, and Ewen, 2014) without consideration for “bio-technological feasibility or the ecological, ethical and legal considerations” (Jones, 2014) makes that abundantly clear.
However, as for animals such as birds and butterflies (you heard that right folks, butterflies!) that can aid conservatism efforts for the eco-system, it might just be possible.
If not Jurassic World, then What else? And Why?
So, I mention conservatism alongside de-extinction. How does that work? Well, de-extinction is considered as “restoring and enhancing the resilience of ecosystems in the face of changing environmental conditions” (Seddon, Moehrenschlager, and Ewen, 2014). It is reasoned that “the restoration of species is to be able to perform vital ecological functions that may have been missing as a result of extinction, especially so when there is no appropriate ecological replacement” (Seddon, Moehrenschlager, and Ewen, 2014).
There’s also a sense of guilt that resonates within us (not for the dinosaurs, but for other animals like birds, since we poached them till they were no more). A more noble and well-intentioned cause than recreating dinosaurs to be the next “rhino in the zoo,” a comparison introduced by Claire in the movie.
Of course, it faces critique and counterarguments. Trying to revive an extinct species just because your remorse and conscious caught on too late? Boo-hoo! Big deal. Isn’t it doing more harm than good re-introducing it into a more polluted world? It might even harm the current extant (living) species. Honestly, we will do anything else other than tackle climate change and eco-system problems consistently and head on.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there is potential benefit, especially if the current physical environment is taken into account to re-introduce the extinct species into our world to appropriately aid it. IUCN Guidelines to DeExtinction (Seddon, Moehrenschlager, and Ewen, 2014) is basically what it says: guidelines that frame the way we approach viable candidates for de-extinction in an informed manner! Surprisingly, there is a candidate for that known as the Xerces blue butterfly! Mostly for pest control, but pretty cool (to me) none the less.
Ultimately, we can be sure of one thing. Whilst we may not be able to revive dinosaurs, progress made in de-extinction is significant. And if done right, it can actually benefit us and our environment, instead of created a billion dollar and more mess for the planet, one gift box Hollywood would not be able to wrap a pretty little bow on and call it a day.
Reference List:
Blockstein, D. E. (2017). We can’t bring back the passenger pigeon: The ethics of deception around de-extinction. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 20(1), 33-37.
Jones, K. E. (2014). From dinosaurs to dodos: who could and should we de-extinct?. Frontiers of Biogeography, 6(1).
Seddon, P. J., Moehrenschlager, A., & Ewen, J. (2014). Reintroducing resurrected species: selecting DeExtinction candidates. Trends in ecology & evolution, 29(3), 140-147.
Shapiro, B. (2017). Pathways to de‐extinction: how close can we get to resurrection of an extinct species?. Functional Ecology, 31(5), 996-1002.
Comments
Post a Comment