The quest to build a dinosaur

Scientists are working to bring dinosaurs back to life. They think they’re getting close.

by Kate Lunau on Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:00am - 52 Comments

The quest to build a dinosaurJack Horner has a vision. A world-famous paleontologist who gives “an awful lot of lectures,” Horner pictures himself strolling out on stage before a crowd, just as he’s done countless times before. Instead of carrying the standard sheaf of notes or dusty slides, though, he has with him the ultimate prop: a real live dinosaur on a leash. “It’s small, but bigger than a chicken,” he writes in his new book, How to Build a Dinosaur. “Let’s say the size of a turkey, one day maybe even the size of an emu.” The emu-size dinosaur, he adds, “might have a muzzle or a couple of handlers.”

If it sounds straight out of Jurassic Park, it’s no coincidence: Horner served as scientific advisor on all three films, and is said to be an inspiration for the rugged protagonist, Alan Grant. Unlike in the movie, though, Horner thinks he can bring back a dinosaur without using its DNA—a crucial difference, because in real life, dino DNA hasn’t been recovered. Horner has a different plan. By making a few genetic tweaks to its modern-day ancestor, the bird, he wants to hatch a dinosaur straight from a chicken egg.

It’s Horner’s vision, and McGill University paleontologist Hans Larsson is working to make it happen. With Horner’s encouragement, Larsson is experimenting with chicken embryos to create the creature Horner describes: a “chickenosaurus,” they call it. If he succeeds, Larsson will have made an animal with clawed hands, teeth, a long, dinosaurian tail and ancestral plumage, one that shares characteristics with “the dinosaur we know that’s closest to birds, little raptors like the velociraptor,” Horner says.

Their quest to build a dinosaur is taking them millions of years into the past, and forward again to the very edge of science, so cutting edge it sounds more like science fiction. Beyond the ethical questions that surround their work—or even practical questions, such as how and where such a creature would live—resurrecting a dinosaur sounds too far-fetched to be true. Yet both men insist they’re almost there. “I believe it will happen,” Larsson says. It’s just a question of when. If all goes according to plan, he adds, Horner will have his pet dinosaur within five years’ time.

Reached over the phone at the T.rex Discovery Centre in Eastend, Sask. (otherwise known as “Dino Country”), Larsson has been out in the field all week, digging for bones. As part of a three-week course he teaches in paleontological fieldwork, 15 students, mostly from McGill, spend their days prospecting through the badlands, excavating fossils with anything from “dental utensils to a pickaxe and shovel.” At night, they gather round a bonfire, sharing beers and stories. There’s much to tell: one student found a velociraptor claw; another got a Tyrannosaurus rex’s tooth. “We finished [digging out] a baby T. rex skull last week,” says Larsson, 38.

Compared to his lab work with chicken embryos, digging up dusty bones seems decidedly old school. Yet Larsson, one of the very few paleontologists who also works with embryos, insists they’re intimately linked—which brings him to Saskatchewan, a great place to look for fossils. The reason why dates back about 66 million years, when a meteor “the size of Montreal island” smashed down near Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, sparking forest fires, tsunamis, and sending up a giant dust cloud that spread throughout the atmosphere. “Seventy-five per cent of all species went extinct,” Larsson says. “Most life ceased.” Eventually, the debris settled, creating a clay layer that’s still visible at different locations across the planet, including in Saskatchewan, where it’s a “beautiful, one-cm-thick orange clay, packed through with shocked quartz and iridium.”

Because the baby T. rex skull was found near the clay layer, it was probably one of the last dinosaurs to live before the mass extinction. According to Larsson, a creature’s evolution over millions of years—which can be traced in fossils like the T. rex skull—provides valuable insight into the individual animal’s development over its lifetime. Likewise, a chicken’s progress from embryonic blob to feathered fowl says something about evolution, and maybe even how to reverse it.

It’s a driving idea behind evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo devo” for short. A relatively new field of science, evo devo was sparked by the startling discovery that most creatures share many of the same genes. Homeobox genes (or Hox genes), which flick on during development and govern which body parts go where, were first found in fruit flies in the 1980s, says Sean Carroll, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. (Experiments to find Hox genes were straight out of a horror movie: scientists created insects with legs where their mouths should be.)

After pinpointing these master genes, researchers “looked around the animal kingdom, and were stunned and delighted to find them everywhere,” Carroll says. Indeed, we’ve got more in common with other species than most people realize. The DNA of a person and a chimpanzee, for example, are about 99 per cent identical—meaning that, in the six million years of evolution that divide us, less than one per cent of the three billion letters in the human genome have changed. Even the sea squirt, a tube-shaped creature that clings to underwater piers, shares about 80 per cent of our genes. “If you take snakes, frogs and birds, you’re really taking the same genes and using them in different ways,” Carroll says. Not only do we share genes with other animals; we share them with distant ancestors, too. Despite evolutionary change, many of our genes have been around for more than 500 million years, Carroll says.

Bookmark and Share
  • Matt Krusack

    Unfortunately, the idea that we can just raise dinosaurs from their modern descendants (chickens. alligators, sharks, turtles, sturgeon) may be more like Dr. Frankenstein and the monster than even Mary Shelley might have imagined. Dr. Frankenstein's lack of success was resultant from his parenting skills rather then scientific malfunction. Animals raised in zoos by humans, without parents/community of their own species to guide them, have a very, very poor survival rate, almost non-existent. Teaching animal intelligence is as yet out of our skill-set. Creating a dino-mimic may be one thing (there's very little physical evidence to show what they looked like, no DNA evidence at all), but making it live, teaching it how to be what it is may be completely another. We have no idea how dinosaurs behaved or why. For those repulsed by this idea on moral grounds, take heart. Even with modern technology we're still a long way away from parenting a living, breathing, amazing dinosaur, a true dinosaur. Farther away, maybe, than Frankenstein was to his own creation. Yet, like him, for good or for ill, and there is both good and ill, we will struggle all our lives with the outcomes.

  • NMGyrl

    Why do so many people get this mixed up?

    > By making a few genetic tweaks to [the dinosaur's] modern-day ancestor, the bird,

    The bird is a *descendant*, not an *ancestor*, of the dinosaurs. Matt Krusack got it right in his comment. Any journalist should be able to as well.

    Of course, if this project ever succeeds, then a chicken may indeed be the ancestor of a dinosaur. :-) But let's not, um, count our chickens …. (sorry!)

  • Dick Bonair

    I think God is going to come back before all of this happens , and the dinos will eat you all hahaha .

    YES MY NAME IS ( DICK BONAIR ).

    if we can all be mature about this .

    • Scienceiscool

      You really are a dick , arnt you .

  • Anthony

    Uh , I dispise you Dick .

  • faithh

    i would love all sicenetest if they got dinosours to come to life like i would totally get a pet dinsour

  • Shane Pulford

    Why not try and bring back the creatures that have been extinct for under 200 years, they would be able to survive in our climate, dinosaurs lived in a different era, everything was different, for the ground they walked to the air they breath, if we create a dinosaur how would it survive in our world. And once we create one dinosaur, someone is going to want to create another, and before we can completely understand the concequences and get laws in place to prevent a disaster bad things will happen.

  • Shane Pulford

    As well, this is for faiths post about totally getting a pet dinosaur, we are already having problems with the pets we do keep, from vicious dogs to stray cats, and people not being able to care for or mistreating their animals, what is going to happen when the animal we have is instinctively aggressive, and has much larger teeth then any dog, and doesnt just bite a few times and walk away, but actually bites and eats. Peole dont know how to care for animals now, they most definetly wont be able to care for an animal that will have to have strict dietary needs. we cant just feed them with scraps from the table.
    Then again another consequence could be that we only make them to be hunted, and then we will be worse then we are now for animal cruelty.

  • Ryan D

    I heard somewhere that dinosaurs wouldn't be able to survive because the atmospheric pressure was much greater back then. They would be alive but hardly able to breath, just like at high altitude. Can anyone confirm this or tell me if im wrong? Thanks And yeah , cloning a dinosaur does seem a bit pointless but who knows maybe they will accidently stumble on the cure for cancer. Cloning a human or ancestor of a human seems a bit different tho…

  • becky

    So basically he'll be making a featherless chicken.

  • brandon

    make them on an abandoned island put them in those cages in jurassic park mae raides and stuff so bring them back bring them back bring them back

  • tyrone

    you guys are all fags!! this will never happen!

From Macleans