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

Three years ago, evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin unveiled one of the most significant fossil finds of the century: Tiktaalik, a 375-million-year-old fish with “a neck, elbows, shoulders, even proto-wrists,” he says. An almost perfect link between fish and land vertebrates, Tiktaalik (unearthed in Nunavut) is our own distant cousin. Just as Larsson looks to dino bones to understand his embryos, Shubin used the fossil to design an experiment with modern-day paddlefish. He found that, even before limbed animals evolved about 365 million years ago, fish had the genes necessary to grow arms and legs. “Evolution doesn’t always rely on the development of new genes,” Shubin explains. “It’s redeploying old genes in new ways: changing their switches, or their time of activity.”

By tripping the right genetic switches at the right time, then, Larsson should be able to build a dinosaur inside a chicken egg.

While Larsson tinkers with the embryos in his lab, other scientists are on the hunt for dinosaur DNA, the so-called blueprint for life. In the movie Jurassic Park, researchers manage to extract it from a mosquito trapped in amber, then implant it into a frog’s egg; not long after, the park is swarming with velociraptors, triceratops, and even a bloodthirsty T. rex.

Harvesting DNA from bugs in amber worked just fine in the movies, but in real life, it hasn’t panned out. “Many people have tried, myself included,” says Blair Hedges, an evolutionary biologist at Pennsylvania State University, who says a sample could provide invaluable information on everything from a dinosaur’s appearance and behaviour, to the process of evolution. It could also theoretically be used to build a dinosaur, if enough were recovered—the first step, though, is to find some. So far, the oldest DNA ever recovered is under one million years old. The last dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

It isn’t necessarily the passage of time that ruins a DNA sample, so much as its surroundings, says Hendrik Poinar, director of McMaster University’s Ancient DNA Centre. Heat and humidity, for example, are both known to break down the molecule. “There’s no environment I can think of that would have remained constant enough to preserve dinosaur DNA,” he says. But “despite the fact I’m a disbeliever, I’m still a scientist. If you can find a bone that’s been in some weird cave for 65 million years, give it a shot.”

Finding that “weird cave” might not be so improbable. In 2005, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University, made an astonishing announcement: she’d discovered soft tissues in the leg bone of a 68-million-year-old T. rex. Her findings were, of course, controversial; yet in May, Schweitzer repeated the trick, this time with an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur. (The duck-billed dinosaur was sealed in dry, porous sandstone, which seemed to help with preservation.) “People just assume these tissues degrade,” she says, and because of that assumption, “no one bothered to look.”

None of Schweitzer’s soft tissues and proteins have so far yielded any dino DNA, but the discovery alone is enough to give hope. If these tissues can survive, Schweitzer suggests, maybe DNA can, too.

And if sandstone is a good preservative, so is the Arctic deep freeze. Each year in Siberia, the tusks, teeth and bones of ancient woolly mammoths (an elephant species extinct for over 4,000 years) can be found along the coast, shaken loose by erosion and the summer thaw. Mummified carcasses have even been uncovered, including one named Lyuba, a near-complete baby mammoth found in western Siberia in 2007. All of these, of course, could be rich sources of DNA.

Last year, researchers at Pennsylvania State University announced they’d managed to map 70 per cent of the woolly mammoth genome, the first time an extinct animal’s genome had been sequenced. The feat was accomplished using DNA from the hair of a 20,000-year-old mammoth found buried in the Siberian permafrost. Hair proved to be a great source, says Webb Miller, a professor of biology and computer science who worked on the project. “It locks out moisture and bacteria,” he says. “We just basically dunk it in bleach, open the hair shaft and take the DNA out.” Not only that, hair is easy enough to get: “Woolly mammoths have lots of it. We could literally buy pounds, if we wanted to.”

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