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
  • http://gapingwhole.wordpress.com/ Em.

    This is simultaneously the coolest and scariest thing ever.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

    Amazing science, amazing article.

    I hope that someday they may also be able to reverse-engineer the Red Tories.

    • DPT

      ….and hopefully eliminate the gene that prompts the Jack Mitchells of the world from spending thier entire day posting smart a$$ comments on every Macleans comment thread. All. Day. Long.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        their entire day

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

        Are you a Red Tory, DPT? If so, please encase yourself in amber pronto.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

    Too preoccupied, with their noses in data about climate change and that rot, to go and see the one movie that could prevent catastrophe. Scientists will be the death of us all!

    [youtube Bim7RtKXv90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bim7RtKXv90 youtube]

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

    Too preoccupied, with their noses in data about climate change and that rot, to go and see the one movie that could prevent catastrophe. Scientists will be the death of us all!

    [youtube Bim7RtKXv90 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bim7RtKXv90 youtube]

    • Ceeger

      Right, these creatures are resigned to the past for a reason — they outlived their evolutionary usefulness. Kinda like the federal Liberals.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

        Just checking to make sure, Ceeger my friend – you ARE happy and fulfilled and content with your life, aren't you? You're not feeling, um, sort of…obsessed with anything like, say, Liberals, for example?

        • Ceeger

          I'm very obsessed, craigola. It is kind of like when you know have a cancer running loose in your body; you kind of get obsessed with the thought of ridding yourself of it. That's the same deal with the Liberals, who are the cancer of Canadian politics.
          Other than that, things are spiffy – thanks for asking!

          • Rob

            I find it fascinating that idiots who hate science are always supporters of the conservatives.

      • André

        I think the interest is not in the dinosaurs themselves but either cloning technology or the evolutionary information their DNA hold.

        But thanks for being short-sighted anyway. It's always nice to be given a condescending morale by a dude with 20/50 vision.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

    Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. I'm all for science, when it serves a purpose. This serves no purpose other than for Horner to be able to say he did. I hope he fails miserably…

    • http://jamesmakescomics.blogspot.com James

      "I hope he fails miserably… "
      Mind your words, and be careful what you wish for!
      *horror movies play in my head*

  • JimD

    All this "playing God" is going to come back and bite us in the ass. In many ways, it already has.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      Playing God is tricky business, but somebody has got to do it.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    Terrific. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Trinity14

    Stop playing God.

    How about you try and help the creatures who are all ready alive.

    • http://blincmagazine.weebly.com BeShiine

      I completely agree. If you're going to clone anything, how about species who are endagered right now? I can't say that I'm not intrigued by the idea of seeing a dinosaur or something close to it, but what are we willing to give up for that? I find that scientists, no matter how good their intentions, always take it one step too far….. or maybe I just watch too many movies.

  • wayne moores

    George Carlin had it right, we just keep meddling, isn't that what got us into all these problems to begin with? Can't we just leave well enough alone?

  • http://www.actualanalyzer.com Analyzer

    Here's the problem with scientists… Robots:

    [youtube IBOMYdu7b64 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBOMYdu7b64 youtube]

    http://www.actualanalyzer.com

  • hosertohoosier

    As somebody who only watched the first 10 minutes of Jurassic Park, I can't imagine how this could go wrong.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      Perhaps we shouldn't base all of our skepticisms on what has happened in movies… on account of their being fiction an' all.

  • Pete

    "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. "
    – Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sgt_gdubya sgt_gdubya

    Someday, I want to be known as "The Dino Wisperer"!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/rufong rufong

      that is hilarious!

  • Sarah K.

    I agree with everyone saying that just because we can, doesn't mean we should. While all of this sounds fantastic and alluring, there are millions of people outside of their dino lab dying of AIDS, Cancer, and MS. Where are our priorities? I just think that the government should be spending more money on its citizens rather than on an animal that died out for a reason.

  • Ferguson-Miller

    Then there's hope for the liberal party of canada

  • http://randommanplanetearth.blogspot.com/ Random Man

    Humans with dinosaur traits cannot be far away then.

    Seems like a classic 'transhumanism' versus 'bioconservative' ethical debate is needed.

    Mix in a bit of nanotechnology and we can really make things interesting.

    Should be an interesting future.

  • Crankshaft

    If it's $ 30 million to bring a Neanderthal back to life, how much would it cost NOT to swell the ranks of the Republican party?

  • Max

    Your last point was probably the most damning one. Using the genetic manipulation of dogs as an example of "innovation" only serves to illustrate why we should stop this perverse meddling. Look at how many of these "pure bred" species suffer from debilitating genetic defects, that are only getting worse. Yay for us – we've created breeds of dogs prone to blindness, deafness, epilepsy, hip displaysia, breathing problems, heart problems – I could continue but you get the point. The domestic cat is another thing entirely, by the way. All house cats are descended from (most probably) the African Wild Cat, which is basically the same size as the average house cat. Before humans began selective breeding of these animals, cats were the most independent, self-sufficient domestic animal. All but the most 'exotic" (read: disabled) breeds are capable of surviving without human assistance. We'll change that though!

  • Ryan

    This is varry interesting , at what time will we see this velociraptor / "chickenosaurus" ?

  • JeffyT

    This is amazing,
    I love how we alway have to have the old moral question garbage. I can not imagine how amazing it would be to see a Neanderthal. To hear it speak, or a Cave bear roar etc.

    Our species has been playing god for ever. It looks like we were behind both these species demise, amongst so many others

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

      If you want to see a Neanderthal, google John Baird.

  • Annoyed

    The first paragraph says it all-how cool it would be for him to be seen walking on stage with a live dinosaur. All to feed his ego. Do something useful Horner, find a cure for cancer and other diseases which tear humans and their families apart. Benefit mankind and not your own self-serving interests.

  • Grant

    Uh, something that should be pointed out, I think. He is a paleontologist, not a doctor or medical researcher. You can't tell him to go out and cure cancer. That's like telling your family doctor to make you a dino-chicken. He would have no idea where to start. I don't understand why it's so wretched to dedicate your life to dinosaurs and the making of a new breed of dino, why it's so unimportant, when artists or musicians or historians don't get such a bad rep. I love music and art and history, and I also love dinosaurs. Why not give it a shot?

  • http://www.thorintatge.com/ Thorin N. Tatge

    I'm dismayed by how many people say things like "Stop to consider the consequences" or "Just because you can doesn't mean you should," without giving any hint of what possible drawback this kind of thing could incur. If you think it's a bad use of resources, okay, that's one thing, but that's just saying "Do this, but only if you can reasonably afford it." Others say "He's just doing this for his ego," which I think is untrue, but even if it were true, why does it provoke such a negative response? People do things for more selfish reasons than this all the time. It's like there's this major guttural objection to making chicken-dinos that many people have, but they can't seem to put it into words why they don't like the idea. Does the moral status of the creature really pose such a challenge? Treat it well or don't–we face the same question with actual animals in zoos or laboratories.

    Is it that so many people are afraid of the consequences of "playing God"? Are they worried about a society where genetic modification is all but mandatory, like in Gattaca? A fair concern, except that cutting off genetic engineering entirely just to circumvent this kind of social question is idiotic and futile. You don't solve social problems by destroying the technology that makes them relevant. Rather, you look at the questions and think hard and answer them. But a chicken-dino would have huge implications in many areas, and even if it did, it would certainly do no harm.

  • Martin

    If we hadn't persued sciences that had no real purpose at the time, we wouldn't have telephones, TV, nuclear power or even penicillin today. Who knows what possible advances could come from this? Nobody does – and we won't know until we do it.

    Saying the money should be spent fighting cancer is noble, but misguided. Where do you draw the line? Should ALL arts, music, TV and film funding go to medicine? And history funding, defense, and everything else? We could probably end up staying alive for much longer, but without those other things what would be the point of being alive anyway?

    As for playing God, doesn't it say in the Bible that God told us to use the tools and resources he gave us? I'm pretty sure it says somewhere that if we ignore what he gave us; we're being lazy. I'm not religious, but I would have thought that the word of God should be a pretty compelling argument for those who are…

  • Austin

    This is truly a milestone. While a chickenosaurus doesn't help, it's a step in the right direction. For example: If there were another ice age, what would be the better livestock: Cattle, or the Auerochsen?

    The point is that we can make new species or revive old ones to benefit us, which is what matters.

From Macleans