Generating Interest in Scientific Learning Using the Scientific and Ethical Arguments of De-Extinction

Home , Extinct in the wild, Local extinction

Tag Words: Jurassic Park, extinction, dinosaurs, science, ethics in science, cloning, genetic engineering, resurrection biology, animal reintroduction, education, STEM

Authors: Heather M. Wojcik, Ben Sweeney, Kiersten Kelly Formoso and Julie M. Fagan, Ph.D.

Summary: De-extinction is the process of bringing an extinct species back to life through reintroduction, cloning, or genetic engineering. Although de-extinction is a realistic and presently practiced science, it is not the same as movies like Jurassic Park depict it to be. We presented the topic of de-extinction to several high school classes and then surveyed their interest in the subject and science in general.

Video Link: https://youtu.be/VwPavWqR-Tk

The Issue: Using De-Extinction to Generate Interest in the Sciences (HW) Are we capable of recreating an extinct species like the dinosaur? The de-extinction of a species poses many scientific and ethical arguments as to how it could be accomplished or whether it could be accomplished at all. In educating people on this topic itself, the science behind de- extinction is shown to be less radical, though no less innovative. The ethical concerns are cleared by the explanation of why most people have a problem with the idea, but do not need to fear it as much, and why these concerns are many times unfounded or based on fiction, not fact. People tend to fear what they do not understand, so teaching them offers a means to ease their minds, gain their support for groundbreaking research, and in the best case scenario, getting them involved.

It is these arguments that can be used to generate interest in the sciences in high school aged students, as well as adults. Prevalent in media, de-extinction is a “spring-board” topic able generate interest, as it is preconceived as entertainment. There is real science beyond the science fiction that the majority of people forget about, and the ability to show them how to make science fiction a reality spurs active learning and participation. Who wouldn’t want to make a dinosaur? Beyond that though, it poses the question that if science can do this, what else can be done? What else can be made a reality? Using this topic not only generates interest and becomes and eye opening experience to the interactions of science and science fiction, but has the ability to educate the populous on the controversial topic, so that they can see the benefit.

What is De-Extinction? (BS) With increasing knowledge in genetics, the resurrection of extinct species will be possible in the near future by the method of de-extinction. De-extinction is the process of creating a living organism that is a member of an extinct species or that closely resembles an extinct species. There are already ongoing projects to bring back passenger pigeons, Tasmanian tigers, woolly mammoths, and even dinosaurs. Sparked by movies like Jurassic Park (1) and the recent release of Jurassic World (2), the public’s interest in genetic engineering is rapidly growing. The public would be fascinated to see dinosaurs with their own eyes – not a computer-generated image through a screen. In addition to the realistic prospect of dinosaur de-extinction, scientists could bring back extinct ice age mammals, like woolly mammoths and saber-toothed cats. Scientists could also resurrect species that have recently gone extinct, like the Tasmanian tiger and the passenger pigeon.

The public has been conditioned to fear this kind of scientific research because they have been persuaded by movies like Jurassic Park (1). By impartially addressing the science and ethics of de-extinction, we hope to stimulate an interest in the general field of science and provide the knowledge enabling individuals to objectively discuss de-extinction. The three methods of de- extinction will be explained - reintroduction of species and populations extinct in the wild to their natural habitats; the use of DNA from extinct animals to revive extinct species; and the manipulation and alteration of DNA. We will discuss past and ongoing projects concerning de- extinction and then present the ethical debates over these projects. The ethical concerns will be discussed: reintroduction of species that are extinct in the wild (i.e. California Condor); recreation of a dangerous animals; playing God; cloning, particularly of extinct animals; possible animal abuse; impact on the environment; economic concerns; and the chances of accidentally reviving a dangerous, extinct virus.

Method 1: Reintroduction (KF) The reintroduction of animals extinct in the wild to their natural habitat has been done since the late 1980s (3). When the condor’s population shrank to a severely low number, the remaining members of the population were removed and placed in captivity. They were bred under human control before being released into the wild. Since then, the condor population has increased. Black-footed ferrets, freshwater mussels, red wolves, and other species have also been reintroduced. Reintroduction projects continue and it currently remains as the easiest method of modern de-extinction. It may not be bringing back truly extinct species that have been wiped off of the planet, but it has its merit in transforming small population of crucial species into ones that can sustain themselves in the wild and eliminates the need for true resurrection as outlined in the next method.

Method 2: Cloning (BS) Some animals have gone extinct, but their DNA remains may be preserved or only partially degraded. Some museums have displays of Tasmanian tigers, or thylacines, in which a taxidermist stuffed the body of a deceased Tasmanian tiger. The fur of these displays still contains clonable DNA which has not yet degraded to the point where at least some DNA still exists as distinct gene. Another example, and one in which there is the possibility for the whole genome to be relatively intact and one in which the organism is slightly older, would be organisms preserved in arctic ice, only to be discovered by scientists. One such case is with mammoths found frozen in the ice, where tissue samples could be collected and analyzed. Where there is tissue, there is a possibility for intact DNA protected by the freezing. The distinction from common fiction here is that, to the sorrow of Jurassic Park fans everywhere, it is not feasible to collect dinosaur blood from mosquitoes trapped and preserved in amber. While they did get trapped in amber often enough, the DNA from these samples is much too old (DNA has a 521 year half-life (4)) and would be far too degraded to be of any use. To use this DNA to clone a more recently extinct animal, such as a thylacine, a similar, related species further down the evolutionary line could be used. Such could be the case of the recently extinct thylacine, where the DNA of a Tasmanian Devil could be used. During the cloning process, the nucleus could be removed from an egg cell of a female Tasmanian Devil while leaving the cytoplasm and organelles intact. The nucleus of one of the thylacine’s cells could then be removed and inserted into the Tasmanian Devil egg cell via microinjection or electrical shock. The egg cell could then induced in a laboratory setting to divide and develop into a blastocyst, at which point it could be implanted into the uterus of surrogate animal, again a Tasmanian Devil in this case. In theory, the newly created animal will follow the growth and development instructions provided by the DNA within the nucleus. The Tasmanian devil would then give birth to a thylacine offspring.

Method 3: Genetic Engineering (BS) The third method involves DNA alteration and DNA manipulation. In the book, “How to Build a Dinosaur. The New Science of Reverse Evolution” by Jack Horner and James Gorman, they discuss how dinosaur-resembling birds can be created using the embryos of modern day birds (5). When observing a bird embryo developing in its egg, the evolutionary history of birds can be seen. First, it becomes elongated, like a fish. Then it develops limbs. At this point, it looks reptilian, like a dinosaur. Then, some of its dinosaur-like characteristics are lost; it loses its teeth and tail and develops a beak and feathers instead. Scientists like Dr. Horner, in association with geneticists, are working to figure out how to keep on the genes that code for teeth, a tail, and arms, and turn off the genes that code for feathers and a beak. In theory, this would mean that an emu could give birth to a dinosaur-resembling emu, as it is still emu, and not dinosaur DNA. Although it is not the revival of an extinct species, it still falls under the category of de-extinction because the end product greatly resembles an extinct species. With advances in technology and a better scientific understanding of development and of the genomes of the species involved (both the recreated and the “modern” animals), scientists may be able to recreate a close approximation of entire genomes of ancient creatures, essentially reverse engineering them from animals which evolved in their stead. Knowing more about the evolutionary tree will enable scientists to choose the most appropriate organism to manipulate.

Analysis of the Ethics of De-extinction

Reintroduction of Species Extinct in the Wild and the Ecological Implications (KF) The most well-known case of species reintroduction is that of the California condor. With a wingspan of ten feet, comparable to Pteranodon wingspans, this is the largest flying animal on the planet. For this reason, it is very treasured. Unfortunately, the endangered animal’s population became dangerously low and they were removed from the wild. Biologists bred California condors in captivity until they determined that it would be safe to return them to the wild. They have greatly increased in number since their reintroduction to the wild. The condors are a success story, but is it reasonable to expect every reintroduction case to have such positive results? Shlomo Cohen notes that the reintroduced species could be an “environmental hazard if the ecosystem that formed the habitat of the extinct species has changed significantly, the reintroduced species may prove to have become a pest (akin to non-de-extinction-related introduced species that become invasive in their new habitat)” (6). It’s possible that other species will take longer to repopulate and therefore allowing the food chain to restructure itself in the absence of the removed species. Reintroducing the population could disrupt the new food chain and cause more harm than good. Multiple species could go extinct, and this leads to deciding which species are more valuable than others.

Suppose that the reintroduction of the California condor led to the extinction of an endangered mouse. Then competition over prey led to the local extinction of another bird species. It would appear as though the reintroduction of condors was actually detrimental in this hypothetical scenario. The world lost one species, which would have happened if condors remained in the wild anyway, and the local area lost two species. Can people be satisfied with the results, or is this considered “playing God” and therefore should be avoided? Who are we to say that one species is more valuable than another? Should we place value on animals on the basis of their aesthetics, practicality, or something else?

However, there are benefits to reintroducing a species that go further out than petty reasons for their value. Depending on where the species sits in the food web, the reintroduction could have vastly different results. The California condor, again as an example, and Red Wolves (7) are top predators and this position is crucial for regulating the species which they prey on. Additionally, in terms of the possibility of catastrophic disruption of the food web, for animals that have only recently gone extinct, the region which housed these species had a vast amount of time with these animals present. To suggest that the ecology of this environment has already fully adapted and is incapable of re-adjusting to fit this species again is ignoring the versatility and plasticity of life. Reintroduction is often likened to invasive species, but time and population dynamics are incredibly complex and, again, it is true that it is difficult to predict and there are a lot of “coulds” associated with reintroduction. However, like the condor, if the species is truly that precious to people, then there are necessary risks involved to bring them back and to test an ecological construct. It is worth it if the people deem it worth it.

To once again echo the condor story, the positives of this reintroduction have been recorded-- condors, which are essentially giant vultures, serve the same clean up methods as other carrion eating animals and the role of decomposer as well as top predator is healthy for the environment. The populations are self sustaining and there have been no detrimental impacts on other species. (8). It is very important to note that condors, currently restricted to Central, Southern California, Arizona, and Utah, which are not the habitats they evolved in, have not had their food webs destroyed. This is very significant because it means that, if done correctly and the appropriate species, we may be able to maintain the ecology or even improve it by introducing a non-native species. Contrary to what many think, invasive species are not always bad. Naturally, it’s difficult to tell what type of impact a reintroduced species will have and it depends on the time it has been extinct in the wild, the other native species, and the cause of its extinction. Reintroduction of species which are not yet extinct, is one type and certainly the least controversial.

Playing God (BS) Humans and other animals share this planet. Our exceptional intelligence and capability to build has given us the power to both create and destroy. There seems to be a unanimous consensus that destruction is wrong, but is creation equally immoral? Creation can lead to unforeseeable problems. Animal Cruelty? (BS) We must be aware that scientists are not only attempting to revive extinct species, but they are impregnating many animals many times over. To create a woolly mammoth, female elephants are kept in captivity, which is dismal enough as it is, but they will spend their entire lives pregnant. Most of these experimental pregnancies result in a miscarriage (9). The ones that give birth to a living animal are generally not allowed to care for their young because they are impregnated the next time they become fertile. The offspring are genetically engineered mutants. There are often complications within the offspring after birth, leading to a low survival rate (9). Is it better to never let these mutants be born than to allow them to live a difficult and possibly shortened life? If a genetically modified animal is born and it holds value in the scientific field, what is its fate? “Once the technical hurdles of creating viable offspring of extinct animals are overcome, the species becomes a reintroduction candidate”(10).

Ecological Impacts of truly extinct species (KF) Reintroduction could possibly become hazardous, especially considering that some de-extinction candidates, like mammoths, have been extinct for thousands of years. As previously noted by Cohen, these animals can be detrimental to the environment (6). Animals that have been extinct for millennia and suddenly thrown back into the ecological mix, may not survive in the wild. Animals that are clones have the exact same DNA sequence. After one generation in captivity, their gene pool is still incredibly small. They will have almost zero ability to adapt to change in their environment and would risk becoming extinct a second time immediately after their reintroduction. For this reason, the de-extinct animals, and even populations of animals, would likely be restricted to captivity. This then begs the question: are these species actually de- extinct?

However, with advances in the knowledge of genetics, it may be possible to increase the genetic diversity which would create a healthy population of a species. In this case, an appropriate niche could be identifies to place them in. The Siberian tundra is a fairly barren environment with little biodiversity, and its environment has also remained fairly unchanged in the last 10,000 years. Adding a large herbivore like a mammoth to an environment could also provide ecological benefits. Humans are directly responsible for the extinction of Woolly mammoths and so we have no actual record of the environmental benefit. A small case study of mammoths in a closed off region could provide a glimpse into the past environment. This provides benefits for several fields including geology, paleoecology, and even climatology (11).

Dinosaurs as Pets (BS) Chickens are the top candidate for reverse evolution. They are plentiful and it is as easy for a scientist to care for chickens used in labs as it is for farmers to care for the chickens they use for agricultural purposes. This is one of the main reasons why chickens are the top candidates for reverse evolution. Reduce the beak and give the chicken teeth; take away its feathers and give it arms. Now give it claws and a tail. It is still a chicken, but it is the most dangerous chicken on the planet. It may look like a small theropod, but it is still a chicken on the inside. Many people will place a high value on the dinosaur because of its appearance. Coupled with an easy-to- supply omnivorous diet, the Chickenosaurus could become a popular pet. It may be easy to feed, but safety measures must be examined before releasing a new breed of chickens on the market before they are released to the wild. With a mouth and morphology resembling a carnivore, it is reasonable for people to have concerns over having a Chickenosaurus as a pet. A “dinosaur” created from a chicken also has more significant benefits than just a pet for the wealthy members of the populace. With it, we could demonstrate that we’ve reached a new era of genetic technology and ability, a great furthering of science. Advances in the medical field may certainly result from this. Additionally, the genetic engineering of a dinosaur from a bird can be viewed as “science for science’s sake.” That is science that has no greatly tangible benefit, or at least not 100%, but that increases our own wealth of knowledge. This type of science serves to get people interested in various fields and perhaps burrow deeper into offshoots of the topic. It is certainly a tangible benefit if, by creating a dinosaur from a chicken, more young people get interested in biology, genetics and science in general. Increasing the pool of individuals interested in science will benefit the future of mankind.

Economics of De-extinction (BS) Dinosaurs like Chickenosaurus may eventually be engineered, but this will require significant funding which may be viewed as an unwise expenditure. Funding may amount to millions upon millions of dollars. Funding “de-extinction may plausibly soak up funds that could create higher overall utility if used otherwise” (6). If this money was used to conserve endangered species that are still alive, potentially more species could be saved. However, benefactors pay for whatever they find interesting. Funding cool science, like the creation of a chickenosaurus, may provide a catalyst to other, more needed scientific or medical ventures.

Higher Potential Threats (BS) Some may have concerns over the threat of accidentally reviving an ancient virus along with the de-extinct clone. Maybe the mammoths died as a result of an ancient Siberian virus. Reviving a clone of the mammoth could possibly revive the virus too. This virus could kill off many species, including humans.

Using de-extinction, and other “pop-science” topics as a platform to get students interested in science (HW)

Pop-Science and Student Interest Beyond the ethics of de-extinction and the pioneering scientific methods, topics such as this, which are pervasive, if not born and bred, in popular culture and science fiction, are excellent candidates for getting students (of a high school age), interested in science because not only are they scientifically possible beyond all odds, they are engaging, thought-provoking, and above all, fun. Movies such as Jurassic Park (1) or Jurassic World (2015) (2) introduce ground-breaking science into the public sphere, and, though fictional, put into layman’s terms complicated science topics via means of storytelling which are exciting and thought-provoking. On a more realistic and scientifically accurate level, “celebrity scientists” (12) such as Bill Nye (the Science Guy) and Neil DeGrasse Tyson of Cosmos bring science into the home, explaining topics in an educational, but accurate way. Nye’s television show specifically addresses teaching science to children, and thus in generating interest in children from a young age, while Tyson’s Cosmos appeals to an older demographic. The importance, however, is that both are able to appeal to a wider audience and generate interest in science at multiple levels by using popular culture to reach people and their ability to address topics at a base level of scientific understanding. In a talk addressed to the American Physical Society in April, Tyson emphasized the necessity of scientists understanding and being in tune with popular culture in order to connect to their audiences, students and more importantly, to the greater, general populace (12), indicating that popular culture not only can be used introduce scientific topics to a wide audience, but is also crucial as a tool in educating people at a level in which they are not only comfortable, but one in which they may not even realize that they are learning because in such a format it is entertainment and not work.

Generating Interest at Home and in School The tactics employed by these “celebrity scientists” involve generating interest in science both at home (by parents) and at school (by teachers) (13, 14). At home, parents set a work ethic, where they make sure that their children keep up with their homework (13). The parent’s role as “at- home educators” is strengthened when they are provided instructional material and requested to become involved in the students studies. In a 2012 longitudinal study (15), it was found that scientific discussions between the parent and the child along with the ability to present scientific information correlated with students choosing to take more science courses. Additionally, the higher the level of education of the parent, the more science classes the students opted to take. Having informed parents that can present and discuss science at home positively impacts the students desire to learn science

In school, displaying passion and excitement in a given field or about a given topic by educators is necessary in generating interest in students. It is no surprise that the engaging, pragmatic personalities and grounded explanations (12) exhibited by not only Nye and Tyson, but by everyday educators can change the way students approach science. Students gain an interest in science according to three main factors: fun/enjoyment, value, and hands-on real-world experience. According to Dr. Alan Markman, Ph.D, getting students to find science fun is half the battle. Citing psychologist Jacquelynne Eccles, Markman makes the point that, rather obviously, that students are inclined to things which they enjoy, including classes and educational topics (14). Convincing students who already have a peripheral interest in science may be easy, but much more difficult for those students who did not in the past enjoy science. Science topics in popular culture/science fiction here is a clear example of the “fun factor” brought to scientific topics, such as de-extinction in Jurassic Park (1) and Jurassic World (2). Although de-extinction is a weighty, rather technical topic, the science is simplified to an extent at which point it is not only easier for the general population to understand, but at which point it is also given the Hollywood treatment of action, suspense, explosions, and good storytelling. This is enough to engage people and draw them in, at which point they can look for more information about the actual science, thus having generated interest, but also look at science in a view that scientists themselves do: the “what if” and realm of possibilities that science, engineering, and discovery hold. Fiction can make science fun and, in a sense, does not allow it to remain purely imaginative, but rather on the cusp of what can be achieved.

Beyond an entertainment value, Eccles also suggests that application value drives students to take classes deemed useful, valuable, and/or necessary even if they are not enjoyable to students (14). Scientific issues presented in the mainstream have the ability to create a sense of value for science in students for the very reason that it may be applicable in the future, either for society as a whole, or on the individual level in which a student ultimately decides that they wish to go into a science-related career.

Perhaps most important for a student to become interested in science is where worlds of fun and value collide: in hands-on, real-world application and experience. This, innately, goes beyond representation in popular culture, but a case in which media is used as a springboard for initial interest, which is cultivated by teaching students that it is within their abilities and capabilities to perform real, utilizable science. For science, practicality and relevancy, in addition to the “cool” science for science’s sake factor, are crucial in producing interest, because it is centered in the physical; it is something one can touch, see, and produce on their own and see the fruits of their labors. This also teaches students to problem solve and troubleshoot, which are commonly utilized and necessary in both industry and academic science applications. To get students interested in science, or to retain interest, they must be involved in science, seeing value through actually doing it themselves and seeing the products of their labors. What better way to teach the scientific method than to use it in practicality? According to Vince Bertram and John W. McDonald, changing the way in which students are taught, the way classrooms function, and changing the curriculum to reflect this movement beyond textbooks and abstract concepts will produce more students interested in science and better scientists in the long run (16).

The Revolving Door of Science Science in popular culture affects both of these fronts, for as often as they are used for entertainment; they are also used as teaching aids. In both cases, scientific learning, engagement, and interest in scientific material are generated. These integrated scientific topics not only generate interest in science itself and the specific topic, but also provides a means to solve the ethical issues that arise from them. Taking de-extinction as our running example, many of the ethical concerns about de-extinction, particularly those that try and halt its achievement or research about it, are due to the public not understanding the science behind how it is achieved or the implications such discoveries have. And so it is a revolving door, where de-extinction in popular culture can generate interest in science, which leads to formal scientific education and application, which dispels myths about de-extinction, which allows research to continue, and finally where science again makes its way into the media to start the cycle over again. In creating interest in itself through popular culture, scientific topics like de-extinction lead to education about themselves which can further tear down their own roadblocks. As it seems, when it comes to science as partnered with media, the prophecy is self-fulfilling and “65 million years in the making.”

Community Action: Evaluating Student’s Scientific Interest Following the Presentation of De-extinction in the High School (HW) We presented the topic of de-extinction to several classes at Jefferson Township High School and then surveyed their interest in the subject and science in general. Our mission was two-fold: to educate students on an exciting area of study involving state of the art methodologies while addressing the ethical issues and to stimulate an interest in science.

The presentations given to several of Mr. Gino Rose’s biology and zoology classes were relatively straightforward, focusing primarily on the science and ethics portions, or rather, focusing on de-extinction itself. Using Prezi, a non-linear web-based program for creating presentations, we explained what de-extinction is, the various methods that could be performed while researching de-extinction (selective breeding, cloning, and genetic engineering), the potential target organisms, and the ethical problems and roadblocks involved (such as the ecological impact, dinosaurs as pets, playing god, animal abuse, doing science for the sake of science/discovery, and the implications it would have on medicine/biological and genetic understandings of life). These were presented in the order of increasing complexity, with relatively uncontroversial methods and organisms first, which coincidentally correspond to each other in these terms. After de-extinction was explained, a distinct section of the talk discussed the ethical considerations relating to any or all of the methods de-extinction would require, or relating to the philosophy behind de-extinction itself.

In order to engage students and bring complex topics to a level of common understanding, 2 tactics were used. Primarily, we used references to Jurassic Park (1) and Jurassic World (2), incorporating video clips from these movies at appropriate places in order to introduce topics as students may already be familiar with them. Using these movies as the groundwork for what students knew about the topic, we referenced them in order for students to understand what we meant in terms they could understand and were less vague. The movies were also used as a springboard to explain in and of themselves what was accurate and what was simply illogical or untrue about de-extinction. Furthermore, breaking up long expanses of technical information with media clips allowed us as educators and presenters to refocus and hold the attention of our audiences for the full 40 (or in the case of lab periods, 80) minute period.

Secondarily, we used audience involvement in a hands-on activity. While we could not do gene manipulation as a lab activity, we could simulate how gene variations and manipulations can cause macroscale changes, if but in a simplified form. Using paper cutouts with A, C, T, and Gs, we formulated a mock gene sequence found in a chicken, coding for a beak. Students, and occasionally the instructor of the class, participated by holding and acting as the nucleotide bases and the macroscale product, the beak (which was a 3D model folded out of paper). We also had what the gene represented, such as a beak on a chicken, and had a student demonstrate this, as well. We then changed the sequence also changing the macroscale feature, from a beak to a snout with teeth, sometimes “messing up” and trying again to show the level of understanding needed to manipulate genes. Not only did we change bases in a single gene, we continued the activity by splitting them into multiple genes, changing bases around but also whole genes, to create a chicken sized dinosaur, represented by a stuffed animal. Essentially, we demonstrated how the genetic engineering method worked. On a simple level, we simulated the research being done into how to change a chicken’s beak into dinosaur teeth.

The education portion was a background setting to the presentation, but also had means to be studied and qualified. This was based upon the fact that the presentation itself was using de- extinction to educate students and gauge interest in scientific topics. This “ulterior motive” was not expressed to the students explicitly, as it would defeat the purpose of gauging interest and reactions. Rather, the teacher, Mr. Rose, administered a survey of questions to gauge students reactions to both the topics concerning de-extinction, as well as about their attitudes towards science before and after the presentation. He then shared the results with us so that we could review the results. Although well aware from the start that one presentation may not inspire students to suddenly love science, it may make them more open to further investigation or make them view science in a way they previously did not. The survey included a mixture of questions designed to gauge how successful the presentation was at its goal, administered over 4 classes with different mixtures of students with varying aptitudes and interest levels in science. These classes included 3 biology (college preparatory level) courses with lab periods and 1 zoology class. The questions asked by students during and after each presentation were also used to gauge interest and understanding of the material.

Survey administered to students by Mr. Gino Rose, Biology teacher at Jefferson Township High School Dawn of De-Extinction Survey Please answer the questions below as honestly as possible.

1. How much did you know about de-extinction before the presentation? Nothing Very Little Some I Have a Solid Understanding I’m an Expert 2. How much of this knowledge came from fictional accounts in movies, books, or television shows? None Very Little Some Most All 3. Does de-extinction interest you now that you have seen the presentation? No Yes 4. Do you believe that de-extinction is research that should be performed? Why? No Yes ______5. Please rate your interest in science before the presentation. No Interest Very Little Interest Some Interest Very Interested I LOVE SCIENCE!! 6. Please rate your interest in science after the presentation. No Interest Very Little Interest Some Interest Very Interested I LOVE SCIENCE!! 7. Any further comments? Questions? Concerns? ______8. Do you intend on attending college? If so, what are you looking to study? ______

Survey Results (HW, KF) The results of the survey suggested that some students who were not previously interested in science indicated that they became interested in science after hearing our talk; the majority of students retained the same interest levels in science in general. However, specifically relating to de-extinction, students knew little to nothing of de-extinction before our talk, and those that did received some to all of their information about it from media sources. After our talk, students indicated that they were now interested in de-extinction specifically. Furthermore, when polled about if the research should be performed, 80% of students that submitted a complete survey indicated that the research should be done, with varying reasons ranging from the fact that “it would be cool”, to reasons suggesting its scientific worth and benefits. It should be noted that an additional 2.5% said both yes and no to this question, saying that the research should be done, but indicating that it needs to be regulated and that Jurassic Park realization fears are very much real surrounding this kind of research. However, the response from students and their instructor was overwhelmingly positive as, in addition to the survey, students were active in our question and answer portion of the presentation, as well. If but in a small, preliminary, and albeit narrowly focused way, we were able to get students of a high school age interested in science, and in de- extinction specifically. What students don’t realize quite yet is that their interest in de-extinction actually means they an interest in layered concepts of biology, including genetics, biochemistry, and ecology. They may well be on their way to be scientists even if they don’t realize it!

Email Exchange with the Principal of Jefferson Township High School

To All Those Concerned,

My group would like to extend a thank you for letting us present our project on de-extinction in Mr. Rose's biology and zoology classes. At this time, we have prepared our final paper, and have thus analyzed the survey results, and would like to share those with you.

If you may recall, our project was not purely about the science and ethics of de-extinction itself, and educating students on those topics. Rather we additionally had an ulterior motive in trying to use de-extinction, as a science topic popular in media and pop-culture, to attempt getting students interested in science in general in addition to getting them interested in de-extinction itself.

Our results are as follows:

-The results of the survey suggested that some students who were not previously interested in science indicated that they became interested in science after hearing our talk, however minimally this increase was; the question was asking on a 'levels' basis, where interest students displayed went up 1 level after our talk. Students at least retained the same interest levels in science in general if they did not show an increased interest.

-Specifically relating to de-extinction, students knew little to nothing of de-extinction before our talk, and those that did received some to all of their information about it from media sources. After our talk, students indicated that they were now interested in de-extinction specifically.

-When polled regarding the value of de-extinction research and whether or not it should be performed, 80% of students that submitted a complete survey indicated that the research should be done, with varying reasons ranging from the fact that “it would be cool”, to reasons suggesting its scientific worth and benefits. It should be noted that an additional 2.5% said both yes and no to this question, saying that the research should be done, but indicating that it needs to be regulated and that Jurassic Park realization fears are very much real surrounding this kind of research.

-Students additionally were active in our question and answer portion of the presentation, as well.

If but in a small, preliminary, and albeit narrowly focused way, we were able to get students interested in science, and in de-extinction specifically. What students don’t realize quite yet is that their interest in de-extinction actually means they an interest in layered concepts of biology, including genetics, biochemistry, and ecology. They may well be on their way to be scientists even if they don’t realize it!

We are very excited to report the success of our presentation and hope your students enjoyed it as much as we enjoyed coming to talk to them.

Regards,

Heather M. Wojcik, Ben Sweeney, and Kiersten Formoso Department of Genetics, Department of Geology, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources Rutgers University -New Brunswick

Response from the Principal of Jefferson Township HS

Hi Heather, Thank you for sharing this with me! I am glad that you were able to present at JTHS with such an engaging topic. I am confident that your presentation made a strong impression and will spur much thought and discussion regarding students' potential to study science after high school. Thanks again for including us! Mr. Mundi Karl A. Mundi Principal Jefferson Township HS 1010 Weldon Road Oak Ridge, NJ 07438 973-697-3535

References

1. Jurassic Park. Dir. Steven Spielberg. By Michael Crichton and David Koepp. Perf. Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Richard Attenborough. Universal Pictures, 1993. 2. Jurassic World. Dir. Colin Trevorrow. Perf. Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Ty Simpkins. Universal Pictures, 2015. 3. Kelly T, Rasico J, Battistone C, et al. Two decades of cumulative impacts to survivorship of endangered California condors in California. Biological Conservation. Web. 12 07 2015. 4. Kaplan, Sarah. "‘De-extinction’ of the Woolly Mammoth: A Step Closer."Washington Post. The Washington Post, 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Dec. 2015. 5. Horner, Jack, and James Gorman. How to Build a Dinosaur (The New Science of Reverse Evolution). New York : Penguin Group, 2009. Print. p. 4-193 6. Cohen, Shlomo. "The Ethics of De-Extinction."Nanoethics. 8.1 (2014): 165-178. Web. 13 Apr. 2015. 7. Minteer. “The Perils of De-extinction.” Minding Nature, January 2015. Web, 15 Nov. 2015. 8. "California Condor Count Information." California Condor Recovery Program. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Pacific Southwest Region, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Dec. 2015. 9. Zimmer, Carl. "Bringing Them Back to Life." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 01 Apr 2013. Web. 21 Feb 2015. 10. Jorgensen, Dolly. "Reintroduction and De-extinction."BioScience 63.9 (2013): 719-720. EbscoHost. Web. 30 Apr 2015. 11. Gill. “Cloning Woolly Mammoths: it’s the Ecology, Stupid.” Scientific American, March 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2015. 12. Cofield, Calla. "Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Science in Popular Culture." APS Physics: APS News. American Physical Society, May 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. 13. Pannoni, Alexandra. "Bill Nye the Science Guy Talks Keeping Teens Interested in STEM." U.S. News & World Report: Education. U.S. News & World Report, 8 June 2015. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. 14. Markman, Art, Ph.D. "How Can We Get Students Interested in Math and Science?" Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers, 28 Aug. 2012. Web. 10 Oct. 2015. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201208/how-can-we-get- students-interested-in-math-and-science 15. Harackiewicz, Judith M., Christopher S. Rozek, Chris S. Hulleman, and Janet s. Hyde (2012) Helping Parents to Motivate Adolescents in Mathematics and Science: An Experimental Test of a Utility-Value Intervention Psychological Science 23(8):899-906. 16. Bertram, Vince, and John W. McDonald. "Bringing Real-World Science to the Classroom." U.S. News & World Report: News. U.S. News & World Report, 11 Nov. 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Letters to the Editor

Cover Letter sent to The Record and The Jefferson Aim:

Dear Editor,

Please consider publishing the attached letter. I am quite passionate about science education and feel more students can learn to enjoy science if we show them that it can be interesting and fun by using topics they are already exposed to in media. More than showing students how real science can stem from science fiction, topics prevalent in media, like the de-extinction of dinosaurs, are often misunderstood technically and would benefit from students learning about them.

Regards,

Heather Wojcik Undergraduate in Genetics Department of Genetics Rutgers University- New Brunswick (Resident of Jefferson Township, NJ)

To The Editor,

As the introduction to Bill Nye the Science Guy, a popular educational children’s show, goes: “Science Rules”. However, making students actually believe this is much harder than we give Mr. Nye credit for, though he is the perfect example of how to reach students by making science seem entertaining as well as interactive. Mainstream media and pop culture have a huge influence over what students deem enjoyable and that which they gravitate towards because of the entertainment value. Science: not as much. Thought of as technical, monotonous, and difficult, students tend to shy away from science, when, in reality, science leads to some of the coolest, most entertaining things imaginable. What’s not cool about bringing back dinosaurs?

Encapsulating knowledge of genetics, paleontology, zoology, and even ethics, de-extinction provides a perfect platform for reaching students because, through pop culture, they have already seen what can come of it. But not all that can come from it. Educators can show students that science fiction doesn’t have to stay fiction, and, most often, that it doesn’t. However, “pop- science” topics are a springboard and their fictional accounts should be taken with a grain of salt, which is why we need to educate students on the real science that stems from them. In this sense, educators must bring it down to a level at which students can understand and appreciate, or at least see the value in learning. It’s even better if they can get students involved hands on, which is one of the best ways to learn and one of the easiest ways to show students how they themselves can participate in science firsthand. This encourages students to think further, to formulate their own experiments, to create. That is the essence of science: endless learning, endless questioning. Perhaps we have to “spare no expense” and change the way we approach teaching science to students to show them just how amazing dino-mite it can be.

Heather Wojcik Undergraduate in Genetics Department of Genetics Rutgers University- New Brunswick (Resident of Jefferson Township, NJ)

In Print in the Jefferson Aim, edited by the editor for length

Shortened Version for the NJ Record, as per their request To The Editor,

As the introduction to Bill Nye the Science Guy goes: “Science Rules”. However, making students actually believe this is much harder than we give Mr. Nye credit for. Mainstream media and pop culture have a huge influence over what students deem enjoyable and that which they gravitate towards because of the entertainment value. Science: not as much. Thought of as technical, monotonous, and difficult, students tend to shy away from science, when, in reality, science leads to some of the coolest, most entertaining things imaginable. What’s not cool about bringing back dinosaurs?

Using “pop-science” topics like the de-extinction of dinosaurs, which are prevalent in pieces like Jurassic Park and most recently Jurassic World, educators can not only generate interest in science in general, but can dually educate them on, and de-mystify, real groundbreaking research. Educators can show students that science fiction doesn’t have to stay fiction, and, most often, that it doesn’t. In this sense, educators must bring it down to a level at which students can understand and appreciate, or at least see the value in learning. It’s even better if they can get students involved hands on. This encourages students to think further, to formulate their own experiments, to create. That is the essence of science: endless learning, endless questioning. Perhaps we have to “spare no expense” and change the way we approach teaching science to students to show them just how amazing dino-mite it can be.

Sent to The Editor of Tri-town News Corp on 10/28/2015

Please consider publishing my letter to the editor – see submission below and attached. Education in science is important because a larger interest in the field leads to bigger breakthroughs, like de-extinction. Ben Sweeny

Dear Editor: Chemistry and biology classes in high school have a focus on microsystems without explaining their potential applications. For this reason, many students don’t enjoy their science classes and shy away from science majors in college. The only well-known application for chemistry and biology is the medical field. Without medical students, science majors compose a small percentage of college students. My goal is to generate more interest in science by explaining the field of de-extinction. De- extinction is the process of bringing extinct animals back to life, but not quite using the same method as in Jurassic Park. De-extinction requires geologists to find the animal remains, biologists to lay out the detailed instructions for the proposed species’ body systems, and chemists to engineer the genetic codes. I am a geology student and I will be visiting a high school accompanied by a genetics student and an ecology student. We will be giving a presentation about de-extinction to biology students to show them how interesting biology can actually be. We hope that interest in science will grow leading to more people working on projects, like de-extinction, and more breakthroughs in science.

Sincerely Benjamin Sweeney Rutgers University – New Brunswick Department of Geology

Sent To the Editor of the NY Times:

Every day science is becoming more and more crucial to understanding the world as well as assisting it through its ever continuous problems and issues. Science is, and will be the key to world hunger, space exploration, longevity, sustainability and clean energy, and most other strife the world sees today. Why then, is science so hard to cause care and concern for in the American classroom? I believe it is due to the use of the fundamentals of science and not really show what these fundamentals, when built upon, can yield to. The American science classroom needs to start using “cooler” topics in science and explain the concepts and elements behind that as opposed to the other way around.

As an example, in a group project my course Ethics in Science at Rutgers, my group visited a local New Jersey high school with an exciting, engaging, and pop-culture reference heavy presentation in tow. We used the exciting format of a Prezi, couple with references to the Jurassic Park franchise to present a project on the neat concept of “de-extinction” to make something the students would be attentive to. And it worked! We demonstrated the science behind this often controversial topic, as well as the possible positive implications of the processes of it. The end class survey showed that most of the student’s interest in de-Extinction increased, if not their interest in science overall. The former only is a win, because by them being interested in D-Extinction, but “still not science,” they are inadvertently interested in the biology concepts of, genetics, biochemistry, and ecology. De-extinction may sound like a scary thought, but in reality our modern methods can barely clone a sustained individual goat, let alone a population that may escape and wreak havoc like so many people fear because they associate the idea with things like Jurassic Park. That is not quite a possible future, however, we are on our way to developing science similar to the novels and movies, but people needs to understand that what happened in Jurassic Park is highly improbable and the benefits of de-extinction studies could yield increased knowledge of genetics and biology, which could have medical benefits, as well as an increase in science knowledge for science’s sake because the more we know about our world, they better off we will be.

Kiersten Formoso Senior at Rutgers Studying Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources