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