A recent remark by Max Hodak, co-founder of Neuralink, has reignited an intriguing conversation about the potential for a modern-day Jurassic Park. He suggested that while we might not be able to recreate authentic dinosaurs, it could be possible to develop new, exotic species through selective breeding and genetic engineering over a span of about 15 years. This tweet has sparked interest and discussion across various technology and film platforms.

It’s important to clarify that Hodak's reference to "we" does not imply a specific Neuralink initiative. Rather, he was alluding to the broader realm of scientific possibilities, a topic that has been under scrutiny, particularly since the release of the film Jurassic Park in 1993. The film itself delves into the challenges and ethical dilemmas of resurrecting massive carnivorous creatures, highlighting that even if such a feat were feasible, it could prove disastrous.

> "We could probably build Jurassic Park if we wanted to. Wouldn't be genetically authentic dinosaurs but... maybe 15 years of breeding + engineering to get super exotic novel species." > > — Max Hodak (@max_hodak) April 4, 2021

The underlying concept of Jurassic Park, as well as Michael Crichton’s novel, revolves around the idea of reviving dinosaurs through cloning their DNA. In the narrative, this genetic material is extracted from mosquitoes preserved in amber. Crichton was influenced by a 1982 study from the University of California at Berkeley, which highlighted amber's unique ability to preserve cellular structures. At the time, the understanding of DNA was still developing, making the film's premise both daring and somewhat plausible.

Another scientifically intriguing aspect of the film is the concept of creating hybrid animals through genetic manipulation. The narrative suggests that, due to the degradation of the original dinosaur DNA, scientists turned to amphibians to fill in the gaps for cloning purposes.

Today, however, we recognize that recreating dinosaurs as depicted in Jurassic Park presents several insurmountable challenges. The primary obstacle is the inability to obtain authentic prehistoric DNA, which has deteriorated over millions of years.

British paleontologist Susannah Maidment explains, “We have had mosquitoes and gadflies since the time of the dinosaurs, and they are preserved in amber. But when amber preserves things, it tends to preserve the outside, not the soft tissues. So, you don’t find blood in mosquitoes in amber.” Although there are fossilized mosquitoes from around 46 million years ago, they are too recent to provide any dinosaur DNA, which went extinct 20 million years earlier.

Even if we could somehow extract a dinosaur's blood, the DNA would still pose a challenge, as the molecular integrity of such ancient material is fragile and degrades quickly. Additionally, any recoverable DNA is likely to be contaminated, making the isolation of a genuine dinosaur genome even more difficult.

Another significant hurdle concerns the cloning of extinct species. Even with a reconstructed dinosaur genome, transferring it into an egg cell presents challenges. The ideal scenario would require an egg and cytoplasm from a closely related living species, but no modern vertebrate is an exact match for dinosaurs.

Hodak’s mention of “genetically inauthentic dinosaurs” suggests an awareness of these limitations. He hints that birds, rather than frogs as depicted in the film, might be better candidates for filling in the genetic gaps. Current theories propose that modern birds evolved from theropods, the group that includes well-known carnivorous dinosaurs like the Tyrannosaurus rex.

Paleontologist Jack Horner, who played a pivotal role in the making of Jurassic Park, offers an alternative approach in his book How to Build a Dinosaur. He suggests creating a "chickensaurus" by modifying chicken embryos to express dinosaur-like traits. This method aims to reverse the evolutionary changes that led certain dinosaurs to become modern birds.

Horner's proposal is grounded in the idea that certain dinosaur characteristics, such as teeth and long tails, still exist at the genetic level in birds but are currently dormant due to natural selection. Reactivating these genes could theoretically lead to the development of a creature reminiscent of its ancient ancestors.

However, it’s essential to note that no genetic alterations could transform a chicken embryo into a full-fledged dinosaur. Any resulting creature would be a hybrid, lacking the true characteristics of a dinosaur. As geneticist Jamal Nasir points out, “Evolution is largely stochastic, it could have multiple directions,” indicating that the re-emergence of dinosaur-like traits would depend on various factors.

In conclusion, any endeavor to create a modern-day Jurassic Park faces significant barriers, primarily the absence of viable genetic material and suitable living species for genetic engineering. A more achievable goal might be reviving megafauna like the woolly mammoth, which went extinct only about 5,000 years ago and whose genome has been sequenced. Utilizing embryos from closely related species, such as the Asian elephant, could enhance the likelihood of success.

Nonetheless, this raises the fundamental question: why pursue such projects? The ethical implications of resurrecting extinct species, whether dinosaurs or more recent animals, are complex and divisive within the scientific community. Concerns about resource allocation and the potential diversion from existing conservation efforts are significant.

As we reflect on the implications of Jurassic Park, we are reminded of the cautionary tale it presents—“life finds a way.” The scientific community must consider the potential consequences before venturing into uncharted territory, echoing Ian Malcolm's warning: “The scientists were so worried about being able to do it, that they did not think if they should.”