Would you like the dinosaur to come back ?

[laticauda]

Sadly, my answer is no.  As much as I would love to see how the different species looked and interacted, why bring back an extinct animal, that will likely have a tough time adapting to the modern age, as food and bacteria have evolved and changed  Even if they are successful, that could mean killing off current species and making them become extinct.  Even if you take an island and make a Jurassic Park/World, there are current species living on and around that space, that would now have to compete or interact with the dinosaurs. 

I would just love to know how they looked and interacted.  How they fed themselves, and took care of their young, I would love to know about their behavior.  Unfortunately, you would have to recreate them and reintroducing them, if done to 100% perfection, you might understand how they looked, and maybe some instinctual behavior, but everything else would be how they adapt to their new environment.  You would also miss out on the individualization of each species as well.  Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. 

[Halichoeres]

This might sound kind of horrible, but I would kind of want just a couple of specimens of each just to put in museums, so we could have better information on their anatomy, and most especially their DNA, which we could use to reconstruct evolutionary history more accurately.

[stargatedalek]

This might sound kind of horrible, but I would kind of want just a couple of specimens of each just to put in museums, so we could have better information on their anatomy, and most especially their DNA, which we could use to reconstruct evolutionary history more accurately.

I have to agree with you, I think that would be reason enough to bring at least a few back.

[Shadowknight1]

No, primarily because it would be cruelty to the animals.  We live in a much different world.  The bacteria are different.  The grass is different. All the plants are different.  Even the AIR is different.  A Triassic or Jurassic period animal would likely not be able to breathe our air and a Cretaceous animal would have a rough time of it.  The only way they could survive is by genetic tampering to adapt them to our environment, at which point we would not be getting "real dinosaurs".

The closest we can get to a real dinosaur would be to genetically modify a bird embryo, though raptors like eagles or hawks would be better than the typical choice of chickens.  Why is it always chickens?  "Scientists claim T. rex was big chicken!"  Why not vulture or condor or eagle?

[stargatedalek]

A) Chickens are cheaper and more common,  not only does it save money compared to an eagle but it also prevents animal liberation people from making a scene.
B) Chickens (and their many close relatives) are a very ancient group of birds, making the dormant genes for things like teeth and tail vertebrae more likely to surface when prompted.

[Quen]

While I would love to see them alive again, I don't think they'd be particularly happy here in this time. Plus, we wouldn't be able to see them in the environment that they lived in and that shaped their evolution. Basically, they'd be out of their ecological context. I'd much rather be able to go back in time to see them in all their glory in their natural environment.

[Tyto_Theropod]

I'd have to say no. As many people have said, dinosaurs were built for a different period, and therefore a different type of environment. It would be unethical, both to them and to modern species, to have them walking around in the present day, even if they were only in zoos and safari parks. As has also been said, it would be impossible to clone dinosaurs using DNA as the chances of complete sequences of it surviving are very slim. Genetically modified birds? Honestly, I don't think that would ever count as a genuine, honest-to-goodness non-avian dinosaur. It would just be a really messed up mutant bird.

It's wonderful that we have this technology, but it's also incredibly scary. If used irresponsibly, genetic modification and cloning could create radically different animals that would have no place in any ecosystem, and would therefore throw nature as we know it into jeopardy. I certainly don't want to see Earth's wonderful environments go out of the window in favour of an army of man-made monsters, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who agree with me.

Instead, we should be using this branch of science to help us put right our past mistakes that have damaged our world, which is why I'm all in favour of bringing back the Woolly Mammoth and other animals that were almost certainly killed off by humans. Sad though it is, dinosaurs went extinct the way things should - through a process of nature. Although the combination of natural disasters that probably spelled their demise is an environmental tragedy, it's the reason that we're here today. If it hadn't been for the K-T extinction event, chances are the dinosaurs would still be here and mammals would still be living in their shadow. Dinosaurs were a highly successful group and lasted for millions of years. They've had their time. We should be concentrating on the animals of our own world.

[Steve170]

I would love to see them as many have said, in a very isolated area. But I'd like to see them not in captivity but out it the wild amongst other species to watch them. Whether this is morally right or wrong...I would still vote yes

If we have the technology, then it usually means it's wrong, not right.

[Halichoeres]

If we have the technology, then it usually means it's wrong, not right.

I might soften that to, "If we have the technology, then we should use it carefully."

[stargatedalek]

The thing with this question is that its strictly impossible to "bring back" a particular species of dinosaur directly, but it is possible to create new species of dinosaur engineered to vaguely resemble those now gone. Its not a quick process but its been proven feasible genetically (financially is another story!). So things such as ethics claims regarding modern viruses are really a null concern. Assuming however that it was possible I would definitely say yes.

If someone found a surviving population of Raphus what would the "right" thing to do? Well I would say that's an easy choice and they should all be moved to captivity immediately until a sufficient breeding colony was established. How would such an expensive endeavor be possible? The animals would have to be on public display to raise funds and awareness. Some people claim that it would be unmoral to bring dinosaurs back to life only to keep them in cages (even if it was for their own safety), but would they say the same thing if this was an animal about to die off? If its so awful to keep a tyrannosaur in a cage than what would you want to do if there were only one blue whale left in the world? I'd put it in a cage to give it the safest possible life and raise awareness.

And what if the process was imperfect? What if only 1 in 100 dinosaurs survived hatching? I'd still do it. Success can only come from failure or dumb luck, and if you don't get lucky on your first, second, or 800th try than at least you've learned what doesn't work. Once you eliminate the impossible, well eventually your dinosaur will hatch. Perhaps the "arrogance" of science isn't in assuming it can control nature, but that it can control progress. If dinosaur DNA is mapped for research purposes than it would only be a matter of time before Compsognathus begin showing up at Pet Smart, whether the scientists who mapped the DNA want them to or not.

The last time I saw this discussion brought up (on another forum) it was only a matter of hours before the thread was swarmed with social justice warriors and 'PETARDS' throwing anti-captivity everywhere. But when people start talking about whether the money should be spent on other things or whether its "humane" to keep animals alive only in captivity the discussion splutters into nothingness the likes of Youtube comments, and before long people are complaining about SeaWorld or animal research. So that's why I try and remain "scientific" or "logical" in the face of such questions which is why I probably come across as cold.

[Dinomike]

I'm just reading Jack Horner's book about this - he seems serious about his attempt to create a "dinosaur". He doesn't give much thought to the ethical side of it. Does anyone know how it's going?

[Halichoeres]

I guess I interpreted the original question more like, if we could miraculously retrieve actual dinosaurs somehow, would you want to? But you're right, Star, that anything we get in the real world will be some new thing. Probably some new chicken thing.

Dinomike, I suspect that Horner doesn't know very much about genetics. It's true that Bhullar et al and some other papers show that you can make teeth and other features turn up, but they're reeeeeally messed up because all of the genes that used to control their proper formation have mutated into oblivion or acquired other functions. It's probably possible to engineer something that superficially resembles a dinosaur, in principle, but Horner won't live to see it. I'm not sure even I will.

I do think that a created organism might entail greater ethical responsibility than a natural organism by dint of its having been created. By analogy, we hold people more ethically responsible for their own children than for, you know, all the other children on earth. There are probably faults in that analogy, but maybe you see where I'm going?

[dinostampede]

Yes and no. Yes because they were an incredible variety of animals unlike anything here today. To be able to see, touch, and hear something that thus far can only take place in the imagination would be an unforgettable experience. But only if we were thoughtful about which ones we brought back and how we went about doing it. No because they would just be used, exploited, trophy hunted, and destroyed like humans have done to every other precious thing on this planet.

[Kayakasaurus]

The process of de-extinction is possible in theory. For an animal like the mammoth, there are three ways it could happen.

1. Back breeding. Basically artificial selection by breeding all the mammoth like characteristics, this takes a long time, because you only make a tiny change each generation, and there is no guarantee the gene pool is big enough to include mammoth traits.

2. Cloning. Getting DNA from a frozen mammoth, putting it into an Elephant embryo, and then placing that in a womb, then a clone of the frozen mammoth would be born, with a very low survival rate. (This is JP method)

3. GMO. Basically identifying which genes do what and making custom creatures. this has been done with the food we eat, and it is much faster than breeding the genes out. This third option is really the only foreseeable way at this point. We don't have anything close enough to a dinosaur to breed but we may have something close enough to make new "Terrible Lizards". There also seems to be no hope of getting Dino DNA, and we would still have to use lots of filler DNA, and it would start to look like the third option. The family and genus barriers would need to be crossed but honestly I believe something like this will happen. Right now it's considered unethical, but if it became necessary, say to cure a disease or something, that would give a green light. The reason this is so important to watch, is because it's a short cut to AI. We might be focusing on AI but if other countries are dabbling in biological intelligence, we may be forced to keep up. Even much of AI development is mapping out biological brains on computers, like worms and mice. Intelligence is truly the greatest commodity.

[Dilopho]

If we can make sure it won't die from eating our plants or our new diseases, then I'd like to bring back some sort of Heterodontosaurus- type dinosaur. Then the world can be amazed AND see the similarity to birds.

[joossa]

Interesting discussion. I like all the various angles to the responses too. I finished reading The Lost World last week and topics like learned behavior and susceptibility to disease (prions were mentioned in the book) come to mind when thinking about this question.

That aside, I also have a notion similar to one expressed by Halichoeres a few posts back and say, heck, if a magic genie came down could resurrect a dinosaur for us, would we go for it even though it it may die off in a short time due to so many different factors? I say, why not? We'll learn from it and it will answer so many questions. At the same time, I like the idea that dinos were part of a much different world so, so long ago and that we are so far removed from them in some respects that there are lots of unanswered questions, some that we may not be "meant" to answer.

Philosophy is definitely one of those things that gets me thinking in an endless way...

[laticauda]

I have always wanted a time machine and go back in time and be able to see and learn all the facts and truths about dinosaurs.  Then I realized a problem.  Other than not having a time machine handy, if we had all the answers about dinosaurs, drawing them, creating models, and debating their anatomy and lifestyle habits just would not be as fun.  Imagination, leaning, exploring, and the camaraderie we share, might be lost if we knew everything.  So, let the dinosaurs live on in our memory, art, and in future finds.  Never to clone, or bring back.

[Halichoeres]

I have always wanted a time machine and go back in time and be able to see and learn all the facts and truths about dinosaurs.  Then I realized a problem.  Other than not having a time machine handy, if we had all the answers about dinosaurs, drawing them, creating models, and debating their anatomy and lifestyle habits just would not be as fun.  Imagination, leaning, exploring, and the camaraderie we share, might be lost if we knew everything.  So, let the dinosaurs live on in our memory, art, and in future finds.  Never to clone, or bring back.

I guess I can see why the not knowing can add an extra level of wonder, but there are thousands of species alive now that almost nobody knows about, and thousands more that have no data on them except that they exist. Knowing what dinosaurs looked like might take some of the guesswork out of art, but it's not like wildlife art is boring, even if we know what the animals look like already.

[laticauda]

I have always wanted a time machine and go back in time and be able to see and learn all the facts and truths about dinosaurs.  Then I realized a problem.  Other than not having a time machine handy, if we had all the answers about dinosaurs, drawing them, creating models, and debating their anatomy and lifestyle habits just would not be as fun.  Imagination, leaning, exploring, and the camaraderie we share, might be lost if we knew everything.  So, let the dinosaurs live on in our memory, art, and in future finds.  Never to clone, or bring back.

I guess I can see why the not knowing can add an extra level of wonder, but there are thousands of species alive now that almost nobody knows about, and thousands more that have no data on them except that they exist. Knowing what dinosaurs looked like might take some of the guesswork out of art, but it's not like wildlife art is boring, even if we know what the animals look like already.

No doubt.  Watching a Proghorn race a farm truck in in the American West, or a Northern Water snake dining on a perch for example are fun and amazing thing to see. I am not saying wildlife art is boring, as I love the world that is around us, and find nothing mundane about it.  I am just saying that dinosaurs, and many other animals from prehistory, loom large in our imagination, and in the search to know and understand them help draw our fascination.  In the journey of discovery,   once you reach your end goal, you pop the champagne, celebrate, then slump down exhausted, and then your are like, well whats next.  I guess it nice to have some mystery in life.  Just a thought.   

[tanystropheus]

I heard that the meat of Mokèlé-mbèmbé is not particularly tasty.