DAN KLEIN: Hey, everyone.
Welcome to Talks at Google.
My name is Dana
Han-Klein, and today it
is my pleasure to introduce
Jack Horner, paleontologist
and professor at Montana
State University.
He is a consultant on the
Jurassic Park franchise,
and was a consultant on this
latest one, "Jurassic World."
Welcome.
JACK HORNER: Thank you.
[APPLAUSE]
DANA HAN-KLEIN: So you've
been with the series
from the beginning.
In fact, part of your works
inspired the series, correct?
JACK HORNER: That's
what they say.
DANA HAN-KLEIN:
That's what they say.
So what's it been like
to be sort of evolved
from this role of being an
inspiration for it-- you know,
they say that part of the
character of Alan Grant
is based on your
work-- to becoming
the sort of influencing factor
on the science behind it?
JACK HORNER: It's OK.
I don't know what to
say about it, you know?
I'm glad my character
hasn't been eaten.
DANA HAN-KLEIN:
Survival is good.
Survival is definitely good.
Well, you know, it's been--
the novel came out in 1990,
and the first one
came out in 1993,
and we've see a
lot of developments
in the field of
paleontology since then.
You know, we've learned a lot
about dinosaurs since then.
What are some of the things--
you know, with respect
for the fact that it is
science fiction, what
are some of the
things that you do
wish they'd been able to
incorporate that we've
discovered since then?
JACK HORNER: I actually--
nothing, really.
I mean, when I was working
on "Jurassic Park" one,
Steven and I had
a lot of arguments
about whether the
velociraptors should
have feathers and
be colorful, and he
won all of those arguments.
He said a technicolor
feathered dinosaur is not
going to scare anyone.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: That's
a fair concession.
JACK HORNER: So they're gray
and, you know, featherless.
Scary, I guess.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Well,
were there times
that you were able to
say, all right, that's not
going to be scary, but let
me tell you about this,
and this is going
to terrify people?
JACK HORNER: No.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: No.
OK.
All right, then.
So obviously, you're a wealth of
information for the filmmakers
to come to.
What were some of the
questions that they asked you
that you were able
to advise them on?
JACK HORNER: There's a lot of--
well, first off, my job really
was to make sure that
the dinosaurs looked
as good as they could, without
feathers and, you know, color.
But looked as accurate
as they could based
on the science of the time.
Now, remember, that was 1992.
And I think we did a
pretty good job of that.
But then Stephen took them
and made actors out of them,
and everything they
do is fictional.
I mean, they run too fast.
They're, in many cases, a little
bigger than they should be.
Which is not a bad thing,
because we actually
know that dinosaurs grew
through most of their lives.
And so people are always
going to find bigger t-rexes
and bigger everything.
So that's not a big deal.
But my job was to make sure
that the dinosaurs looked
good, and then mostly
just, you know, make sure
that things were accurate.
As accurate as they could be.
So basically what
he said is that he
didn't want third graders
to send him nasty letters.
So it was a time when we
were doing the kitchen scene,
and there was some raptors
that came in kitchen,
and you all know that.
And originally, they were
going to come in and flick
their forked tong around.
And I said, no,
you cannot do that,
because they didn't
have forked tongues.
We know that for sure,
because if they did,
they had would have
had Jacobson's organ,
and they don't have that,
so we know that for sure.
And so he said, all right.
But we need something
for that space.
We need-- you know, we've
got that time limit,
that time in the movie, and
so we have to have something.
So that's when we
changed the scene
to them coming to the door
and snorting and fogging up
the window.
And that took them
to basically--
that's the one thing that
really sort of moved them
away from being very reptilian
looking to being warm blooded.
Only warm blooded
animals can do that.
So that was one thing
I got in there that I
was very happy about, because he
told me when we first started,
he didn't want monsters.
But I had to keep moving away
from monsters, because that's
really what he wanted.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Monsters,
but not [INAUDIBLE].
[LAUGHING] So that's
a great example,
but what are some of the other
sort of characteristics that we
can discover based on dinosaurs
sort of-- the discovering
of their remains?
You know, we can tell just on
a basic level that like, oh,
herbivores and carnivores
have different teeth.
How do we extrapolate
their behavior patterns
based on that, and what
were you able to sort of--
JACK HORNER: Well,
you know, first off,
the Alan Grant character--
the part that is based on me
is, you know, in the
book and the movie,
he's this guy who studies
dinosaur behavior in Montana.
And so that's what Michael
Crichton took from my books.
And the behavior that
we do, we actually
were able to determine
that dinosaurs cared
for their young, brought
food to their babies,
and we did it all from looking
at the geological evidence.
I mean, we found baby
dinosaur skeletons
in nestlike structures,
and it was the first time
that had ever been seen.
So you can do behavioral
science on dinosaurs
even though they're all dead.
And the latest stuff
we've been working on,
and you can see it in the new
movie but it's very subtle,
there are some baby
triceratops in the new movie,
and kids are riding them.
But you'll notice the horns
actually curve backward.
The horns of the
babies curve backward.
And so what we know is that
baby dinosaurs actually--
baby triceratops
actually looked different
than adult triceratops.
The babies grew,
and as they grew,
their horns actually
arced backwards,
and then when they started
to reach sexual maturity,
actually grew forward.
And when they're
sexually mature,
their horns are
straight forward.
And that's one of
the ways we know
that they're very
social animals,
because we see the same
thing in mammals and birds.
We see it in us, right?
We can always tell a
juvenile from an adult.
And we know that when they lose
those juvenile characteristics,
right, out the door they go,
and they have to get a job.
So skeletal maturity,
sexual maturity-- these
are all things that
we can actually
tell in the fossil record.
So we get a few of those things,
we can stick in the movie.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: I
was going to say,
I think it's a
pachycephalosaurus appears
in one of the films, and that's
another one of the creatures
that the dome headed
shifting kind of structure.
JACK HORNER: They talk about
them crashing their heads
together, and we've actually
proved that they could only
do that once.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: So one and done.
JACK HORNER: So two
that are laying there,
just remember that that
was their first time.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Only time.
But it's great that
there's this element,
and that they do want
to respect as much
of the scientific
integrity that they can.
So you mentioned the
nesting sort of habits,
and like maternal,
paternal instinct.
That's definitely
also something that
appears with the t-rexes
in the previous films.
Were you ever upset that
the maiasaura didn't
get to appear in the films?
JACK HORNER: No, that's fine.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: It
was in the book.
JACK HORNER: That's all right.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: So can
you talk about some
of the other sort
of contributions
where you kind of
got to say, like, you
mentioned the raptors, you
mentioned the triceratops.
What are some of the other ones
where you just said, like, you,
have to-- let's respect the--
JACK HORNER: Well,
you know, there's
not there's not a lot of
them, because, you know,
as we all know, there's not a
lot of science actually shown.
I mean, the dinosaurs
basically are chasing somebody.
I mean, the plant eaters
are eating plants,
or stand around waiting to
get eaten by something else.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: And
they are getting eaten.
That's true.
JACK HORNER: You know,
we just don't see
a lot of the behavioral stuff.
There was one interesting
thing in the first movie.
I think it was the first movie.
Might have been the second one.
Anyway, we have a
dinosaur pie, right?
A dinosaur heap of dung, and
it looked like elephant dung.
And I said, we can't
look like elephant dung.
It's got to look
like bird poo, right?
So it can't be just a bunch
of bally looking things.
It actually has to
be a big white thing.
We went around and
around about that.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: They won.
I don't know if it's a battle
you necessarily always want
to pick.
JACK HORNER: Well, you now,
that dinosaur's-- you know.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: As long as
you don't have to handle it.
JACK HORNER: It defies
the dung law, though.
The one that's in
the movie, you know?
A pile of dung should
never be any higher
than the place it came from.
DANA HAN-KLEIN:
Good to remember.
JACK HORNER: Yeah.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Well,
sort of speaking
of the actual remains-- and
not that type of remains.
But there's not a ton of
science mentioned in the movie,
but the originals, he extracts
the DNA from a mosquito,
but we know that the biomaterial
wouldn't actually hold up.
But you guys have actually
been able to extract material
from fossils.
Could you talk a little
bit maybe about b-rex?
JACK HORNER: Yeah.
B-rex is-- well, it used to
be a very special dinosaur
until just very recently.
It was a dinosaur-- it's
a tyrannosaurus rex,
and it was found under
1,000 cubic yards of rock.
And it produced soft
tissues-- clear,
flexible blood
vessels that we were
able to etch out of the
internal structure--
internal parts of the bone.
And we also were able to
get the protein collagen,
and we were able to
get cells with nuclei.
And unfortunately, no DNA.
The DNA had broken down.
But what we've
learned since then
is that these soft
tissues will preserve,
and their fixing agent is iron.
But what's interesting
is when we think
about a fossil-- a dinosaur,
or any animal that dies,
and when it dies,
it begins to rot.
And it rots because
bacteria gets in there
and starts feeding on it.
But if bacteria
can't get into it,
and your fixing agent
is quick enough,
which is iron, of course.
Iron is-- hem is the
basis of hemoglobin,
and it's already in the vessels.
And so your fixing
agent is already there.
And what we've discovered is
that these tissues, as long
as they don't get broken
down by bacteria right away,
will actually last forever,
clear and flexible, which
is pretty cool.
And it's changed
our whole notion
of what fossilization
is, because it
can be fossilized and
still be flexible.
It's just chemistry.
That's what you have to
remember-- it's just chemistry.
DANA HAN-KLEIN:
Easy, easy chem-- no.
No, but it's great.
I mean, I suppose theoretically,
if he'd written the book today,
he could-- instead
of a mosquito,
it would be a femur bone.
JACK HORNER: That's right.
But no DNA.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: But no DNA.
But it does bring us to
kind of another thing
that you're working on that
kind of is taking the fiction
part out of science fiction,
and that's the chickenosaurus
and building a dinosaur.
It's definitely something that
I could see the fictional John
Hammond dreaming up.
But would you mind
telling us about how
to build the dinosaur?
JACK HORNER: All right.
Well, so the premise
behind all of this
was Jurassic Park was trying
to bring dinosaurs back,
and we know we can't do that.
I have tried many times to
extract DNA from a dinosaur,
and we've always failed.
And it's probably, we think,
because the DNA molecule
is huge, and it just
is not very stable.
It breaks down very
quickly, and so it just
comes apart too easily.
And even the mammoth
elephant that's
10,000 years old-- they
have fragments of DNA,
but they're tiny.
They're just only a
few hundred base pair.
And that's only 10,000 years.
And so, you know, even if
we found some fragments that
were still together
from a dinosaur,
they'd still probably only
be in the tens of base pair.
So we know we're never going
to make a dinosaur that way.
So birds are living dinosaurs.
They are dinosaurs.
And so they carry
dinosaur DNA, obviously,
since they are dinosaurs.
But when you look at a bird
and you look at a dinosaur--
if you look especially
at their skeletons,
the skeleton of a bird--
chicken-- has no tail.
It has wings.
Has no teeth.
It's got this beak.
And it looks like a chicken.
But it is a dinosaur, you know?
And I keep trying to tell the
sixth graders, it's a dinosaur,
and they just say it's
not cool enough looking.
So to make a cool bird
into a cool dinosaur, what
we're doing now is looking
for atavistic genes.
In other words, ancestral genes
that the birds might still
be carrying that are
just turned off, right?
So to lose the tail--
in other words, when
we went from Archaeopteryx-like
animals with long tails
to any bird we have now
that has a short tail,
there is a genetic
pathway that's missing.
And so we're looking for those
historical genetic pathways
to reinstate them.
And so we're going in and
actually going into an embryo
and determining when
particular genes are turned on,
at what stage of their
development they're turned on,
and when they're
turned off, and trying
to adjust those so that
we can actually get a bird
to hatch out with a long tail.
So teeth-- so we have
these four things.
There's teeth, the
beak, the snout,
changing it, the tail,
and the arms and hands.
And teeth were accomplished
back in the '90s.
There's a group at the
University of Wisconsin
that actually was able
to turn a gene on,
and without adding
anything to a bird,
get chickens to have teeth.
Now, they're first
generation teeth.
They couldn't actually
grow through the keratin
of the beak.
So they're just
implanted in the jaw,
but, you know, we have them.
So we know that
all we have to do
is knock out the keratin
to get it to come through.
Just a few weeks ago, a
group at Harvard and Yale
were able to transform
the beak into a mouth that
looks like a dinosaur.
And that actually
is proof of concept.
That was a atavistic
gene that they
actually turned on and
changed the form of its mouth.
We are working on
the tail, which
is the hardest part,
because actually,
in order to get a tail
to grow, we actually
are going to have
to add vertebrae.
We have gone in and
found the atavistic gene.
We can get it to produce
about 14 vertebrae, which
is sort of an
ancestral state, but is
basically what a
bird already has,
except they fuse the
end of it together
to make what they call
what we call a pygostyle.
We can sort those out right now,
but it's still not a long tail.
So what we're working
on now is actually
trying to figure out
how to put basically
an alligator-like
tail on a bird.
And we're making good progress.
We've actually done
it a couple of times,
but we've had some problems.
We can't tell whether
we've added a tail
or changed the
position of the pelvis.
So in the embryo, everything's
done in very small states,
and so it's just hard to
tell where we are right now.
But then the hand, actually,
going back to a hand,
transforming it
back from a wing,
we don't think will be too much
difficulty, because it really
is just a matter of-- it's
a gene that fuses the three
digits together, and we
just have to unfuse them.
And we think that'll be a
relatively easy process.
But the tail is the big thing.
As soon as we can add
vertebrae, I mean,
it has just
tremendous application
to the medical field.
I mean, there's
just so many things
that we'll be able to do.
But it is the most complex.
But right now, figure
teeth and a mouth.
That's 50%.
We're halfway there.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Hopefully
halfway not to raptors
running around.
JACK HORNER: But we
make them one at a time.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Right.
I think they'd have a hard
time out in the wild try
to find another
chickenosaurus to mate with.
JACK HORNER: And
if they did mate,
you're just going
to have chickens.
And they're only going
to like chicken food.
Chicken feed.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: But you do
sort of mention in your book,
it's not going to be Jurassic
Park, as much as some
of us might want
our own pet raptor.
JACK HORNER: But it's
version one, right?
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Right.
JACK HORNER: It's
the first version.
So when we make a dino
chicken, I mean, that is
the first version.
And by then, we will know
enough about different genes
that version two could
look an awful lot closer
to a velociraptor.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: There you go.
But it was an interesting thing.
You know, we're never going
to have a velociraptor.
We're going to have a version of
the ancestral qualities of it,
but that's something I think
a few of the characters
actually express
in "Jurassic Park."
They go, no, these
aren't dinosaurs.
These are whatever things
you've mixed with them
to bring dinosaurs to life.
JACK HORNER: And that is
why we have Indominus Rex.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: The super
amazing badass Indominus Rex.
JACK HORNER: Exactly.
Yes.
[INTERPOSING VOICES]
JACK HORNER: Which is actually
the most plausible thing
that we've made in
"Jurassic Park" so far.
Think about that.
We know that we can't get
dinosaurs back from DNA, right?
But we can make a hybrid.
I mean, we make transgenic
animals right now.
We definitely change--
we genetically
engineer all sorts of things.
I mean, all these
funny little dogs.
Chihuahuas, you know?
I mean, they are
genetically modified wolves.
That's what they are.
And so breeding is one of the
biological modification tools
that we use to change how
an animal looks already.
And then transgenic
engineering, which
is an example is making glow
fish-- so we take genes out
of a jellyfish and stick
them in a zebra fish
and make them glow.
And now we know that we
can do that with anything.
I mean, you can do it with
a human if you wanted to.
I mean, seriously, you just
stick it in the embryo,
and so we've got glow in
the dark cats, rabbits,
you name it.
You can make anything
glow in the dark
by doing transgenic engineering.
And that's the whole idea of
Indominus Rex is to make it--
it's just basically a genetic
transgenic hybrid, which
we already know how to do.
So if we could get
dinosaurs back,
we could make Indominus Rex.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: I
think that would
have a lot more consequences
than any of us want to happen,
but no, I won't spoil it for
people who haven't seen it yet.
You know, it is
sort of this thing--
they say in the book they
mix the DNA with tree frogs.
We're talking about
engineering a chicken dinosaur,
like non-avian.
So where do you see the
future of the field going?
JACK HORNER: The future of--
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Paleontology.
JACK HORNER: The
future of paleontology.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Only because
it's evolved in the sense
that it used to
be, oh, preserve--
we want things for museums.
Now it's like, let's cut it open
and let's see what's inside!
JACK HORNER: That's right.
That's what we do, yes.
So we will continue
to cut things open
and learn all sorts
of new things.
As far as our genetic
engineering efforts, as wacky
and wild as it
sounds, I mean, we
could start making
some-- I throw this out.
Since we can make goal
in the dark animals,
we could actually make a
glow in the dark unicorn.
Why not, right?
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Why not?
JACK HORNER: A
unicorn would actually
be easier than a dino chicken.
It's just a horse with a
thing on its head, right?
And it turns out there are
actually [INAUDIBLE], or even
giraffes.
If you ever look at a
giraffe really close,
it actually has a
horn in the middle.
It's a horny structure,
and it's modifiable.
So I actually think we could
make a unicorn pretty easily.
And make it glow in the dark.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: As if one
feature wasn't good enough,
let's make it glow in the dark.
So the chickenosaurs, like you
mentioned before, it's not just
about-- the discovery involved
in especially the tail thing,
it involves a lot
of the spine, it
involves a lot of
sort of discovering
at what points in development
do these things happen?
Because you talk a little bit
more about the applications
to us bipeds.
JACK HORNER: I don't know.
Everyone's worried
about the applications.
Why make a dino chicken?
Well, I don't think I have to
say that to anybody in here,
actually.
I think all of you know why
we want a dino chicken, right?
Because it's going
to be fun, right?
That's all there is to it.
And all the kids are
going to like it.
But there's a lot of people
who are grown ups that
always say, what good is it?
What would you do it for?
Well, as I was saying, learning
what different genes do
and how to turn them
on and how to turn
them off has huge application
in the medical field.
And quite frankly, genetics
is extremely boring,
and nobody ever goes to
college to study genetics
that I can imagine.
I mean, it's just awful.
So at least if you thought
you could make a dino chicken,
it sounds like it would
be pretty interesting.
So if you can start
thinking about making
new kinds of animals,
rather than bigger tomatoes,
it's at least a good way to
get kids interested in a pretty
boring science.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: I'm not going to
go so far as to call it boring,
but I do think it's an
interesting tangible, visible
presentation of these are
some applications of it.
Think of what you could do.
You could have your own glow
in the dark unicorn someday.
JACK HORNER: That's right.
Or a glow in the
dark dino chicken.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Even better.
Do we have any questions?
Do you want to
come up to the mic?
AUDIENCE: Hello.
I'm Alex.
JACK HORNER: Hi, Alex.
AUDIENCE: I'm kind of curious to
know your thoughts on the usage
of this genetic research
in animal conservation,
considering the northern black
rhino just last week went
extinct.
Has there been any
kind of conference
between your research groups
and other research groups
and animal conservation to
use this developing technology
to preserve these genes
in a very precise manner,
so that maybe in the future,
with technological increase,
we can bring these
animals that we
had alive back from extinction?
Thank you.
JACK HORNER: De-extinction
is a wholly different thing,
and there are a lot of
de-extinction projects going on
right now.
They're trying to get the
passenger pigeon back.
They're trying to get
the Tasmanian wolf back.
They're trying to get the
mammoth elephant back.
All of which were probably
wiped out by humans.
The dodo bird.
I don't know if we need a dodo.
But de-extinction, in
order to get them back,
does require DNA.
And it requires enough
to inject in the cell
and make an animal such as
a mammoth elephant, which
is pretty plausible.
And it's pretty plausible
because we have elephants,
so chances are pretty good if we
have a chunk of DNA-- at least
a pretty good chunk of one-- and
then we add it to elephant DNA,
we're going to get some kind of
a hairy elephant of some sort.
With the rhino, actually,
we have their complete DNA,
and we have it preserved.
So soon as we figure out how
to clone DNA, we can do that.
But right now, what
we would end up doing
is taking that
complete strand of DNA
and sticking it in one of
the non-extinct rhinos,
and it still would be
some kind of combination.
And that's the problem.
We rely right now on
a cloning technology
that involves a
particular kind of cell
from a particular
kind of animal.
And we don't know how to take
an individual strand of DNA
and make it make something.
We don't know how
to do that yet.
But when we can, then
we could probably
bring back a number of things
that are going extinct.
But it breaks down too
quick, so going back and sort
of bringing things back
from very deep time
is going to be impossible.
And I mean impossible,
not maybe someday.
It's just because
you're never going
to get a complete strand of
DNA from anything much older
than even probably
a few hundred years.
AUDIENCE: Hi.
Thanks for coming in.
I did want to add
a comment first
about glowing unicorns--
glow in the dark unicorns.
We have the same kind of problem
in computer science, where
it can seem really dull to
get people interested in it,
especially in ads.
So we have--
[LAUGHTER]
AUDIENCE: So we have
machine learning
to kind of excite people.
Artificial intelligence,
the thought
of potentially
robots in the future.
So that's our glowing unicorn
equivalent in our field.
I was wondering-- so
when I was growing up,
the science at the
time was saying
that there was a big extinction
event involving dinosaurs.
But I've heard more recently
that maybe it wasn't extinction
at all.
Maybe it was just evolution.
What's the consensus now?
JACK HORNER: Well, there really
was a big extinction event.
I downplay it myself.
At the end of most
museum exhibits,
there's a big thing about the
meteor coming down and killing
everything off, and I
just have a bird exhibit.
I just basically don't
think about extinction,
because we classify animals.
So we put them into categories.
And then we say, oh, look,
that category goes extinct.
And birds are just fine,
and birds are dinosaurs.
So it seems kind of weird.
But no.
So we separate them now
into non-avian dinosaurs
and avian dinosaurs.
So all birds are
avian dinosaurs,
and all the ones went extinct
are non-avian dinosaurs.
And non-avian dinosaurs
did go extinct,
by some catastrophic
event, probably.
Although there might be
some hiding out in Africa.
AUDIENCE: With this
kind of research,
you always have people who have
ethical quandaries regarding
this kind of
development over time.
What would you say
to people who have
these kind of ethical quandaries
about how this could be applied
medically, or to people, or
bad science kind of things?
JACK HORNER: Ethics?
Ethics?
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
JACK HORNER: Yeah.
I was just in London
a few days ago,
and there was someone
who stood up and was
very adamant about talking
about where you draw a line.
And I was thinking
that's an odd question.
And it's an odd
question to a scientist,
because we have no
way of figuring out
where to draw a line.
I mean, lines are
personal preference.
I mean, I think scientists
need to discover everything
it's possible to discover.
Now, a lot of it might
have bad consequences,
but if we draw a line
and say, OK, we're not
going to study this
particular thing,
but somebody in
some other country
doesn't have that same line,
and they make something that's
dangerous to us, but we've
never figured out a way to deal
with it, we're done.
So I think we need to
learn how to do everything.
And when it comes
to these animals,
I mean, again, nobody
drew a line and said,
we shouldn't make a chihuahua.
But somebody could've.
I mean, it's just,
I just don't think
there's I any particular
reason to draw
any kind of a line like that.
But that's my
personal preference.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: Also,
doesn't a lot of it
get sort of sensationalized?
Like, we test on mice.
We test it on fruit flies.
Not that fruit flies and mice
are necessarily the same thing.
But we are doing sort
of experimentation
on all sorts of--
JACK HORNER: We're always
experimenting on animals.
Absolutely.
And plants.
I mean, everything.
Drawing a line is-- it's
just an interesting concept.
AUDIENCE: So you mentioned that
if you took two dino chickens
and mated them, you
would get a chicken.
So I'm guessing that
you are altering
just the expression of genes
by chemicals in the embryo.
JACK HORNER: Not their DNA.
That's correct.
AUDIENCE: Not their DNA.
Have you considered,
OK, well, we're
going to take the DNA that
we know in an alligator makes
the tail, splice it
in, and then hey,
we'd actually have
two dino chickens
that would make dino
chickens, or whatever else?
JACK HORNER: No,
once we sort of have
some idea of how to
make a dino chicken,
they're kind of a pain in the
butt to make one at a time.
So if we could change their
DNA, that would be good.
We could make them so
they make themselves.
AUDIENCE: So I guess as a
consultant on the "Jurassic
Park" films, you have a lot
of insight into how the movie
world portrays dinosaurs.
Do you think in general,
movies have been good
for the paleontology industry
and getting people excited
about it, or do
you think it's had
a lot of negative
consequences by the way
that it portrays
them maybe wrongly?
JACK HORNER: Yeah, I don't
think has any negative at all.
I mean, in 1993, when
"Jurassic Park" came out--
before "Jurassic
Park" one came out,
I had three graduate students.
Guys.
Three graduate student guys.
When "Jurassic Park" came
out, just after it came out,
I had incredible
numbers of people
trying to get into the program.
I ended up with 18
almost instantly,
and it was 50-50 women and guys.
So I know what that
movie did, and no one
was talking about the
dinosaurs not having feathers.
DANA HAN-KLEIN: We have
time for one more question.
AUDIENCE: Do you
have any sense of how
small the population
of dinosaurs
survived the
potential extinction
event that led to modern birds?
JACK HORNER:
Actually, the animals
that led to modern birds were
doing very well early on.
It wasn't a group of
extinct dinosaurs--
that's not the
right way to put it.
Birds evolved back in
the Jurassic period,
long before the extinction.
And so they were actually
doing pretty well.
And obviously, a lot of
birds went extinct as well.
But obviously, the ones
that made it through-- they
were all little birds.
Probably robin
sized things that we
have very little
fossil record of are
the ones that gave rise to
basically all of the birds
that we have now.
But they were very far along.
One of the things that's
really hard to imagine
is just the amount of
time that's involved.
You know, from the late Jurassic
to the extinction period
of time is more time than has
existed since the extinction
of dinosaurs until now.
So we just have these
huge spans of time
to evolve all sorts of things.
I have a new dinosaur I'm
trying to name right now,
and it's got some
weird characteristics.
I think its head is full of
these incredible nerve bundles.
And there's no
animal on this Earth
that looks anything like this.
And, I mean, there's
not even a good way
to guess what this animal was
doing unless it was telepathic.
I mean, it's just really
odd characteristics.
And we see this in a
lot of these dinosaurs.
I mean, it's just, they
just had so long to evolve.
They've got these
characteristics
that are so different
than animals alive today.
And that's why you can
make all kinds of stuff
for "Jurassic Park."
I mean, we could just come
up with wild, crazy ideas,
even for ones that probably
did exist, let alone the ones
that we can manufacture.
Dinosaurs are cool.
DANA HAN-KLEIN:
Dinosaurs are very cool.
Thank you so much
for joining us today.
JACK HORNER: You're welcome.
DANA HAN-KLEIN:
And yeah, thanks.
Let's give him a
round of applause.
[APPLAUSE]
