by B. C. CHASE
Until we have a comprehensive understanding proteomics (the study of the conversion of genes to proteins, the basic building blocks of life, a field which is in its infancy), it is hard for me to imagine manipulating DNA to create people of our specificity who are then going to propagate and permanently spread any changes we make into the human race—particularly where less tangible traits such as personality, intelligence, and emotive behavior are concerned.
That being said, science is already making designer animals, in an elementary sense, and successfully so. Glofish, for example, are zebra fish that have been changed genetically in order to give them a florescent glow using genes from a jellyfish that has this ability. They are very popular with children. The company that makes the fish inserted the genes into germ cells so that the trait would be passed on to future generations. This company patented these fish, so they are the only ones who can make them (without a license). If these fish were to be released into the wild, they could potentially spread these genes to the natural population. I would be surprised, in fact, if this has not already occurred.
No one is taking genetic manipulation and designer animals farther than, China, where a factory is being built to produce genetically manipulated cattle and other animals (with the intention of expanding lifespans, increasing lactation, or creating other value-adding characteristics).
In the United Kingdom, the government has endorsed the use of mitochondrial transfer to produce in vitro babies with genes from three parents. The purpose would be to eliminate certain dangerous genetic mitochondrial disease, but the effect would be designer babies, of a sort. This has created quite a stir among the genetic science community. Calls are being made for a global agreement to prevent any genetic alteration to germ cells.
Gene replacement therapy has had an unsuccessful road until quite recently. Early trials were not promising, with some even giving their subjects tumors or cancer. This apparent danger, not to mention the seemingly insurmountable problem of immune response, quickly put an end consideration of gene therapy as a legitimate possibility, for a time. In 2003, however, China approved the first gene therapy treatment.[36] Since then, there have been many successful trials chiefly using adenovirus vectors (as they appear to result in less conflict with the immune system). Although there has been a test which successfully gave squirrel monkeys trichromatic vision (the ability to see in three colors), there have to my knowledge been no tests of gene therapies in humans which are intended to bestow new abilities or increase cosmetic appeal. The reference made by Guy Giordano to an experiment to change a rat into a mouse as featured in the journal Nature is fictitious.
I had thought that the idea of using wasp or insect viral vectors (to prevent immune response) was my own until, upon investigation, I came across some studies indicating this is already a line of research that is being followed.[37]
The idea that people could be transformed into half-chimeras or animals is, admittedly, far-fetched given the current state of genetic technology. I use this to dramatically illustrate the potential power of gene therapy if taken to its extreme. By way of comparison, the metamorphosis of a caterpillar to a butterfly lasts about nine days, and is accomplished chiefly through apoptosis. (I do not consider metamorphosis, a hormonally driven process, to be at all technically related to gene therapy; I mention it only to present a real-life timescale for dramatic biological transformation.)
The Baltimore area, contrary to Doctor Burwell’s statement, is not currently the most genetically diverse place on earth, though some towns in Maryland closer to Washington D.C. can come close to making that claim. These towns notwithstanding, according to one major genetics profile, South Africa is in fact the most genetically diverse area of the world.[38]
Paleontology/Evolutionary Biology
All of the information on paleontology and evolutionary biology that I present is accurate to the best of my knowledge and the studies cited are real (except as noted below), however Doctor Ming-Zhen expresses certain opinions based upon that information, and his opinions, though conceived by me, are not necessarily shared by me. Any descriptions of the appearance of extinct animals are based upon research. I have taken some liberties, however, where research has not illuminated any specific information of which I am aware. Also, I have shown extinct species known to exist in different continents together (sarcosuchus, spinosaurus aegyptiacus from Africa together with sinornithosaurus and other Asian species, for example)—though this is by design, as is the contemporaneous appearance of species typically assigned to different geologic periods.
Because only scant evidence for deinocheirus has been found, my representation of the creature's skeleton and anatomy is purely speculative and fictitious. I would also note that deinocheirus is very likely classified correctly based upon the scant parts that have been found, and I took great liberties when filling in the gaps. *UPDATE: Two partial skeletons which together represent an almost complete representation have since been described in scientific literature. Deinocheirus has been assigned to its own family (Deinocheiridia) and, based upon tooth marks on some ribs, was preyed upon by tarbosaurus—thus the representation in this book is highly fanciful.
Doctor Ming-Zhen espouses the idea that the ice age or ice ages are exaggerated or otherwise never occurred. While I do believe there is evidence which suggests this, I do not believe the evidence is by any means conclusive, as is true about anything that happened in the past for which we have no witness. Moreover, the evidence of ice ages (especially in the form of terminal morraines) is very convincing.
The subject of Hell Creek primates is briefly touched upon in a conversation between Doctor Ming-Zhen and his superior Mr. Zhang. In order to dispel the notion that paleontologists believe chimpanzee-like apes were swinging among the treetops in the Cretaceous, I provide the following information:
The species Doctor Ming-Zhen is referring to is Purgatorius, known from teeth, jaws, and tarsals (ankle bones) dating to sixty-five million years ago or earlier (according to the strata in which they are found). Based upon these scant remains, they are known to be quite small, about six inches in length. A study from Yale on the tarsals definitively placed Purgatorius in the company of tree-dwelling primates by demonstrating a large range of motion typified by arboreal locomotion, though this did not invalidate their classification as Plesiadapiforms (based upon their dentition). They are referred to in literature as early primates (chiefly I believe because this designation is more relatable to the general populace and grabs more headlines), or more recently as proto-primates). The Plesiadapiform order, the first chronologically of four that are found in the Euarchontan grandorder, is substantiated by many fossilized specimens (most dated to the Paleocene and younger). A comprehensive cladistic study by Pennsylvania State University on Plesiadapiform fossils including cranial, postcranial, and dental remains concluded that, assuming Plesiadapiforms predate primates, they represent the branch of the phylogenetic tree leading to primates rather than leading to Dermoptera (flying lemurs) or Scandentia (tree shrews), the other two extant Euarchontans. In other words, assuming they were contemporary with today’s primates and they had to be classified as one of the three modern Euarchontans, they would necessarily be grouped with primates by virtue of their morphology.
Spinosaurids, as featured in this novel, sport a dorsal sail, though not all actually did. This sail based upon the existence of the infamous neural spines from Spinosaurus aegyptiacus and baryonyx. The most interesting use for such a sail that I have seen proposed is for cooperative fishing, similar to the way sailfish use their sails to trap their prey. It has also been proposed that the sail played a role in thermal regulation. My spinosaurids are engaged in cooperative fishing.[39] That being said, I believe that, given the fact that spinosaurus apparently had a highly aquatic lifestyle, the neural spines could have been support for a fatty hump rather than a sail. I base this thought on their dramatic similarity to the spines of the North American bison (a similarity w
hich has been observed by others before me, notably J.B. Bailey).[40] There is one piece of evidence against the fatty hump theory and that is that one spine sample appears to have been broken, possibly by a carcharodontosaur (a tyrannosaur-like predator), and this would have been very difficult if not impossible for such a predator to do if the spines were covered in fat.
I do not believe that Graciliceratops mongoliensis had feathers on its frill—there is certainly no paleontological evidence to support such a notion as of yet (not even in any of its ceratopsian relatives). Nor do I believe that it necessarily had a dorsal sail on its tail, though this possibility is more likely than the former based upon the evidence for this feature on Psittacosaurus mongoliensis, a relative. I base Graciliceratops mongoliensis’s pebbled skin texture upon the skin impressions that have been found from chasmosaurus, another relative.
The evidence for venomous Sinornithosaurus is as follows: several grooved teeth which appear to be especially long and fang-like and possible cavities within the skull which could have been used for venom secretion. In contradiction to this theory is the fact that grooved teeth were common among theropods, and the extra length of the teeth has been alleged to be due to dislocation from the jaw. Additionally, the existence of the skull cavities is debated. The attack on Jia Ling’s eyes is motivated by the fact that raptors (birds of prey, even modern ones) are known to attack the eyes of their victims, including primates.[41]
Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum, like most sauropods and many large theropods, had cervical ribs (the longest cervical ribs ever discovered were found in Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum, in fact). These long extensions from the vertebrae have been supposed to be various things at various times (ribs, for example, or supporting some respiratory apparatus in the neck), but more recent studies propose that they are ossified tendons and that they were attached to musculature on the underside of the neck. I think this is a strong possibility, however suggestions as to how such tendons would have been used have been scarce, since muscles positioned in such a way would necessarily pull the neck downwards rather than help to elevate it. In giraffes, for example, the nuchal ligament is on the top, from the shoulders to the base of the skull. In sauropods, such ligaments were believed to have been anchored at the hips on the dorsal side of the animal, obfuscating the necessity for any underneath the neck. In this book, I have taken artistic license to propose a protective use for cervical ribs, as spiny quills. In reality, I suppose this to be high unlikely. Because they are found in both sauropods and theropods, I propose that their most likely use was in supporting muscles useful in swallowing: both these animals would have swallowed enormous amounts of food whole without the ability to chew (as evidenced by their dentition). Another possible use, if the ossified tendon hypothesis is incorrect, would be truly as ribs for protection of the neck: a vulnerable place for theropods and especially sauropods. On a separate note, whether mamenchisaurids necks were elevated more akin to brachiosaurs, or whether they held them horizontally is still debated, however there is evidence based upon the positioning of the auditory cavities that their heads generally tilted downwards, whatever posture the neck took.
Dimorphodons are considered to be poor flyers according to the latest research. However, recent research has concluded that virtually all of the extinct flying animals were poor flyers, specializing in gliding, soaring, or flittering desperately to stay aloft as they leap from tree to tree. I find these assumptions to be somewhat arrogant and suspect that the fact such animals would be poor flyers in today’s world has little to do with what they could do in the prehistoric world. The long necks, gigantism, and the many species clearly equipped for flight but which could not fly in today’s world point to dramatically different conditions in the prehistoric one. Decreased gravity is the fictional condition I employ, though I would like to stress there is no scientific evidence for this and I have ruled out several possible causes for such a condition (increased axis spin and a closer moon to name two of them). It is thus that I present dimorphodon as a skilled flyer, contrary to current assumption.
I added feathers to my fictional deinocheirus (especially fictional since complete specimens were discovered after I first wrote about it) based upon the feathers found on the Yutyrannus huali in China in 2012.[42]
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR
In the novel Origin of Paradise, Wesley and his wife speak with a doctor who offers to make them a “designer baby.” Is this in our future?
The novel takes place in the future, so of course this is a fictitious scenario. Science is a ways away from the kinds of things this doctor offers the characters Wesley and Sienna. Right now we still have a very limited understanding of gene expression (matching genes to their functions), and in fact in the second part of Paradeisia, I take the readers to a lab where I show you how gene expression is actually identified. But currently, aside from ethical or legal concerns, there are two things that I think make designer babies an impossibility for the time being. One is epigenetics. Science used to believe that your DNA was what it was: meaning what you were born with is what you died with. But now we know that this isn’t true. Epigenetics is the concept that your behaviors, your environment, and the things that happen to you throughout your life can actually act on your genes, and you can then pass those traits onto future generations. For example, it has been found that children who suffered from relentless bullying when they were young produce less cortisol when they are older. Cortisol is a hormone that helps you deal with stress, but if it is very high for long periods, it can actually cause damage to your body. So the children switch off the gene which acts to produce the cortisol in order to prevent the immediate damage, but the gene is never switched back on after the bullying has ceased. And, amazingly, it appears that this trait can be passed on to the next generation, perhaps even generations. You can see epigenetics very dramatically in action when you look at two identical, or monozygotic, twins. Monozygotic twins might have been born with the same DNA, but no two twins are exactly alike. They don’t have the same personalities, they don’t act the same, and often they don’t even look the same—especially as they get older. So what is to say that if we create a designer baby he will actually turn out the way we expected him to? His choices throughout life and what he is exposed to will have a very large impact on who he becomes ultimately, regardless of what we do genetically before he is born.
Now the second thing that makes designer babies impossible for the time being is that the more we discover about DNA, the more we realize how little we actually understand. For example, you might have heard that only 2% of our DNA is actually used, that the other 98% is noncoding, or “junk” DNA. Well, scientists are beginning to realize that perhaps the system is more complicated than was ever imagined and that all this “junk” is in fact important. It is now believed that these noncoding regions act on the coding regions to turn some genes on or off. It has also been found that mutations exist in a noncoding region within certain tumors. So, while we don’t understand how or why noncoding DNA is important, there is certainly evidence that it is very much so, and until we understand this fully it is hard for me to imagine manipulating DNA to create people of our specificity who are then going to propagate and therefore permanently spread any changes we make into the human race.
That being said, science is already making designer animals, of sorts, and successfully so. Glofish, for example, are I think zebra fish that have been changed genetically in order to give them a florescent glow using genes from a jellyfish that has this ability. They are very popular with children. Now the company that makes the fish inserted the genes into androgenic cells so that the trait would be passed on to future generations. This company patented these fish, so they are the only ones who can make them (without a license). If these fish were to be released into the wild, they could potentially spread these genes to the natural population. I would be surprised, in fact, if this has not already occurred.
In the United K
ingdom, the government has endorsed the use of mitochondrial transfer to produce in vitro babies with genes from three parents. The purpose would be to eliminate certain dangerous genetic mitochondrial disease, but the effect would be designer babies, of a sort. This has created quite a stir among the doctor community there.
What are your thoughts on gene therapy?
I’ll save my thoughts on that for the third book where it is dealt with more fully.
Can you talk about some of the discussion with regard to evolution and paleontology that takes place in Origin of Paradise? Are you concerned that it will be seen as controversial, or maybe even discounted as ignorance?
Well, without saying too much, one of the characters, the paleontologist, makes a discovery that causes him to reevaluate everything he knows about evolutionary biology, which is his area of expertise. For the purpose of narrative, I include the dramatic discovery that Doctor Ming-Zhen makes. Such a discovery has never been made, and, I believe, never will be made. I use this discovery, however, to present some ideas which contradict Darwin’s theory of speciation through evolution. I do this with respect for the many scientists who have, over a century, built the case for Darwin’s theory, and have been very surprised by how offensive many readers have found these novels to be. I hope to provoke thought and discussion, but I do not intend to upset anyone or specifically impugn any scientist’s work. My wish is that readers take this for what it is intended to be: a spot of fun.
One point made in Origin is that primates were living in the cretaceous. What is the evidence for this?