The Science of Jurassic Park

Is the scenario of recreating dinosaurs from DNA which was the premise of Jurassic Park really plausible? In The Science of Jurassic Park and Lost World, authors Rob Desalle and David Lindley carefully assess the plausibility of Crichton's premises. I don't know the details of the science well enough to assess their assessment. But, my reaction to it was that it was reasonably fair. It was a good read and I would recommend. However, it misses the point.

First of all, in science fiction all you need is plausibility not actuality. The space travel science fiction of the 1950's and 1960's assumed space ships that did not exist at the time and still don't exist. However, the existence of such vehicles at some point in the future is plausible. Time travel science fiction assumes a capability to travel in time which may never be possible based on our current understanding. And yet we allow that as well.

Desalle and Lindley spend 240 pages to argue that the scenario of bringing back dinosaurs from DNA is not currently possible. It seems to me that if it takes 240 pages to argue that a single point is not possible, then it is still more plausible than space travel or time travel. Further, it is not possible given our current technology. There is no reason to assume that a breakthrough won't be made in the next 50 years that makes it possible. Compare this with time travel. All of our current understanding of time/space suggests that this will never be possible. And in the case of recreating dinosaurs from DNA the best we can say is that the technology is not there yet.

Why is Crichton being held to such a higher standard? I won't question the motives of Desalle and Lindley as their treatment seems to be reasonable fair. That is they do not reveal any obvious bias. But, in general, Crichton is a lightning rod for criticism. He takes an unflinching stand raising uncomfortable issues. And while it is difficult to counter his narrative arguments, it is much easier to attack his scientific argument. And that, as I said, misses the point.

We will see this again in his later book State of Fear which questions the Global Warming movement. But before I wade into those turbulent waters, I thought I should lay a little groundwork.