QuestionsWeb LinksClass OutlineClass notes
Question for Discussion: What are the major goals of
the Company that designed and built Jurassic Park?

Readings: Jurassic Park, pp. ix-80;
Cummings, "Trespass" ;Naftali, Department
of Homeland Screw-up; Shane, After Failures ;
Carman, "U.S. leaders flunking Disasters 101"

Video: Jurassic Park: Welcome to Jurassic Park,
& How they Created the Dinosaurs as GMOs ;
Global Food and AIDS: GMOS in our Food


Go to Top of Page

The Dinosaurs and GMOs

What is a GMO?


The Globla Debate over GMOs

Regulating GMOs


Go to Top of Page

Jurassic Park as Environmentalist Allegory


Go to Top of Page


Go to Top of Page

E.O. Wilson's larger conclusion:

Environmentalists argue that the Earth and the global environment is "too complex to understand, let alone replace, in the foreseeable future." The increasing human efforts to remake the Earth and control the global environment for human use, environmentalists argue, is causing such rapid, complex, and global changes in the environment that we cannot predict whether the Earth will be able to continue to support our global civilization, or even support the continued survival of the human race.

Wilson argues that we "are smart enough and have time enough to avoid an environmental catastrophe of civilization-threatening dimensions." But if we are to save the environment, Wilson argues, we must recognize that "we have only a poor grasp of the ecosystem services by which other organisms cleanse the water, turn soil into a fertile living cover, and manufacture the very air we breathe." Challenging the exemptionalists, Wilson argues that the "world is too complicated to be turned into a garden....[And] to believe otherwise is to risk reducing a large part of the Earth to a wasteland."

Naftali, Homeland Security

"Building the capability? How is it possible that with the fourth anniversary of 9/11 almost upon us, the federal government doesn't have in hand the capability to prepare for and then manage a large urban disaster, natural or man-made? In terms of the challenge to government, there is little difference between a terrorist attack that wounds many people and renders a significant portion of a city uninhabitable, and the fallout this week from the failure of one of New Orleans' major levees. Indeed, a terrorist could have chosen a levee for his target. Or a dirty-bomb attack in New Orleans could have caused the same sort of forced evacuation we are seeing and the widespread sickness that is likely to follow."

"And in the event of a WMD attack, when there would likely be no warning at all, what is DHS's contingency plan for moving into position the army or the marines to restore order and sustain life? In the wake of Katrina and the breached levee, the answer seems to be not much of one. In the wake of 9/11, that is worse than incomprehensible. It is unforgivable."

Shane, After Failures

"While rescuers were still trying to reach people stranded by the floods, perhaps the only consensus among local, state and federal officials was that the system had failed.

Some federal officials said uncertainty over who was in charge had contributed to delays in providing aid and imposing order, and officials in Louisiana complained that Washington disaster officials had blocked some aid efforts."

"But furious state and local officials insisted that the real problem was that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which Mr. Chertoff's department oversees, failed to deliver urgently needed help and, through incomprehensible red tape, even thwarted others' efforts to help.

"We wanted soldiers, helicopters, food and water," said Denise Bottcher, press secretary for Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana. "They wanted to negotiate an organizational chart."

"Far from deferring to state or local officials, FEMA asserted its authority and made things worse, Mr. Broussard complained on "Meet the Press."

When WalMart sent three trailer trucks loaded with water, FEMA officials turned them away, he said. Agency workers prevented the Coast Guard from delivering 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel, and on Saturday they cut the parish's emergency communications line, leading the sheriff to restore it and post armed guards to protect it from FEMA, Mr. Broussard said. "

Cummings, Trespass

World Scientists Statement on the Release of GMOs

"Science has transgressed a barrier that should have remained inviolate...You cannot recall a new life form...
It will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosophere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it." Chargoff, E. 1978. "

"Once all these genes are inserted, where they end up and what they may do are unknown. The only precise part of this technique is the identification and extraction of the trait DNA from the donor organism. After that, it's a biological free-for-all. In genetic engineering, failure is the rule. The way you get GMO crops to look and act like normal crops is to do thousands and thousands of insertions, grow the ones that survive out, and then see what you get. What you finally select for further testing and release are those "happy accidents" that appear to work."

"The public controversy over GMOs has focused largely on the products, on how they are marketed, and on what is planted where. But it now appears that the process used to make them, and the novel genetic constructs used in the process, may constitute greater threats to human and environmental health than the products themselves."

"There are also increasing reports of a phenomenon previously thought to be rare, "horizontal gene transfer," which happens when genes travel not just "vertically" through the normal processes of digestion and reproduction, but laterally, between organs in the body or between organisms— sort of like Casper the Ghost floating through a wall. Geneticist Mae-Wan Ho, who has been documenting this phenomenon, says it's happening because the new technology "breaks all the rules of evolution; it short-circuits evolution altogether. It bypasses reproduction, creates new genes and gene combinations that have never existed, and is not restricted by the usual barriers between species."

"Even before GMOs were released in the mid-1990s, they were thought by some scientists to be promiscuous. Now that GMO contamination is running rampant, it's hard to believe that the biotech industry wasn't aware of that risk. The industry would have had to ignore early warnings such as a study done at the University of Chicago which found one transgenic plant that was 20 times more likely to interbreed with related plants than its natural variety. But now, because herbicide-tolerant genes are getting into all sorts of plants, farmers have to contend with "super-weeds" that cannot be controlled with common chemicals, and American agriculture is riddled with fragments of transgenic material. "

"Consumers are eating GMOs, whether they know it or not, and even GMOs not approved for human consumption have shown up in our taco shells. New "biopharmaceutical" crops used to grow drugs have leaked into the human food supply. And across the nation, hundreds of open field plots are growing transgenic corn, rice, and soy-beans that contain drugs, human genes, animal vaccines, and industrial chemicals, without sufficient safeguards to protect nearby food crops ."

"It's not only food and farming that are affected. Part of what makes GMOs such an environmental threat is that, unlike chemical contamination, GMOs are living organisms, capable of reproducing and recombining, and once they get out, they can't be recalled. Now that there are genetically engineered fish, trees, insects, and other organisms, there's no limit to the kind of environmental surprises that can occur."

"Beyond their not having to label and segregate GMOs, biotech companies can manufacture, sell, and distribute them without having to take expensive precautions against contamination. They do not have to monitor field practices or do any post-market studies. When farms or factories are contaminated with GMOs, the industry is not held responsible for clean-up costs, as would be the case with chemical contamination."

"By assiduously avoiding any responsibility for the proliferation of GMOs, and by defeating attempts by the public to contain them, the agricultural biotechnology industry has thus virtually ensured that GMO contamination will continue unabated. A biotech industry consultant with Promar International, Don Westfall, put it this way: "the hope of industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender."

"What we do not have, given the perilous environmental state of the planet, is a lot of time left to sort this out. And as long as the critics are silenced, we can be lulled by the "certain promises" of genetic engineering, that it will provide magic answers to those age old problems of hunger and disease, and in doing so, be diverted from attending to its "uncertain perils."

"At the end of my inquiry I came to the conclusion that genetic engineering, at least as it is being used in agriculture is, by design, inherently invasive and unstable. It has been imposed on the American public in a way that has left us with no choice and no way to opt out, biologically or socially. Thus, the reality is that the evolutionary legacy of our lives, whether as human beings, bees, fish, or trees, has been disrupted. We are in danger of being severed from our own ancestral lines and diverted into another world altogether, the physical and social dimensions of which are still unknown and yet to be described."

What is a GMO?

"A genetically modified organism is a plant, animal or microorganism whose genetic code has been altered, subtracted, or added (either from the same species or a different species) in order to give it characteristics that it does not have naturally.

Scientists can now transfer genes between species that otherwise would be incapable of mating, for example, a goat and a spider. This is what we call transgenesis. Little is known about the long-term effects of such manipulations on both humans and the environment. And while some see GMOs as the way to the future, others believe that scientists have gone too far, tinkering with the essence of life. "

"The advantages, achieved through improved crop protection, include insect and virus resistance, and herbicide tolerance. Public health might be improved through a greater supply of hardier strains or through products that have been enriched with vitamins and minerals, such as "golden rice", to which vitamin A has been added.

Disadvantages, though, are that GM crops may threaten biodiversity, decrease the richness and variety of foods, and make farmers dependent on chemical and biotech companies, through the use of sterile seed or chemical products that would have to be purchased yearly. Health concerns include: allergenicity; gene transfer, especially of antibiotic-resistant genes, from GM foods to cells or bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract; and "outcrossing", or the movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops, posing indirect threats to food safety and security."
.........How Safe is GM Food?

For a list of Benefits and Risks of GMOs see this website:

The Debate over Genetically Modified Foods

"The surprising virulence of a virus genetically altered to reduce rodent infestations in Australia has raised alarm over whether such research could be hijacked to produce biological weapons. In an unusual twist, those sounding the alarm are not environmental activists but the scientists themselves. Despite their warning, released with the research results this month in an electronic version of the Journal of Virology , it's not clear whether the unexpected result, which turned a vector into a potent killer, could be duplicated in viruses that affect humans. But scientists say it should serve as a warning to the community to be more aware of the potentially harmful consequences of their work."

Engineered Mouse Virus Spurs BioWeapons Fears:

"The goal of the research was certainly benign. The scientists were attempting to sterilize rodents by using a virus to trigger an antibody attack against mouse egg proteins. But when the researchers attempted to beef up this virus by incorporating the immune system hormone interleukin-4 (IL-4) into its genetic payload, the virus turned into a killer, wiping out all the animals. Even vaccination offered little protection."

Chaos Theory: Small changes in complex systems can lead to large, unpredictable results.
Chaotic systems are unstable since they tend not to resist any outside disturbances but instead react in significant ways..... Small changes in initial conditions can be amplified to create large, unpredictable changes in complex systems. Thus, complex dynamic systems, such as the weather, are inherently unpredictable. Thus, Chaos theory is qualitative in that it seeks to know the general character of a system's long-term behavior, rather than seeking numerical predictions about a future state. What characteristics will all solutions of a system exhibit? How does this system change from exhibiting one behavior to another?

"Now that science is looking, chaos seems to be everywhere. A rising column of cigarette smoke breaks into wild swirls. A flag snaps back and forth in the wind. A dripping faucet goes from a steady pattern to a random one. Chaos appears in the behavior of the weather, the behavior of an airplane in flight, the behavior of cars clustering on an expressway, the behavior of oil flowing in underground pipes. No matter what the medium, the behavior obeys the same newly discovered laws. That realization has begun to change the way business executives make decisions about insurance, the way astronomers look at the solar system, the way political theorists talk about the stresses leading to armed conflict."
James Gleick on Chaos Theory
The Butterfly effect

"A very popular saying that is related to chaos theory is "a butterly that flaps its wings can cause a hurricane on the other side of the world". The saying is often used in many slightly different ways, but the meaning is the same: a very small change in a complex system can have huge consequences. Although this saying sounds exagerated. It is literally true. The weather is "sensitively dependant on initial conditions".

The butterfly effect , used to describe many chaotic phenomena, was first described as such in reference to weather: that the beating of a butterfly's wings in Brazil might set off a tornado in Texas months later 1 . Chaos theory posits that complex systems such as the weather, or the stock market, are difficult to predict due to their sensitivity to small changes. The cumulative effect of these small changes, and their timing, makes it very difficult or impossible to predict future conditions with a high degree of certainty. 1 Edward Lorenz , in a paper in 1963 given to the New York Academy of Sciences , said: "One meteorologist remarked that if the theory were correct, one flap of a seagull's wings would be enough to alter the course of the weather forever." Later speeches and papers by Lorenz used the more poetic butterfly.

The expression butterfly effect itself seems to be based on the sci-fi short story "A Sound of Thunder" , written by Ray Bradbury in 1952. In the history, a time traveller accidentally steps on a butterfly, changing his entire future.

Instability in Chaotic Systems
"But until the time of Poincaré, the assumption was that if you could shrink the uncertainty in the initial conditions then any imprecision in the prediction would shrink in the same way. In reality, a tiny imprecision in the initial conditions will grow at an enormous rate. Two nearly indistinguishable sets of initial conditions for the same system will result in two final situations that differ greatly from each other. This extreme sensitivity to initial conditions is called chaos. Equilibrium is very rare, and the more complex a system is, there are more disturbances that can threaten stability, but conditions must be right to have an upheaval."

The Science of Complexity

The Precautionary Principle:

" While we realize that human activities may involve hazards, people must proceed more carefully than has been the case in recent history. Corporations, government entities, organizations, communities, scientists and other individuals must adopt a precautionary approach to all human endeavors.

"Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Precautionary Principle: When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof."

The principle of precautionary action has
4 parts:

  1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm. (As one participant at the Wingspread meeting summarized the essence of the precautionary principle, "If you have a reasonable suspicion that something bad might be going to happen, you have an obligation to try to stop it.")

  2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies with the proponents, not with the general public.

  3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine "a full range of alternatives" including the alternative of doing nothing.

  4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must include affected parties."

    See this website for the application of the Precautionary Principle to GMOs, Climate Change, and BGH.

Crichton, Jurassic Park, pp. ix-80

Jurassic Park is an allegory, it is a story about what can go wrong if science and technology are used carelessly, without the proper humility for the limits of our knowledge, and used for short-term profits at the expense of long-term costs. The breakdown of the park, the death of many of the park staff, and the suffering caused by the dinosaurs provides a warning for those who believe that with just a little more science, a little more technology, and a little more trial and error we will be able to control the global environment. Throughout Jurassic Park, Crichton warns that there are real limits to science, to human knowledge, to human control over nature, and the human ability to predict the impact of its science and technology on the Earth.

There are three major questions that we must ask before we develop and use science and technology to control nature:

1) What are the limits of our understanding of the
environment and complex systems?

2) What are the limits of our science and technology
to control nature and the environment?

3) What are the limits of our ability to predict the impact
of our science and technology and our use of the
environment?

Environmentalists argue that because we usually can't answer these three questions very well we must limit our larger impact on the environment. We should be cautious before making major modifications or changes in the environment.

In Jurassic Park, Hammond represents the attitude of many corporations, governments, and engineers, and even many scientists. He believes with a little more testing, a little more control, a little more effort we will be able to control and shape the environment for human purposes. Hammond suspects environmentalists and scientists such as Malcolm who warn that there are real limits to human control and use of the environment. He doesn't accept their arguments that if we exceed these limits we threaten our health and safety and our collective futures.

Let's look at the larger goals of Ingen, the company that designed the dinosaur park. These goals assume that we can alter and control nature at will without any real major dangers or problems.

The larger goals of Jurassic Park:

1) To create dinosaurs and keep them in a controlled park, just like a zoo.

2) To make "lots of money" by bringing visitors to this
dinosaur park.

3) To limit personnel costs by running the park with complex, centralized.....computers.

4)To prevent other corporations and governments from learning about the ....creation of the dinosaur park.

5) To patent the dinosaurs so that they alone can earn
money from exhibiting .....their dinosaurs.

6)To create sufficient security to prevent the dinosaurs in
the park from threatening the visitors.

7)To make the dinosaur park just like a zoo, in which the animals are docile and under the complete control of the
park wardens.

8) To create real, authentic dinosaurs, just the sorts of animals that the paying public would expect.

All of these basic goals of Ingen assume that the company has knowledge about the nature of dinosaurs, about the environment they live in, about how dinosaurs will adapt and adjust to human beings, and about the technology and systems needed to support and control them. But what are the larger costs if Ingen doesn't have this knowledge?

The larger concern that scientists and environmentalists have about the uncontrolled development of science and technology and the exploitation of nature is that we don't fully understand what are the risks involved. Jurassic Park, like many other corporate and government projects, starts out assuming the risks are minimal and they have the science, technology, and understanding needed to control the environment. But these naive assumptions about the ability of humans to understand, control, and predict their impact on the Earth often cause serious problems, even catastrophes.



| Home Page  | Readings | Web Resources | Ecology links  |Top of Page |

Number of Visitors to this site:  10537       by Chris H. Lewis, Ph.D.

© 1997 by Chris H.  Lewis, Ph.D.
Sewall Academic Program; University of Colorado at Boulder
Created 20 Jan. 1997:  Last Modified: 18 September, 2009
E-mail: cclewis@spot.colorado.edu
URL:    http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/ecology/ingen.htm

America, the Environment, and the Global Economy