by
Constance M. Soja, Department of Geology, Colgate University
Deborah Huerta, Science Library, Colgate University
Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, as a novel and then a blockbuster movie, reawakened the public’s fascination with dinosaurs. Although dinosaurs have always been popular, Spielberg’s sophisticated cinema computer graphics thrilled human imagination with a wistful longing to see these great life forms.
What if we could actually bring them back to life?
Technological advances in molecular biology technology in the future might allow us to extract ancient DNA from fossilized dinosaur remains. Could we amplify it, replicate it, and implant it in a host such as an ostrich egg? This tantalizing fantasy has become increasingly closer to reality with recent successful efforts to clone mammals. How close are we to creating Jurassic Park?
This case allows students to work cooperatively and explore the scientific, technical, environmental, and ethical issues related to raising “T-rex and Company” from the dead.
This case was used in a geology course entitled “Evolution: Dinosaurs to Darwin,” which is open to all undergraduate students. This predominantly lecture class met twice weekly in 1 hour and 20 minute sessions. Sixty-four students were enrolled. The case could also be used in a introductory biology class, certainly in a paleontology class, and probably in any class that has creative thinking or reasoning as an objective.
To fully explore the many issues embedded in the case, two teams were designated that allowed students, representing six types of specialists, to present arguments either for or against dinosaur cloning. Team composition was determined by each student selecting a specialist’s role out of a hat (paleontologist against cloning, ecologist in favor of cloning, etc.) To accommodate the large class enrollment, students with the same specialty worked in groups of five.
In addition, three students were chosen as judges. The judges were responsible for making the final decision about whether to allow dinosaur cloning after hearing from the specialists. The judges also picked their roles out of a hat. However, they had the option of selecting another role if they were uncomfortable with taking on the additional responsibilities as a judge. The judges had to be cognizant of both sides of the cloning dispute and were expected to ask questions during the final trial so they could decide which overall argument was the most compelling and whether to allow dinosaur cloning to proceed.
Once the composition of each team was finalized, a master list of the specialist assignments was created and posted on the Colgate case web site the week before the case officially began so all students knew who was assigned to which role and who was on a particular team. A photocopy of Part I of the case was also distributed in class so students could read the prologue and instructions for the case as well as information on how they would be graded. We had experienced inordinate network trouble and wanted to be sure the students had access to the text of the case whether or not the campus network was available.
On the first day of the case study, the students gathered in the class lecture hall and were given some brief instructions. Each specialist group was assigned to a computer lab on campus that had terminals reserved for them. The students were instructed to meet with their groups and very carefully go through both parts of the case. They were given one hour to decide what the issues were for their particular specialty, how they might share responsibilities for the assignments, and when they would meet to work together as a group. This part of the exercise is detailed in Part II of the case. Most of the material they needed was either on the case web site or on reserve in the science library. They could, of course, do additional research in the library and some chose to do so. Ten minutes before the class ended, the students returned to the lecture hall for an opportunity to ask questions. After that, they had two weeks to prepare for the debate on whether or not to clone dinosaurs.
During the following class, the students met in the classroom again to see the Nova video entitled The Real Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton, Bob Bakker, and John Horner are among the personalities and scientists in the video, which illuminates precisely the questions the students should be identifying. Before the video, the students were given another handout of “Discussion Questions” (listed in Part II of the case study) with spaces for taking notes as they watched the video. After the video, the specialists got together in their groups for 20 minutes of discussion.
During the week between the two classes devoted to the case and the actual “trial,” class met as usual, although some class time was used to clarify questions about the case. On the day of the trial, the lecture hall was set up with a table for the three judges and five chairs for the specialists who were presenting their evidence. The judges could choose how they wanted the testimony presented. For example, they could have all the specialist groups in favor of cloning present their arguments followed by the teams against cloning, or they could have the pro side of one specialist group such as veterinarians present followed immediately by veterinarians against cloning (that is what they chose to do). Each specialist group had 5 minutes for its presentation (1 minute for each student). That allowed one-half hour for each team to complete its argument. The judges were equipped with a gavel and timer. They were encouraged to ask questions of the specialists. We also had multimedia equipment available for presentations. Each student received “dino” candy after testifying. We took photos, but did not tape the trial. Before the end of class, each student handed in a two-page paper detailing his or her individual trial testimony for part of the grade assessment.
In the few minutes remaining after the trial, ballots were passed out to all the students. The ballot allowed students to vote on the question “outside” their specialty role. It looked like this:
B A L L O T
Now that you have heard all of the depositions, please help the Esteemed Judges of the Fullam High Tribunal make their final Decision.
Should dinosaurs be “cloned” from ancient DNA?
YES______ NO______
Please state one reason why you are in favor of OR against dinosaur cloning:
The judges collected and tallied the ballot votes and in the next class reported that the students had voted against cloning dinosaurs (1/3 yes: 2/3 no). The judges, after reviewing the evidence, concurred with the class vote and each gave a one-minute presentation to explain his/her reasoning.
Many of the key issues are actually embedded in the case itself. We used discussion questions to frame some of these ideas and promote analysis. To facilitate student thinking, we based the discussion questions on the narrative from the Nova program, The Real Jurassic Park. Suggested answers are included in the Answer Key.
Answers to the questions posed in the case study are provided in a separate answer key to the case. Those answers are password-protected. To access the answers for this case, go to the key. You will be prompted for a username and password. If you have not yet registered with us, you can see whether you are eligible for an account by reviewing our password policy and then apply online or write to answerkey@sciencecases.org.
As a way to help us assess if we had achieved our objectives, the students were given the opportunity to evaluate the case for extra credit. The extra-credit “opportunity” was as follows:
EVALUATION & CRITIQUE OF THE CLONING EXERCISE
Type a one-page critique of the cloning exercise (in the blanks below or on a separate sheet of paper). Give your evaluation in response to the following questions:
Deadline:_______________________________
Of the 59 students who participated in the case, 39 wrote evaluations. All were enthusiastic about the experience, what they learned, and the collaborative approach.
Here are selections from student extra-credit evaluations of the case study.
“The exercise on dinosaur cloning was interesting and fun to take part in. It took a step away from the classroom and the usual school assignments. The ability to set up a possible future court case, and have it apply to what you are learning in the classroom, helps you see how learning extends beyond just the textbooks and tests. Having to focus on one viewpoint, and coming from a specific background is helpful also, because you are better able to go into detail, and not be overwhelmed by too many issues that lay before you. I learned more about the overall subject of cloning, and not just about the cloning of dinosaurs…”
“…Collaborative learning allows each person in the group to research a certain aspect and then come back and share with the group. This allowed the group as a whole to learn more because specific topics were researched more precisely than they would be if one person had to give an overview. Whether or not the groups believed in what they were saying, the trial part was very interesting because you saw different points of view that you wouldn’t normally have thought about.”
“This trial class period was very entertaining because we learned things that normally would not have been touched on in class. For example, through one group’s research we learned the calculations of how much one dinosaur would eat and drink in a day. The numbers were shocking….”
“…I did learn some interesting things about cloning laws in America, and I also read some fascinating material about bioethics, and ethics in general. The Wolpert article was very interesting to me; I wish you would include more readings about philosophical/ethical issues in science. I think students generally find these types of articles interesting and almost everybody seems to have some sort of opinion.”
“…I liked how it was set up so that each group member was responsible for doing his or her share of the work. Too often, group projects are graded entirely on the basis of one group grade, and only one or two group members actually do the work.”
“…Also, the role assignments were given on a completely random basis, which I felt was very fair. I ended up with a role completely opposed to my personal beliefs, but I enjoyed working on this project through the eyes of someone on the other side. It was definitely a fun challenge to defend my assigned role.”
“…I found
the most challenging part to trust others that you didn’t know to be equally as
interested and prepared. Group projects are always hard. Adding to the equation
that the groups were chosen at random and not personally picked added the element
of working with strangers. Their working style and dedication to excellence was
unknown at the start of the project. I was relieved, and slightly surprised to
learn that my group had the same work values that I did. I’m glad that we were
all ready to take the extra step and complete a presentation that included a visual
aspect. Overall I found the project to be extremely worthwhile as well as innovative,
creative and exciting.”
[NOTE: This group used Powerpoint to
present their argument.]
“I especially enjoyed the problem-solving tactics
employed by 3 of us in my group, once we had become disenchanted with the scientific
strength of our specialty’s argument. Pondering the question I was able to really
work through some rather interesting (if unlikely) justifications.”
[NOTE: This group’s specialty was ecologists in favor of cloning. They found the position
indefensible, however they worked very hard on the project and managed to present
a credible and creative argument.]
“…It taught the class the scientific aspects of creating a real-life Jurassic Park, while also forcing us to examine the ethical dilemma that is so intimately woven into the debate over the cloning of dinosaurs. The exercise familiarized us with the specifics of the current cloning situation and the work being done by world-renowned geneticists. In addition, we were forced to ponder the potential consequences of cloning dinosaurs. While the debate demonstrated that there could be many potentially beneficial aspects resulting from the cloning of dinosaurs, it was also clear that a number of serious health, safety, and general pragmatic issues need to be addressed before dinosaurs can be cloned.”
“This exercise was worthwhile because it enabled us to see all sides to a controversial debate, exposing us to different viewpoints. This way we were able to finally come to an unbiased conclusion, which would be one that is an educated decision rather than simply a personal opinion. I also learned how to work within a group a little better. We each had to divide up to make important points, even if we disagreed with our standpoint we had to find reasons to support it. This is important in life because one needs to be able to do things that they are not always in support of. Furthermore, I learned not only about dinosaur cloning in general, but also about the roles and different occupations which can play an important part in decision making.”
Most of the students’ comments were along the same lines as those excerpted. They did mention the desirability of additional time for the trial. Some felt the Nova video needed to be updated. One suggested that an evolution expert be on the teams (great suggestion!). Another suggested that the class see the video first and then go to the library (or computer labs) because they did not really know what they were looking for initially. Someone else suggested a class discussion before beginning the research. They thought two weeks was the right amount of time to prepare for the trial and they noted that having the key articles on reserve really helped (time-wise).
Acknowledgements: This case was developed with support from the National Science Foundation (NSF Award #9752799). The format for this case study and some of the ideas used for the “specialists” were derived in part from “Alien Evolution”, a case study by Shoshana Tobias, SUNY Buffalo.
Last revised: 09/11/05 nas
Originally published at http://www.sciencecases.org/dinodna/dinodna_notes.asp
Copyright © 1999–2005 by the National Center for Case Study Teaching in Science. Please see our usage guidelines, which outline our policy concerning permissible reproduction of this work.