NOTES

INTRODUCTION

1. Sergio Bertazzo et al., “Fibres and Cellular Structures Preserved in 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Specimens,” Nature Communications 6 (June 9, 2015): 7352.

2. Steve Connor, “Scientists Discover Red Blood Cells and Protein from 75-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Fossils,” The Independent (London), June 9, 2015, www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-discover-red-blood-and-protein-75-million-year-old-dinosaur-fossils-a32766.html.

3. Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature 363, no. 6429 (1993): 536–38.

4. Malcolm W. Browne, “DNA from the Age of Dinosaurs Is Found,” New York Times, June 10, 1993, www.nytimes.com/1993/06/10/us/dna-from-the-age-of-dinosaurs-is-found.html.

5. Tom van der Valk et al., “Million-Year-Old DNA Sheds Light on the Genomic History of Mammoths,” Nature 591, no. 7849 (2021): 265–69.

6. Russell Higuchi et al., “DNA Sequences from the Quagga, an Extinct Member of the Horse Family,” Nature 312, no. 5991 (1984): 282–84.

7. See Beth Shapiro and Michael Hofreiter, eds., Ancient DNA: Methods and Protocols (New York: Springer, 2012).

8. John R. Tkach, “The Extinct DNA Newsletter,” March 1983, Author’s Personal Collection (file from John Tkach).

9. For example, “Ancient DNA: The Recovery and Analysis of DNA Sequences from Archaeological Material and Museum Specimens,” a conference in Nottingham, England, July 1991, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

10. Elsbeth Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA: Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung (Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag, 2017).

11. Martin Jones, The Molecule Hunt: Archaeology and the Search for Ancient DNA (New York: Arcade, 2001); Svante Pääbo, Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes (New York: Basic, 2014); Martin Jones, Unlocking the Past: How Archaeologists Are Rewriting Human History with Ancient DNA (New York: Arcade, 2016); David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Pantheon, 2018).

12. Elsbeth Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 25, no. 1 (2017): 99–142; Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA. See also Marianne Sommer, “History in the Gene: Negotiations Between Molecular and Organismal Anthropology,” Journal of the History of Biology 41, no. 3 (2008): 473–528; Marianne Sommer, History Within: The Science, Culture, and Politics of Bones, Organisms, and Molecules (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016); Sarah Abel, “Crossing Disciplinary Lines: Reconciling Social and Genomic Perspectives on the Histories and Legacies of the Transatlantic Trade in Enslaved Africans,” New Genetics and Society 35, no. 2 (2016): 149–85; and Sarah Abel, “What DNA Can’t Tell: Problems with Using Genetic Tests to Determine the Nationality of Migrants,” Anthropology Today 34, no. 6 (2018): 3–6.

13. My decision to approach the history of ancient DNA research in the context of evolutionary biology presents two challenges. First, the ancient DNA community reflects a wide range of professional influences and interests. Therefore, this book is not an exhaustive account of all the major movements, scientific publications, media articles, or research conclusions that some scientists and scholars might be inclined to include. Instead, I have captured an overall picture of the practice’s disciplinary development. Second, the ancient DNA community is a dynamic and diverse one, particularly in the personalities that have contributed to its colorful history. Here, I have represented the community’s various viewpoints, including their disagreements, to the best of my ability. In light of these two challenges, it becomes clear that despite practitioners’ sometimes steep professional or personal differences, the role played by contamination and celebrity is a common theme running through their memories of their history.

14. See Oxford English Dictionary, s.v., “publicity,” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/publicity; s.v., “celebrity,” https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/celebrity.

15. Scholars have discussed the role of celebrity in science at the individual level. In the 1970s, science communication scholar Rae Goodell introduced the term “visible scientists.” See Goodell, The Visible Scientists (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977). In profiling several scientists from the anthropologist Margaret Mead to the astronomer Carl Sagan, Goodell argued that these visible scientists shared personal and professional characteristics (media-oriented characteristics) that helped them attain press and public visibility. They then used this newfound visibility as a platform to speak to the public not just about science but also about science policy. More recently, Declan Fahy has introduced the notion of “celebrity scientists.” See Fahy, The New Celebrity Scientists: Out of the Lab and into the Limelight (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015). For Fahy, this is a new type of scientist that has emerged in light of the rise of celebrity culture. These celebrity scientists, like the cosmologist Stephen Hawking and the paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, were credentialed experts in their professional spheres but also attained fame, fortune, and influence in the public realm. As celebrity scientists, they used the media as a public platform to popularize science and influence public attitudes toward science. According to Fahy, however, stardom’s influence cuts both ways, affording them influence outside and within science.

16. My goal is to suggest that the concept of celebrity can be extended from the individual to the group level. Although there are a number of ancient DNA researchers who are internationally well known, I do not focus on how these individuals may or may not qualify as celebrity scientists themselves.

17. For more information, see Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen, and Peter Weingart, eds., The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and Its Repercussions (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012).

CHAPTER 1.  BEFORE JURASSIC PARK

1. Motoko Rich, “Pondering Good Faith in Publishing,” New York Times, March 8, 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/books/09publishers.html.

2. Charles Pellegrino, “Dinosaur Capsule,” Omni 7 (1985): 38–40, 114–15.

3. Pellegrino, “Dinosaur Capsule,” 40; Charles Pellegrino, “Resurrecting Dinosaurs,” Omni 17 (1995): 68–72.

4. Pellegrino, “Dinosaur Capsule,” 114.

5. Pellegrino, “Resurrecting Dinosaurs,” 69–70.

6. John Wiley to Charles Pellegrino, March 6, 1986, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Charles Pellegrino).

7. For a general overview of the state of knowledge in paleontology at the time, see David M. Raup and Steven M. Stanley, Principles of Paleontology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1971).

8. Philip H. Abelson, “Amino Acids in Fossils,” Science 119, no. 3096 (1954): 576; Philip H. Abelson, “Paleobiochemistry,” Scientific American 195 (1956): 83–92; Gordon J. Erdman, Everett M. Marlett, and William E. Hanson, “Survival of Amino Acids in Marine Sediments,” Science 124, no. 3230 (1956): 1026; Tong-Yun Ho, “The Amino Acid Composition of Bone and Tooth Proteins in Late Pleistocene Mammals,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 54, no. 1 (1965): 26–31; E. W. De Jong et al., “Preservation of Antigenic Properties of Macromolecules over 70 Myr,” Nature 252, no. 5478 (1974): 63–64; Peter Westbroek et al., “Fossil Macromolecules from Cephalopod Shells: Characterization, Immunological Response and Diagenesis,” Paleobiology 5, no. 2 (1979): 151–67; Stephen Weiner, “Molecular Evolution from the Fossil Record—A Dream or a Reality?” Paleobiology 6, no. 1 (1980): 4–5; W. G. Armstrong et al., “Fossil Proteins in Vertebrate Calcified Tissues,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 301, no. 1106 (1983): 301–43.

9. D. A. Jackson, R. H. Symons, and P. Berg, “Biochemical Method for Inserting New Genetic Information into DNA of Simian Virus 40: Circular SV40 DNA Molecules Containing Lambda Phage Genes and the Galactose Operon of Escherichia Coli,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 69, no. 10 (1972): 2904–9; S. N. Cohen et al., “Construction of Biologically Functional Bacterial Plasmids in Vitro,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 70, no. 11 (973): 3240–44; Peter E. Lobban and A. A. Kaiser, “Enzymatic End-to-End Joining of DNA Molecules,” Journal of Molecular Biology 78, no. 3 (1973): 453–71.

10. Frederick Sanger, S. Nicklen, and A. R. Coulson, “DNA Sequencing with Chain-Terminating Inhibitors,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 74, no. 12 (1977): 5463–67.

11. “Frederick Sanger—Biographical,” Nobel Media AB, 2014, www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1958/sanger-bio.html.

12. Pellegrino, “Dinosaur Capsule,” 40, 114.

13. John Tkach, “A Brief History of the Extinct DNA Study Group,” September 1993, Author’s Personal Collection (file from John Tkach).

14. Tkach, “A Brief History of the Extinct DNA Study Group,” 4.

15. Tkach, “A Brief History of the Extinct DNA Study Group,” 4–5.

16. John Tkach, “Evolutionary Immaturity of B-Cell Function as a Possible Cause of the Upper Cretaceous Extinction of Orders Saurischia and Ornithischia,” unpublished manuscript, Author’s Personal Collection (file from John Tkach).

17. George O. Poinar Jr. and Roberta Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1994), 64–65.

18. Poinar and Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber, 68–69.

19. George O. Poinar and Roberta Hess, “Ultrastructure of 40-Million-Year-Old Insect Tissue,” Science 215, no. 4537 (1982): 1241–42.

20. Tkach, “Evolutionary Immaturity of B-Cell Function,” 10.

21. John R. Tkach, “The Extinct DNA Newsletter,” February 1983, 3, Author’s Personal Collection (file from John Tkach).

22. Tkach, “The Extinct DNA Newsletter,” February 1983, 1–2.

23. Tkach, “The Extinct DNA Newsletter,” March 1983, 4. With reference to the Extinct DNA Study Group’s use of the word “paleobiology,” it is important to note that the group was not the first to use this terminology. From the 1950s to 1970s, a handful of paleontologists sought to reevaluate and reinvent the discipline of paleontology and its relation to geology, biology, and the modern evolutionary synthesis. Part of the process was a shift in methodology to computational and statistical studies of fossils as a way of rereading the fossil record. By the mid- to late 1970s, these concerted efforts resulted in the creation of a new subdiscipline called “paleobiology.” These new “paleobiologists” sought to enhance paleontology’s scientific status by contributing to understandings of evolutionary patterns and processes. For more information, see David Sepkoski and Michael Ruse, eds., The Paleobiological Revolution: Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); Derek Turner, Paleontology: A Philosophical Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); and David Sepkoski, Rereading the Fossil Record: The Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).

24. Tkach, “The Extinct DNA Newsletter,” March 1983, 8–9.

25. Tkach, “A Brief History of the Extinct DNA Study Group,” 13.

26. Poinar and Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber, 92.

27. Tkach, “A Brief History of the Extinct DNA Study Group,” 14.

28. Tkach, “The Extinct DNA Newsletter,” February 1983, 4.

29. Poinar and Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber, 69, 91.

30. Jurassic Park: The Official Website of Michael Crichton, www.michaelcrichton.com/jurassic-park/; Don Shay and Jody Duncan, The Making of Jurassic Park: An Adventure 65 Million Years in the Making (New York: Ballantine, 1993), 3.

31. Robert Bakker, “Dinosaur Renaissance,” Scientific American 232, no. 4 (1975): 58–79.

32. John H. Ostrom, “Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Flight,” Quarterly Review of Biology 49, no. 1 (1974): 27–47.

33. Adrian Desmond, The Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs: A Revolution in Palaeontology (London: Blond and Briggs, 1975); Robert Bakker, The Dinosaur Heresies: New Theories Unlocking the Mystery of the Dinosaurs and Their Extinction (New York: William Morrow, 1986).

34. John R. Horner and Robert Makela, “Nest of Juveniles Provides Evidence of Family Structure Among Dinosaurs,” Nature 282, no. 5736 (November 1979): 296–98.

35. Luis W. Alvarez et al., “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction,” Science 208, no. 4448 (1980): 1095–1108; William Glen, ed., The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1994).

36. Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972); Ronald Rainger, An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1890–1935. (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1991); Peter J. Bowler, Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009); Paul D. Brinkman, The Second Jurassic Dinosaur Rush: Museums and Paleontology in America at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010); Lukas Rieppel, “Bringing Dinosaurs Back to Life: Exhibiting Prehistory at the American Museum of Natural History,” Isis 103 (2012): 460–90; Chris Manias, “The Lost Worlds of Messmore and Damon: Science, Spectacle, and Prehistoric Monsters in Early-Twentieth Century America,” Endeavour 40, no. 3 (2016): 163–77; Lukas Rieppel, Assembling the Dinosaur: Fossil Hunters, Tycoons, and the Making of a Spectacle (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2019).

37. Jurassic Park: The Official Website of Michael Crichton; Shay and Duncan, The Making of Jurassic Park, 3.

38. Bryan Curtis, “The Cult of ‘Jurassic Park,’ ” Grantland, November 7, 2011, http://grantland.com/features/the-cult-jurassic-park/; Bryan Curtis, “3 Nerdy Jurassic Park Footnotes Before You Head Off to See the T. Rex in 3-D,” Grantland, April 5, 2013, http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/three-nerdy-jurassic-park-footnotes-before-you-head-off-to-see-the-t-rex-in-3-d/.

39. Boyce Rensberger, “Entombed in Amber: Ancient DNA Hints of ‘Jurassic Park,’ ” Washington Post, September 25, 1992, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/09/25/entombed-in-amber-ancient-dna-hints-of-jurassic-park/7309d11f-8d62-4589-ba8e-a493392dc6e9/.

40. Poinar and Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber, 153.

41. Jon Turney, Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics, and Popular Culture (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998); W. J. T. Mitchell, The Last Dinosaur Book: The Life and Times of a Cultural Icon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).

42. Shay and Duncan, The Making of Jurassic Park, 6–8.

43. Pellegrino’s dinosaur resurrection hypothesis was also published in two other books shortly after the 1985 Omni article. See Charles R. Pellegrino, Time Gate: Hurtling Backward Through History (Blue Ridge Summit, Pa.: TAB, 1985), and Charles R. Pellegrino and Jesse A. Stoff, Darwin’s Universe: Origins and Crises in the History of Life (Blue Ridge Summit, Pa.: TAB, 1986).

44. Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park (London: Random Century Group, 1991), acknowledgments.

45. Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park, paperback edition (London: Random Century Group, 1991), acknowledgments.

46. John Wiley to Charles Pellegrino, March 6, 1986, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Charles Pellegrino).

47. Malcolm W. Browne, “Scientists Study Ancient DNA for Glimpses of Past Worlds,” New York Times, June 25, 1991, www.nytimes.com/1991/06/25/science/scientists-study-ancient-dna-for-glimpses-of-past-worlds.html.

48. Charles Pellegrino to Malcolm Browne, June 25, 1991, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Charles Pellegrino).

49. Jeffrey M. Duban to George O. Poinar, April 26, 1993, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Charles Pellegrino).

50. For information on boundary objects, see Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39,” Social Studies of Science 19, no. 3 (1989): 387–420; Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classifications and Its Consequences (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1999); and Susan Leigh Star, “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept,” Science, Technology, and Human Values 35, no. 5 (August 10, 2010): 601–17. See also Elsbeth Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA: Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung (Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag, 2017). In her work on the history of ancient DNA research, specifically the intersection between genetics and history (i.e., genetic history), Bösl argues that researchers from different disciplines and scientific backgrounds were united in their interest in old molecules, namely the genetic and evolutionary information that they could recover from them. She suggests that this merging of interests around the pursuit of old molecules later resulted in a transdisciplinary field.

51. For information on the sociology of expectations, see Harro Van Lente and Arie Rip, “Expectations in Technological Developments: An Example of Prospective Structures to Be Filled in by Agency,” in Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, ed. Cornelis Disco and Barend van der Meulen (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), 203–9; Harro Van Lente and Arie Rip, “The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetorics to Social Reality,” Social Studies of Science 28, no. 2 (1998): 221–54; Nik Brown, Brian Rapport, and Andrew Webster, eds., Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2000); Nik Brown and Mike Michael, “A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects,” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 15, no. 1 (2003): 3–18; Nik Brown, “Hope Against Hype—Accountability in Biopasts, Presents, and Futures,” Science Studies 16, no. 2 (2003): 3–21; Mads Borup et al., “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology,” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18, nos. 3–4 (2006): 285–98; and Harro van Lente, Charlotte Spitters, and Alexander Peine, “Comparing Technological Hype Cycles: Towards a Theory,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (2013): 1615–28.

CHAPTER 2.  IDEAS TO EXPERIMENTS

1. Vincent M. Sarich and Allan C. Wilson, “Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution.,” Science 158, no. 3805 (December 1, 1967): 1200–1203; M. C. King and Allan C. Wilson, “Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees,” Science 188, no. 4184 (1975): 107–16.

2. Sarich and Wilson, “Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution.”

3. Émile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, “Molecular Disease, Evolution and Genetic Heterogeneity,” in Horizons in Biochemistry, ed. M. Kasha and B. Pullman (New York: Academic Press, 1962), 189–225.

4. Marianne Sommer, “History in the Gene: Negotiations Between Molecular and Organismal Anthropology,” Journal of the History of Biology 41, no. 3 (2008): 473–528; Elsbeth Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 25, no. 1 (2017): 99–142; Michael R. Dietrich, “Paradox and Persuasion: Negotiating the Place of Molecular Evolution Within Evolutionary Biology,” Journal of the History of Biology 31, no. 1 (1998): 85–111.

5. A conversation between Alice Taylor and an unnamed electron microscopist (presumed but not confirmed to be Roberta Hess) about the preservation of amber insects was reported in a letter from Taylor to Wilson. In this letter, Taylor asked Wilson if it would be possible to obtain DNA from insects in amber. Alice Taylor to Allan Wilson, January 9, 1980, Allan Wilson Papers, series 10, Research, 1965–1990, reel 47, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

6. George O. Poinar Jr. and Roberta Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1994), 72; Allan Wilson, “Molecular Paleontology: Search for Fossil DNA,” National Science Foundation Grant Application, 1984, 12–13, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Russell Higuchi).

7. Poinar and Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber, 93–95.

8. Poinar and Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber, 93–95, 73–75; Wilson, “Molecular Paleontology,” 12–13.

9. “The Quagga Project,” The Quagga Project, 2016, http://quaggaproject.org.

10. Jerold M. Lowenstein, “The Cry of the Quagga,” Pacific Discovery 384 (1985): 40–42.

11. Lowenstein, “The Cry of the Quagga.”

12. Russell Higuchi et al., “DNA Sequences from the Quagga, an Extinct Member of the Horse Family,” Nature 312, no. 5991 (1984): 282–84.

13. Wilson, “Molecular Paleontology,” 4, 2.

14. Wilson, “Molecular Paleontology,” 151, 152, 154, 155, 150.

15. Wilson, “Molecular Paleontology,” 158.

16. Ronald H. Fritze, Egyptomania: A History of Fascination, Obsession and Fantasy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).

17. Sarich and Wilson, “Immunological Time Scale for Hominid Evolution”; Thomas J. White and Allan C. Wilson, “Molecular Anthropology,” Evolution 32, no. 3 (1978): 693–94.

18. In the 1980s, developments in forensic science, like DNA fingerprinting and DNA profiling, emerged in parallel with ancient DNA research. For more information, see Alec J. Jeffreys, Victoria Wilson, and Swee Lay Thein, “Hypervariable ‘Minisatellite’ Regions in Human DNA,” Nature 314, no. 6006 (1985): 67–73.

19. Svante Pääbo, Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes (New York: Basic, 2014), 23–26.

20. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 24–26.

21. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 26–28.

22. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 28–30.

23. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 26–30.

24. Svante Pääbo, “Uber Den Nachweis von DNA in Altagyptischen Mumien,” Das Altertum 30 (1984): 213–18; Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 30–32.

25. Svante Pääbo, “Preservation of DNA in Ancient Egyptian Mummies,” Journal of Archaeological Science 12, no. 6 (1985): 411–17; Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 32–34.

26. Higuchi et al., “DNA Sequences from the Quagga,” 284.

27. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 34.

28. In fact, there were similar studies that were not, but might have been, credited as the first to exhibit evidence of DNA from degraded and damaged material. In 1980, for example, practitioners from Hunan Medical College in China published a paper on the preservation and extraction of DNA from ancient human bodies. See Hunan Medical College, Study of an Ancient Cadaver in Mawantui Tomb No. 1 of the Han Dynasty in Changsha (Beijing: Beijing Ancient Memorial Press, 1980). However, in accounts today, most researchers and reporters credit the paper published on extinct quagga DNA as the first demonstration that nucleic acids could be preserved in and extracted from ancient material. This is likely the case because other published research on the same topic around the same time, such as Pääbo’s article on ancient mummy DNA that was published in Das Altertum in 1984, were not widely read or recognized by the scientific community.

29. Svante Pääbo, “Molecular Cloning of Ancient Egyptian Mummy DNA,” Nature 314, no. 6012 (1985): 644–65.

30. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 35.

31. Alec J. Jeffreys, “Raising the Dead and Buried,” Nature 312, no. 5991 (1984): 198.

32. “Tissue of Baby Mammoth at Berkeley,” University Bulletin (Berkeley, Calif.) 26, no. 21 (1978): 110–11. Information about the series of inquiries into a colloboration also comes from an unpublished letter from the president of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States to the vice president of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union. Philip Handler to Yuriy Ovchinnikov, October 7, 1977, Allan Wilson Papers, series 10, Research, 1965–1990, reel 46.

33. “Siberian Baby Mammoth,” New Scientist, September 1977; “Dima: A Mammoth Undertaking,” Science News 113, no. 11 (1978): 167; “Russia’s Gift: A Well-Aged Mammoth,” San Francisco Examiner, March 7, 1978; “Tissue of Baby Mammoth at Berkeley”; “UC to Test Slice of Mammoth,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 8, 1978.

34. Claudine Cohen, The Fate of the Mammoth: Fossils, Myth, and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002); Ralph O’Connor, The Earth on Show: Fossils and the Poetics of Popular Science, 1802–1856 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

35. Beth Shapiro, How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2015).

36. Walter Sullivan, “Scientist to Study Mammoth Sample for Clues to Life,” New York Times, March 9, 1978, www.nytimes.com/1978/03/09/archives/scientist-to-study-mammoth-sample-for-clues-to-life-discovered-last.html.

37. Ellen M. Prager et al., “Mammoth Albumin,” Science 209, no. 4453 (1980): 287–89.

38. John Noble Wilford, “New Test Links Species over 40,000 Years,” New York Times, July 11, 1980, www.nytimes.com/1980/07/11/archives/new-test-links-species-over-40000-years-protein-albumin-used.html.

39. Higuchi et al., “DNA Sequences from the Quagga”; Harold M. Schmeck Jr., “Scientists Clone Bits of Genes Taken from Extinct Animal,” New York Times, June 5, 1984, www.nytimes.com/1984/06/05/science/scientists-clone-bits-of-genes-taken-from-extinct-animal.html. This information is also found in an unpublished grant application from the Allan Wilson Archives: Allan Wilson, “DNA Survival,” Biomedical Research Support Grant Application, Allan Wilson Papers, series 10, Research, 1965–1990, reel 48.

40. Diana Ben-Aaron, “Retrobreeding the Woolly Mammoth,” MIT Technology Review, April 1, 1984, 85.

41. John I. Matill, “Our Shaggy Elephant,” MIT Technology Review, October 1984, 4; Corey Salsberg, “Resurrecting the Woolly Mammoth: Science, Law, Ethics, Politics, and Religion,” Stanford Technology Law Review 1 (2000): 1–30.

42. Lewis Clifton, “Mad Scientists Are Cloning Dinosaurs as Weapons of the Future,” National Examiner, August 7, 1984, 31.

43. “The Resurrection of the Quagga,” New Scientist, December 13, 1984, 21.

44. Mike Benton, “To Clone a Dinosaur,” New Scientist, January 17, 1985, 43.

45. Adrian Currie and Kim Sterelny, “In Defence of Story-Telling,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 62 (2017): 14–21.

46. Currie and Sterelny, “In Defence of Story-Telling,” 16.

CHAPTER 3.  TESTING LIMITS

1. Randall K. Saikia et al., “Enzymatic Amplification of β-Globin Genomic Sequences and Restriction Site Analysis for Diagnosis of Sickle Cell Anemia,” Science 230, no. 4732 (1985): 1350–54; K. Mullis et al., “Specific Enzymatic Amplification of DNA in Vitro: The Polymerase Chain Reaction,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 51 (1986): 263–73; Kary B. Mullis and Fred A. Faloona, “Specific Synthesis of DNA in Vitro via a Polymerase-Catalyzed Chain Reaction,” Methods in Enzymology 155 (1987): 335–50.

2. “Frederick Sanger—Biographical,” Nobel Media AB, 2014, www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1958/sanger-bio.html.

3. The conceptual, technological, and financial development of PCR is a complex history of interactions among scientists, researchers, and entrepreneurs. See Paul Rabinow, Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology (Chicago: Chicago Unviersity Press, 1996).

4. Jeremy Cherfas, “Genes Unlimited,” New Scientist, April 19, 1990, 29–33.

5. Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA: Extraction, Characterization, Molecular Cloning, and Enzymatic Amplification,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86, no. 6 (1989): 1939–43.

6. Pääbo, “Ancient DNA: Extraction, Characterization, Molecular Cloning, and Enzymatic Amplification,” 1943.

7. Svante Pääbo, Russell G. Higuchi, and Allan C. Wilson, “Ancient DNA and the Polymerase Chain Reaction,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 264, no. 17 (1989): 9709, 9712.

8. Pääbo, Higuchi, and Wilson, “Ancient DNA and the Polymerase Chain Reaction,” 9711–12.

9. Robert Paddle, The Last Tasmanian Tiger: The History and Extinction of the Thylacine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).

10. Richard H. Thomas et al., “DNA Phylogeny of the Extinct Marsupial Wolf,” Nature 340, no. 6233 (1989): 465–67.

11. Jerold M. Lowenstein, Vincent M. Sarich, and Barry J. Richardson, “Albumin Systematics of the Extinct Mammoth and Tasmanian Wolf,” Nature 291, no. 5814 (1981): 409–11.

12. Thomas et al., “DNA Phylogeny of the Extinct Marsupial Wolf,” 467.

13. Margaret A. Hughes and David S. Jones, “Body in the Bog but No DNA,” Nature 323, no. 6085 (1986): 208; Glen H. Doran et al., “Anatomical, Cellular and Molecular Analysis of 8,000-Yr-Old Human Brain Tissue,” Nature 323, no. 6091 (1986): 803–6.

14. Geoffrey Eglinton, “Marking the Conclusion of the Natural Environment Research Council Special Topic in Biomolecular Palaeontology,” Lyell Meeting Volume (Earth Science Directorate, March 1994), Author’s Personal Collection (file from Terry Brown).

15. Erika Hagelberg, Bryan Sykes, and Robert Hedges, “Ancient Bone DNA Amplified,” Nature 342 (1989): 485.

16. “Natural Environment Research Council Special Topic in Biomolecular Palaeontology Community Meeting Programme,” Glasgow, Scotland, 1990, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

17. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species,” Nature 344, no. 6267 (1990): 656–58.

18. William Booth, “Ancient Magnolia Leaf Yields Strands of DNA,” Washington Post, April 12, 1990, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1990/04/12/ancient-magnolia-leaf-yields-strands-of-dna/b454fb51-d2bd-4da7-b204-1754581ed1f9.

19. “Genetic Code Found in 17-Million-Year-Old Leaf,” New York Times, April 12, 1990, www.nytimes.com/1990/04/12/us/genetic-code-found-in-17-million-year-old-leaf.html.

20. Julie Johnson, “The Oldest DNA in the World,” New Scientist, May 11, 1990, www.newscientist.com/article/mg13017685-300-the-oldest-dna-in-the-world-the-discovery-of-geneticmaterial-that-may-be-16-million-years-old-has-left-molecularpalaeontologists-with-more-questions-than-answers.

21. Svante Pääbo and Allan C. Wilson, “Miocene DNA Sequences—A Dream Come True?” Current Biology 1, no. 1 (February 1991): 45–46.

22. Arend Sidow, Allan C. Wilson, and Svante Pääbo, “Bacterial DNA in Clarkia Fossils,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 333, no. 1268 (1991): 429–33.

23. “Biomolecular Palaeontology Discussion Meeting,” agenda, Royal Society, London, 1991, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Terry Brown).

24. Martin Jones, The Molecule Hunt: Archaeology and the Search for Ancient DNA (New York: Arcade, 2001), 25.

25. Jones, The Molecule Hunt, 24, 25.

26. “Ancient DNA: The Recovery and Analysis of DNA Sequences from Archaeological Material and Museum Specimens,” conference at the University of Nottingham, England, July 1991, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

27. “Ancient DNA: The Recovery and Analysis of DNA Sequences from Archaeological Material and Museum Specimens.” This information is also from an unpublished document of meeting attendants provided to the author by Richard Thomas. Thomas, “Ancient DNA Meeting Attendants,” July 1991, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

28. Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park (New York: Knopf, 1990).

29. Don Shay and Jody Duncan, The Making of Jurassic Park: An Adventure 65 Million Years in the Making (New York: Ballantine, 1993), 6–7.

30. Sharon Begley, “Here Come the DNAsaurs,” Newsweek, June 14, 1993, 57–59.

31. Allan Wilson, “Molecular Paleontology: Search for Fossil DNA,” National Science Foundation Grant Application, 1984, 12–13, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Russell Higuchi); George O. Poinar Jr., Hendrik N. Poinar, and Raúl J. Cano, “DNA from Amber Inclusions,” in Ancient DNA: Recovery and Analysis of Genetic Material from Paleontological, Archaeological, Museum, Medical, and Forensic Specimens, ed. Bernd Herrmann and Susanne Hummel (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994), 92–103; George O. Poinar Jr. and Roberta Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1994), 73–75.

32. Crichton, Jurassic Park (London edition), 68.

33. Browne, “Scientists Study Ancient DNA for Glimpses of Past Worlds.”

34. Jeremy Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy After Death,” Science 253, no. 5026 (1991): 1345, 1356.

35. Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy After Death,” 1354.

36. Robert Wayne to “Friends of Ancient DNA,” Zoological Society of London, 1991, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas and Anne Stone); Robert Wayne and Alan Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter 1, no. 1 (April 1992): 1–43, Author’s Personal Collection (files from Richard Thomas and Terry Brown); Robert Wayne and Alan Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter 1, no. 2 (December 1992): 1–41, Author’s Personal Collection (files from Richard Thomas and Terry Brown); Robert Wayne and Alan Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter 2, no. 1 (February 1994): 1–45, Author’s Personal Collection (files from Richard Thomas and Terry Brown).

37. Wayne, “Friends of Ancient DNA,” 1.

38. Wayne and Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter, April 1992, 6–8, 2.

39. Wayne and Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter, December 1992, 43.

40. Cherfas, “Ancient DNA: Still Busy After Death,” 1356.

41. Browne, “Scientists Study Ancient DNA for Glimpses of Past Worlds.”

42. Scholars have explored the process of disciplinary development in the sciences with regards to differences between discipline formation and professionalization. See Robert E. Kohler, From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982); Mary Jo Nye, From Chemical Philosophy to Theoretical Chemistry: Dynamics of Matter and Dynamics of Disciplines, 1800–1950 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993); Lynn Nyhart, Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995); Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996); Paul Farber, Discovering Birds: The Emergence of Ornithology as a Scientific Discipline, 1760–1850 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997); and Mark Barrow, A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After Audubon (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998). Also see Nathan Reingold, “Definitions and Speculations: The Professionalization of Science in America in the Nineteenth Century,” in The Pursuit of Knowledge in the Early American Republic, ed. Alexandra Oleson and Sanborn C. Brown (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), 33–69; Elizabeth B. Keeney, The Botanizers: Amateur Scientists in Nineteenth-Century America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); and Paul Lucier, “The Professional and the Scientist in Nineteenth-Century America,” Isis 100, no. 4 (2009): 699–732.

43. Simon Schaffer, “Natural Philosophy and Public Spectacle in the Eighteenth Century,” History of Science 21, no. 1 (1983): 1–43; Jan Golinski, “A Noble Spectacle: Phosphorus and the Public Cultures of Science in the Early Royal Society,” Isis 80, no. 1 (1989): 11–39; Jan Golinski, Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760–1820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Simon Werrett, “Watching the Fireworks: Early Modern Observation of Natural and Artificial Spectacles,” Science in Context 24, no. 2 (2011): 167–82; Chris Manias, “The Lost Worlds of Messmore and Damon: Science, Spectacle, and Prehistoric Monsters in Early-Twentieth Century America,” Endeavour 40, no. 3 (2016): 163–77; Amy Fletcher, “Digging Up the Past: Paleogenomics as Science and Spectacle,” APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451865; Amy Fletcher, “Genuine Fakes: Cloning Extinct Species as Science and Spectacle,” Politics and the Life Sciences 29, no. 1 (2010): 48–60; Jon Agar, Science and Spectacle: The Work of Jodrell Bank in Post-War British Culture (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic, 1998).

CHAPTER 4.  DINOSAUR DNA

1. Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science 257, no. 5078 (1992): 1933–36.

2. Malcolm W. Browne, “40-Million-Year-Old Extinct Bee Yields Oldest Genetic Material,” New York Times, September 25, 1992, www.nytimes.com/1992/09/25/us/40-million-year-old-extinct-bee-yields-oldest-genetic-material.html; Boyce Rensberger, “Entombed in Amber: Ancient DNA Hints of ‘Jurassic Park,’ ” Washington Post, September 25, 1992, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/09/25/entombed-in-amber-ancient-dna-hints-of-jurassic-park/7309d11f-8d62-4589-ba8e-a493392dc6e9; Kathryn Hoppe, “Brushing the Dust Off Ancient DNA,” Science News, October 24, 1992, 280–81; Virginia Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” Science 257, no. 5078 (1992): 1860–62.

3. “Amber: Window to the Past,” American Museum of Natural History, 1996, http://lbry-web-007.amnh.org/digital/index.php/items/show/39273.

4. David A. Grimaldi, Amber: Window to the Past (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996); David A. Grimaldi, “Captured in Amber,” Scientific American, April 1996, 70–77.

5. Raúl J. Cano, Hendrik N. Poinar, and George O. Poinar Jr., “Isolation and Partial Characterisation of DNA from the Bee Proplebeia Dominicana (Apidae: Hymenoptera) in 25–40 Million Year Old,” Medical Science Research 20, no. 7 (1992): 249–51.

6. Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” 1860.

7. Rensberger, “Entombed in Amber.”

8. Rensberger, “Entombed in Amber.”

9. Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” 1861.

10. Browne, “40-Million-Year-Old Extinct Bee Yields Oldest Genetic Material.”

11. Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature 363, no. 6429 (1993): 536–38; “Jurassic Park (1993),” IMDb, www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/; David A. Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013).

12. Malcolm W. Browne, “DNA from the Age of Dinosaurs Is Found,” New York Times, June 10, 1993, www.nytimes.com/1993/06/10/us/dna-from-the-age-of-dinosaurs-is-found.html.

13. George O. Poinar Jr. and Roberta Poinar, The Quest for Life in Amber (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus, 1994), 154.

14. Stephen Jay Gould, “Dinomania,” in Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History (London: Jonathan Cape, 1996), 225–26; Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood, 139.

15. Pat H. Broeske, “Promoting ‘Jurassic Park,’ ” Entertainment, March 12, 1993, http://ew.com/article/1993/03/12/promoting-jurassic-park/.

16. “Jurassic Park (1993),” Box Office Mojo, www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=jurassicpark.htm.

17. “Jurassic Park (1993) Awards,” IMDb, www.imdb.com/title/tt0107290/awards.

18. Michele Pierson, “CGI Effects in Hollywood Science-Fiction Cinema, 1989–95: The Wonder Years,” Screen 40, no. 2 (1999): 158–76; Michele Pierson, Special Effects: Still in Search of Wonder (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002).

19. Julia Hallam and Margaret Marshment, Realism and Popular Cinema (Manchester, U.K.: Manchester University Press, 2000); Joel Black, The Reality Effect (New York: Routledge, 2002); Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale, Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2010); Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood.

20. Pierson, “CGI Effects in Hollywood Science-Fiction Cinema,” 166, 167.

21. Dennis McLellan, “Michael Crichton Dies at 66; Bestselling Author of ‘Jurassic Park’ and Other Thrillers,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2008, www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-me-crichton6–2008nov06-story.html.

22. Pamela McClintock, “Steven Spielberg’s Top 10 Box Office Successes,” Hollywood Reporter, 2015, www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-s-top-10–803126.

23. Sharon Begley, “Here Come the DNAsaurs,” Newsweek, June 14, 1993, 57.

24. Peter H. King, “ ‘Step Right Up and See the Science,’ ” Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1993, http://articles.latimes.com/1993-06-16/news/mn-3654_1_dna-research; Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood.

25. King, “ ‘Step Right Up and See the Science.’ ”

26. David Kirby highlights these and other similar interactions and their implications for understanding the relationship between science and media, specifically how science influences, or is in turn influenced by, Hollywood and the blockbuster phenomenon. See David A. Kirby, “Science Consultants, Fictional Films, and Scientific Practice,” Social Studies of Science 33, no. 2 (2003): 231–68; David A. Kirby, “Scientists on the Set: Science Consultants and the Communication of Science in Visual Fiction,” Public Understanding of Science 12 (2003): 261–78; Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood; and David A. Kirby, “Science and Technology in Film: Themes and Representations,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, ed. Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench (London: Routledge, 2014), 97–112.

27. Susan Gallagher, “Maverick Dinosaur Expert Gets in His Digs in Montana,” Los Angeles Times, November 21, 1993, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-11-21-mn-59211-story.html.

28. Virginia Morell, “Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science 261, no. 5118 (1993): 160.

29. John R. Horner and Ernst Vyse, “An Attempt to Extract DNA from the Cretaceous Dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex,” National Science Foundation, 1993, www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=9311542.

30. Ben Macintyre, “Fossil Find Brings Jurassic Park Closer,” The Times (London), July 2, 1993, 16; Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood, 139.

31. Malcolm W. Browne, “Cells of Dinosaurs Apparently Found,” New York Times, July 1, 1993, www.nytimes.com/1993/07/01/us/cells-of-dinosaur-apparently-found.html.

32. Morell, “Dino DNA,” 161.

33. Morell, “Dino DNA,” 160.

34. Gerard Muyzer et al., “Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs,” Geology 20 (1992): 871–74.

35. L. R. Gurley et al., “Proteins in the Fossil Bone of the Dinosaur, Seismosaurus,” Journal of Protein Chemistry 10, no. 1 (1991): 75–90.

36. Morell, “Dino DNA,” 160, 161.

37. Morell, “30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field,” 1860–62.

38. Morell, “Dino DNA,” 160.

39. “Ancient DNA: Second International Conference,” Washington, D.C., October 1993, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

40. Joshua Fischman, “Going for the Old: Ancient DNA Draws a Crowd,” Science 262, no. 5134 (1993): 655.

41. Terence Brown and Keri Brown, “Ancient DNA and the Archaeologist,” Antiquity 66 (1992): 10–23; Terence A. Brown et al., “Biomolecular Archaeology of Wheat: Past, Present and Future,” Biomolecular Archaeology 25, no. 1 (1993): 64–73; W. Kelley Thomas et al., “Spatial and Temporal Continuity of Kangaroo Rat Populations Shown by Sequencing Mitochondrial DNA from Museum Specimens,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 31 (1990): 101–12; Carey Krajewski et al., “Phylogenetic Relationships of the Thylacine (Mammalia: Thylacinidae) Among Dasyuroid Marsupials: Evidence from Cytochrome b DNA Sequences,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 250, no. 1327 (1992): 19–27; Alan Cooper et al., “Independent Origins of New Zealand Moas and Kiwis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89, no. 18 (1992): 8741–44; Catherine Hänni et al., “Amplification of Mitochondrial DNA Fragments from Ancient Human Teeth and Bones,” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie Des Sciences, Serie III, Sciences de La Vie 310, no. 9 (1990): 365–70; Robert K. Wayne and S. M. Jenks, “Mitochondrial DNA Analysis Implying Extensive Hybridization of the Endangered Red Wolf Canis Rufus,” Nature 351, no. 6327 (1991): 565–68; Susanne Hummel and Bernd Herrmann, “Y-Chromosome-Specific DNA Amplified in Ancient Human Bone,” Naturwissenschaften 78 (1991): 266–67; Matthias Höss et al., “Excrement Analysis by PCR,” Nature 359 (1992): 199; Erika Hagelberg and John B. Clegg, “Genetic Polymorphisms in Prehistoric Pacific Islanders Determined by Analysis of Ancient Bone DNA,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 252, no. 1334 (1993): 163–70.

42. Scott R. Woodward, Nathan J. Weyand, and Mark Bunnell, “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science 266, no. 5188 (1994): 1230.

43. “Dinosaur DNA,” New Scientist, November 26, 1994, www.newscientist.com/article/mg14419532-000-dinosaur-dna/; Robert Lee Hotz, “Bone Yields Dinosaur DNA, Scientists Believe,” Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1994, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-18-mn-64303-story.html; John Noble Wilford, “A Scientist Says He Has Isolated Dinosaur DNA,” New York Times, November 18, 1994, www.nytimes.com/1994/11/18/us/a-scientist-says-he-has-isolated-dinosaur-dna.html.

44. R. Monastersky, “Dinosaur DNA: Is the Race Finally Over?” Science News 146, no. 21 (1994): 324.

45. Amy Fletcher, “Genuine Fakes: Cloning Extinct Species as Science and Spectacle,” Politics and the Life Sciences 29, no. 1 (2010): 49.

46. Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood, 227, 228.

47. Kirby, “Science Consultants, Fictional Films, and Scientific Practice”; Kirby, “Scientists on the Set”; Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood.

48. Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood, 139, 133–36. Kirby further discusses other cases in which science consultants worked with movie producers to advise on films from Outbreak (1995) and GATTACA (1997) to Mission to Mars (2000) and Frequency (2006). See pages 48–49.

49. Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood, 58.

50. Robert Wayne and Alan Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter 1, no. 2 (December 1992): 6, Author’s Personal Collection (files from Richard Thomas and Terry Brown).

51. Morell, “Dino DNA,” 161.

CHAPTER 5.  IMPOSING LIMITS

1. Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature 362, no. 6422 (1993): 709–15; Tomas Lindahl, “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature 365, no. 6448 (1993): 700.

2. Edward M. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species,” Nature 344, no. 6267 (1990): 656–58; Raúl J. Cano, Hendrik N. Poinar, and George O. Poinar Jr., “Isolation and Partial Characterisation of DNA from the Bee Proplebeia Dominicana (Apidae: Hymenoptera) in 25–40 Million Year Old,” Medical Science Research 20, no. 7 (1992): 249–51; Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science 257, no. 5078 (1992): 1933–36; Raúl J. Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA from a 120–135-Million-Year-Old Weevil,” Nature 363, no. 6429 (June 10, 1993): 536–38; Lindahl, “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” 700.

3. Lindahl, “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” 700.

4. George O. Poinar Jr., “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” Nature 365, no. 6448 (1993): 700.

5. Lindahl, “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” 700.

6. Svante Pääbo, Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes (New York: Basic, 2014), 58.

7. Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA: Extraction, Characterization, Molecular Cloning, and Enzymatic Amplification,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86, no. 6 (1989): 1939–43; Svante Pääbo, Russell G. Higuchi, and Allan C. Wilson, “Ancient DNA and the Polymerase Chain Reaction,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 264, no. 17 (1989): 9709–12.

8. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 52.

9. Scott R. Woodward, Nathan J. Weyand, and Mark Bunnell, “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments,” Science 266, no. 5188 (1994): 1229–32.

10. Robert Lee Hotz, “Bone Yields Dinosaur DNA, Scientists Believe,” Los Angeles Times, November 18, 1994, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-18-mn-64303-story.html; John Noble Wilford, “A Scientist Says He Has Isolated Dinosaur DNA,” New York Times, November 18, 1994, www.nytimes.com/1994/11/18/us/a-scientist-says-he-has-isolated-dinosaur-dna.html.

11. Woodward, Weyand, and Bunnell, “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments”; S. Blair Hedges and Mary Schweitzer, “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science 268, no. 5214 (1995): 1191–92; Henikoff Steven, “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science 268, no. 5214 (1995): 1192; Marc W. Allard, Deshea Young, and Yentram Huyen, “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science 268, no. 5214 (1995): 1192; H. Zischler et al., “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” Science 268, no. 5214 (1995): 1192–93.

12. Ann Gibbons, “Possible Dino DNA Find Is Greeted with Skepticism,” Science 266, no. 5188 (1994): 1159.

13. Hedges and Schweitzer, “Detecting Dinosaur DNA,” 1191.

14. Steven, “Detecting Dinosaur DNA”; Allard, Young, and Huyen, “Detecting Dinosaur DNA”; Zischler et al., “Detecting Dinosaur DNA.”

15. Zischler et al., “Detecting Dinosaur DNA.”

16. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 60.

17. Zischler et al., “Detecting Dinosaur DNA, ”1193; Jones, The Molecule Hunt, 31–38.

18. Richard Monastersky, “Dinosaur DNA Claim Dismissed as a Mistake,” Science News 248, no. 23 (1995): 373.

19. Peter Aldhous, “ ‘Jurassic DNA’ Looks Distinctly Human,” New Scientist 145, no. 1964 (1995): 5.

20. Malcolm W. Browne, “Critics See Humbler Origin of ‘Dinosaur’ DNA,” New York Times, June 20, 1995, www.nytimes.com/1995/06/20/science/critics-see-humbler-origin-of-dinosaur-dna.html.

21. Jeffrey L. Bada et al., “Amino Acid Racemization in Amber-Entombed Insects: Implications for DNA Preservation,” Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 58, no. 14 (1994): 3131–35; Robert F. Service, “Just How Old Is That DNA, Anyway?” Science 272, no. 5263 (1996): 810; Hendrik Poinar et al., “Amino Acid Racemization and the Preservation of Ancient DNA,” Science 272, no. 5263 (1996): 864–66.

22. Poinar et al., “Amino Acid Racemization and the Preservation of Ancient DNA,” 865.

23. Poinar et al., “Amino Acid Racemization and the Preservation of Ancient DNA”; Service, “Just How Old Is That DNA, Anyway?”

24. Geoffrey Eglinton, ed., “ABI Newsletter 1,” Ancient Biomolecules Initiative 1 (November 1995): 1–39, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas); Geoffrey Eglinton, Barbara Knowles, and Ursula Edmunds, eds., “Molecular Signatures from the Past,” Ancient Biomolecules Initiative, Grand Finale (Program and Abstracts), Natural Environment Research Council (1998), Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

25. Eglington, ed., “ABI Newsletter 1,” 4–5.

26. “Modern Research into Ancient Biomolecules,” Molecular Biology, September 1994, 5.

27. Geoffrey Eglinton, “Ancient Biomolecules Initiative Newsletter,” Natural Environment Research Council 2 (May 1996): 1–2.

28. Eglinton, ed., “ABI Newsletter 1”; Eglinton, Knowles, and Edmunds, eds., “Molecular Signatures from the Past.”

29. Andrew B. Smith, “Application for an ABI Research Grant,” Natural Environment Research Council, September 1995, 16, 1, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

30. Smith, “Application for an ABI Research Grant,” 3.

31. Jeremy J. Austin et al., “Problems of Reproducibility—Does Geologically Ancient DNA Survive in Amber-Preserved Insects?” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 264, no. 1381 (1997): 467–74.

32. Smith, “Application for an ABI Research Grant,” 15.

33. Austin et al., “Problems of Reproducibility,” 470.

34. D. E. Howland and G. M. Hewitt, “DNA Analysis of Extant and Fossil Beetles,” in Geoffrey Eglinton, “Marking the Conclusion of the Natural Environment Research Council Special Topic in Biomolecular Palaeontology,” Lyell Meeting Volume (Earth Science Directorate, March 1994), 49–51, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Terry Brown); J. Pawlowski et al., “Attempted Isolation of DNA from Insects Embedded in Baltic Amber,” Inclusion 22 (1996): 12–13.

35. Austin et al., “Problems of Reproducibility,” 473.

36. Constance Holden, “ ‘No Go’ for Jurassic Park–Style Dinos,” Science 276, no. 5311 (1997): 361.

37. Bryan Sykes, “Lights Turning Red on Amber,” Nature 386 (1997): 764–65.

38. “Ancient DNA III” conference, Oxford, England, July 1995, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Richard Thomas).

39. Nigel Williams, “The Trials and Tribulations of Cracking the Prehistoric Code,” Science 269, no. 5226 (1995): 923.

40. Robert Wayne and Alan Cooper, eds., Ancient DNA Newsletter 1, no. 2 (December 1992): 3, Author’s Personal Collection (files from Richard Thomas and Terry Brown).

41. Lindahl, “Recovery of Antediluvian DNA,” 700.

42. Svante Pääbo, Matthias Höss, and N. K. Vereshchagin, “Mammoth DNA Sequences,” Nature 370, no. 6488 (1994): 333.

43. Erika Hagelberg et al., “DNA from Ancient Mammoth Bones,” Nature 370, no. 6488 (1994): 333–34.

44. Alan Cooper et al., “Independent Origins of New Zealand Moas and Kiwis,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 89, no. 18 (1992): 8741–44.

45. Matthias Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,” Cell 90 (1997): 19–30.

46. William King, “The Reputed Fossil Man of the Neanderthal,” Quarterly Journal of Science 1 (1864): 88–97; Ralf W. Schmitz et al., “The Neandertal Type Site Revisited: Interdisciplinary Investigations of Skeletal Remains from the Neander Valley, Germany,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, no. 20 (2002): 13342–47; Paige Madison, “The Most Brutal of Human Skulls: Measuring and Knowing the First Neanderthal,” British Journal for the History of Science 49, no. 3 (2016): 411–32.

47. Ann Gibbons, The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestors (New York: Anchor, 2007); Sigrid Schmalzer, The People’s Peking Man: Popular Science and Human Identity in Twentieth-Century China (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008); Chris Manias, “Sinanthropus in Britain: Human Origins and International Science, 1920–1939,” British Journal for the History of Science 48, no. 2 (2015): 289–319; Amanda Rees, “Stories of Stones and Bones: Disciplinarity, Narrative and Practice in British Popular Prehistory, 1911–1935,” British Journal for the History of Science 49, no. 3 (2016): 433–51; Madison, “The Most Brutal of Human Skulls.”

48. Chris Stringer, Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth (New York: St. Martin’s, 2012).

49. Rebecca L. Cann, Mark Stoneking, and Allan C. Wilson, “Mitochondrial DNA and Human Evolution,” Nature 325, no. 6099 (1987): 31–36.

50. Harold M. Schmeck Jr., “Intact Genetic Material Extracted from an Ancient Egyptian Mummy,” New York Times, April 16, 1985, www.nytimes.com/1985/04/16/science/intact-genetic-material-extracted-from-an-ancient-egyptian-mummy.html.

51. Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,” 22.

52. Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,” 19–30.

53. The debate in evolutionary anthropology centered around the origins of human history with evolutionary anthropologists usually subscribing to one of two hypotheses: the Out-of-Africa Model or the Multiregional Continuity Model. The former proposes that humans originated in Africa and then migrated to other parts of the world, while the second suggests that prehumans originated in Africa but then evolved into modern humans after they migrated out of the continent. See Stringer, Lone Survivors.

54. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 18.

55. Patricia Kahn and Ann Gibbons, “DNA from an Extinct Human,” Science 277, no. 5323 (1997): 176–78.

56. Ryk Ward and Chris Stringer, “A Molecular Handle on the Neanderthals,” Nature 388, no. 6639 (1997): 225–26.

57. Chris Mihill, “We’re African, No Bones About It,” The Guardian (London), July 11, 1997.

58. Roger Lewin, “Back from the Dead,” New Scientist, October 18, 1997, 43.

59. Tomas Lindahl, “Facts and Artifacts of Ancient DNA,” Cell 90, no. 1 (1997): 2.

60. Lewin, “Back from the Dead,” 42.

61. Erika Hagelberg, Bryan Sykes, and Robert Hedges, “Ancient Bone DNA Amplified,” Nature 342 (1989): 485.

62. Erika Hagelberg and John B. Clegg, “Genetic Polymorphisms in Prehistoric Pacific Islanders Determined by Analysis of Ancient Bone DNA,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 252, no. 1334 (1993): 163–70; Hagelberg, Sykes, and Hedges, “Ancient Bone DNA Amplified.”

63. Terence Brown and Keri Brown, “Ancient DNA and the Archaeologist,” Antiquity 66 (1992): 10–23; Terence Brown and Keri Brown, “Ancient DNA: Using Molecular Biology to Explore the Past,” BioEssays 16, no. 10 (1994): 719–26.

64. Linda Vigilant et al., “Mitochondrial DNA Sequences in Single Hairs from a Southern African Population,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86 (1989): 9350–54; Catherine Hänni et al., “Amplification of Mitochondrial DNA Fragments from Ancient Human Teeth and Bones,” Comptes Rendus de l’Academie Des Sciences, Serie III, Sciences de La Vie 310, no. 9 (1990): 365–70; Susanne Hummel and Bernd Herrmann, “Y-Chromosome-Specific DNA Amplified in Ancient Human Bone,” Naturwissenschaften 78 (1991): 266–67; Hagelberg and Clegg, “Genetic Polymorphisms in Prehistoric Pacific Islanders”; Anne Stone and Mark Stoneking, “Ancient DNA from a Pre-Columbian Amerindian Population,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 92 (1993): 463–71; Erika Hagelberg et al., “DNA from Ancient Easter Islanders,” Nature 369 (1994): 25–26; Peter Gill et al., “Identification of the Remains of the Romanov Family by DNA Analysis,” Nature Genetics 6, no. 2 (1994): 130–35; Oliva Handt et al., “Molecular Genetic Analyses of the Tyrolean Ice Man,” Science 264, no. 5166 (1994): 1775–78; Marina Faerman et al., “Sex Identification of Archaeological Human Remains Based on Amplification of the X and Y Amelogenin Alleles,” Gene 167 (1995): 327–32; Marina Faerman et al., “Determining the Sex of Infanticide Victims from the Late Roman Era Through Ancient DNA Analysis,” Journal of Archaeological Science 25, no. 9 (1998): 861–65.

65. Mark Spigelman and Eshetu Lemma, “The Use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) to Detect Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in Ancient Skeletons,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, no. 2 (1993): 137–43; A. Rafi et al., “Mycobacterium Leprae DNA from Ancient Bone Detected by PCR,” Lancet 343, no. 8909 (1994): 1360–61; Wilmar L. Salo et al., “Identification of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis DNA in a Pre-Columbian Peruvian Mummy,” Microbiology 91 (1994): 2091–94; Heike Baron, Susanne Hummel, and Bernd Herrmann, “Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex DNA in Ancient Human Bones,” Journal of Archaeological Science 23, no. 5 (1996): 667–71.

66. Robert K. Wayne, Jennifer A. Leonard, and Alan Cooper, “Full of Sound and Fury: The Recent History of Ancient DNA,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30 (1999): 457–77.

67. Mark Stoneking, “Ancient DNA: How Do You Know When You Have It and What Can You Do with It?” American Journal of Human Genetics 57, no. 6 (1995): 1259.

68. Elaine Béraud-Colomb et al., “Human Beta-Globin Gene Polymorphisms Characterized in DNA Extracted from Ancient Bones 12,000 Years Old,” American Journal of Human Genetics 57, no. 6 (1995): 1267–74.

69. Stoneking, “Ancient DNA: How Do You Know When You Have It and What Can You Do with It?” 1260.

70. Stoneking, “Ancient DNA: How Do You Know When You Have It and What Can You Do with It?” 1260, 1261.

71. Alan Cooper, “Reply to Stoneking: Ancient DNA—How Do You Really Know When You Have It?” American Journal of Human Genetics 60 (1997): 1002.

72. Wayne, Leonard, and Cooper, “Full of Sound and Fury,” 458–59, 464.

73. Golenberg et al., “Chloroplast DNA Sequence from a Miocene Magnolia Species”; Raúl J. Cano, Hendrik N. Poinar, and George O. Poinar Jr., “Isolation and Partial Characterisation of DNA from the Bee Proplebeia Dominicana (Apidae: Hymenoptera) in 25–40 Million Year Old,” Medical Science Research 20, no. 7 (1992): 249–51; DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite”; Cano et al., “Amplification and Sequencing of DNA”; Woodward, Weyand, and Bunnell, “DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments.”

74. Jackie Fenn and Mark Raskino, Mastering the Hype Cycle: How to Choose the Right Innovation at the Right Time (Boston: Harvard Business Press, 2008).

75. Elsbeth Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 25, no. 1 (2017): 99–142; Elsbeth Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA: Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung (Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag, 2017); Elizabeth Jones and Elsbeth Bösl, “Ancient Human DNA: A History of Hype (Then and Now),” Journal of Social Archaeology (February 2021): 1–20.

76. For more information on the role of hype, see work in the sociology of science by Nik Brown, “Hope Against Hype—Accountability in Biopasts, Presents, and Futures,” Science Studies 16, no. 2 (2003): 3–21; Mads Borup et al., “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology,” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18, nos. 3–4 (2006): 285–98; Harro van Lente, Charlotte Spitters, and Alexander Peine, “Comparing Technological Hype Cycles: Towards a Theory,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (2013): 1615–28.

77. Mike Michael, “Futures of the Present: From Performativity to Prehension,” in Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, ed. Nik Brown, Brian Rapport, and Andrew Webster (Aldershot, U.K.: Ashgate, 2000), 21–42; Brown, “Hope Against Hype”; Borup et al., “The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology.”

78. Brown, “Hope Against Hype,” 11.

79. Brown, “Hope Against Hype,” 17, 9.

CHAPTER 6.  CONTAMINATION

1. “5th International Ancient DNA Conference,” University of Manchester, July 2000; Holger Schutkowski, “5th International Ancient DNA Conference, July 12–14, 2000,” Anthropologischer Anzeiger 59, no. 2 (2001): 179–81.

2. Erik Stokstad, “Divining Diet and Disease from DNA,” Science 289, no. 5479 (2000): 530–31.

3. Hendrik N. Poinar et al., “Molecular Coproscopy: Dung and Diet of the Extinct Ground Sloth Nothrotheriops Shastensis,” Science 281, no. 5375 (1998): 402–6.

4. Alex D. Greenwood et al., “Nuclear DNA Sequences from Late Pleistocene Megafauna,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 16, no. 11 (1999): 1466–73. Nuclear DNA (nDNA) comes from the nucleus of a cell and contains detailed information about the individual organism. Scientists can use nDNA to identify individuals and determine their genetic relationships to others within and between groups. However, nDNA has a much lower copy number in the cell, which means it is less likely to be preserved and extracted from ancient specimens. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), on the other hand, is found in a cell’s mitochondria and has a higher copy number so a higher likelihood that some DNA may be preserved. mtDNA, passed down the maternal line, can be used to differentiate between species as well as determine which individuals are related through their maternal line. See also Michael Hofreiter et al., “Ancient DNA,” Nature Reviews 2, no. 5 (2001): 353–59.

5. Stokstad, “Divining Diet and Disease from DNA”; Alex D. Greenwood et al., “Evolution of Endogenous Retrovirus-Like Elements of the Woolly Mammoth (Mammuthus Primigenius) and Its Relatives,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 18, no. 5 (2001): 840–47.

6. Ross D. E. MacPhee and Preston A. Marx, The 40,000-Year Plague: Humans, Hyperdisease, and First-Contact Extinctions (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1997); Stokstad, “Divining Diet and Disease from DNA.”

7. Stokstad, “Divining Diet and Disease from DNA,” 53.

8. Alan Cooper and Hendrik N. Poinar, “Ancient DNA: Do It Right or Not at All,” Science 289, no. 5482 (2000): 1139.

9. Svante Pääbo, Russell G. Higuchi, and Allan C. Wilson, “Ancient DNA and the Polymerase Chain Reaction,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 264, no. 17 (1989): 9709–12; Oliva Handt et al., “Ancient DNA: Methodological Challenges,” Experientia 50, no. 6 (1994): 524–29.

10. Cooper and Poinar “Ancient DNA: Do It Right or Not at All,” 1139.

11. Hofreiter et al., “Ancient DNA”; Svante Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” Annual Review of Genetics 38, no. 1 (2004): 645–79; Eske Willerslev, Anders J. Hansen, and Hendrik N. Poinar, “Isolation of Nucleic Acids and Cultures from Fossil Ice and Permafrost,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, no. 3 (2004): 140–47.

12. Svante Pääbo, “Ancient DNA: Extraction, Characterization, Molecular Cloning, and Enzymatic Amplification,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86, no. 6 (1989): 1939–43; Tomas Lindahl, “Instability and Decay of the Primary Structure of DNA,” Nature 362, no. 6422 (1993): 709–15; Bernd Herrmann and Susanne Hummel, eds., Ancient DNA: Recovery and Analysis of Genetic Material from Paleontological, Archaeological, Museum, Medical, and Forensic Specimens (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994); Handt et al., “Ancient DNA: Methodological Challenges”; Matthias Höss et al., “DNA Damage and DNA Sequence Retrieval from Ancient Tissues,” Nucleic Acids Research 24, no. 7 (1996): 1304–7; Matthias Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,” Cell 90 (1997): 19–30.

13. Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,” 19–30.

14. Cooper and Poinar, “Ancient DNA: Do It Right or Not at All,” 1139.

15. Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA.”

16. Russell Higuchi et al., “DNA Sequences from the Quagga, an Extinct Member of the Horse Family,” Nature 312, no. 5991 (1984): 282–84; Svante Pääbo, “Molecular Cloning of Ancient Egyptian Mummy DNA,” Nature 314, no. 6012 (1985): 644–45.

17. Nick Zagorski, “The Profile of Svante Pääbo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, no. 37 (2006): 13575–77.

18. Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” 646.

19. For specifics on examples of molecular damage, such as strand breaks, DNA cross-links, as well as oxidative and hydrolytic lesions, see Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” 646–54.

20. Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” 655.

21. Cooper and Poinar’s 2000 publication, “Ancient DNA: Do It Right or Not at All,” lists nine key criteria of authenticity, whereas Pääbo and colleagues’ 2004 publication, “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” lists eight. Pääbo and colleagues left off the first criteria that ancient DNA studies be conducted in a physically isolated laboratory, but they did discuss the necessity of performing DNA extractions and amplifications in dedicated laboratory facilities where no post-PCR work had been conducted. They also maintained that extraction work should be conducted with protective clothing and the workspace cleaned regularly with oxidants such as bleach and irradiated with UV lights. Also, instead of requiring that ancient DNA sequences be recovered from associated remains of the specimen under investigation, they stated that studies must test for the occurrence of nuclear insertions of mtDNA.

22. Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” 659.

23. Hofreiter et al., “Ancient DNA.”

24. Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” 670.

25. Harry M. Collins and Trevor J. Pinch, “The Construction of the Paranormal: Nothing Unscientific Is Happening,” in On the Margins of Science: The Social Construction of Rejected Knowledge, ed. Roy Wallis, Sociological Review Monograph 27 (1979): 237–70; Harry Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985); Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What You Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Harry Collins, Gravity’s Shadow: The Search for Gravitational Waves (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004); Harry Collins, Gravity’s Ghost: Scientific Discovery in the Twenty-First Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).

26. Collins, Changing Order, 28.

27. Harry M. Collins, “Son of Seven Sexes: The Social Destruction of a Physical Phenomenon,” Social Studies of Science 11, no. 1 (1981): 34.

28. Collins, Changing Order, 2.

29. Harry M. Collins, “Reproducibility of Experiments: Experimenters’ Regress, Statistical Uncertainty Principle, and the Replication Imperative,” in Reproducibility: Principles, Problems, Practices, and Prospects, ed. Harald Atmanspacher and Sabine Maasen (Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2016), 66.

30. Collins, Changing Order, 2.

31. Collins, “Reproducibility of Experiments,” 66.

32. Thomas F. Gieryn, “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists,” American Sociological Review 48, no. 6 (1983): 781–95.

33. Thomas F. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 4–5.

34. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science, 16.

35. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science, 63.

36. Rob DeSalle and David Lindley, The Science of Jurassic Park and The Lost World; or, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Basic, 1997); David A. Kirby, Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013).

37. David Norman, “Misread in Tooth and Claw,” Times Higher Education, November 28, 1997, 22.

38. Adrian M. Lister, “Ancient DNA: Not Quite Jurassic Park,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, no. 3 (1994): 82–84; Mary Schweitzer and Tracy Staedter, “The Real Jurassic Park,” Earth (June 1997): 55–57.

39. In describing this division, it is important to note that the line between these factions was not necessarily hard and fast. Instead, it was permeable, especially as some scientists have tried to collaborate across the schism. Indeed, today some do collaborate despite past controversy. Regardless, descriptions of “believers” versus “non-believers” in their oral-history testimonies has helped scientists make sense of an important issue, concerns about contamination, and its effect on their field. Adhering to this division and their commitment to the retelling of it (to colleagues, collaborators, students, and historians like me) serves to reinforce the seriousness of these contamination concerns and the consequences they felt it had on their credibility. To be clear, this map of divisions is by no means the only map of interactions that interviewees tried to draw regarding the history of this community. However, it is one way that the majority of interviewees have described this time of their history, and this distinction has served to set up the field’s growth in the years to come.

40. Erika Hagelberg referred to these terms in her talk on the history of the discipline, “Ancient DNA: The First Three Decades,” paper presented at the Royal Society, London, November 2013. Charles Greenblatt and Bernd Herrmann also used these terms to describe the divide in an unpublished chapter for an unpublished book. See Bernd Herrmann and Charles Greenblatt, “A Short Essay on ADNA and Its Future,” 2010, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Bernd Herrmann and Charles Greenblatt).

41. “The 6th International Conference on Ancient DNA and Associated Biomolecules,” Tel Aviv, Israel, July 21–25, 2002.

42. Mark Spigelman and Eshetu Lemma, “The Use of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) to Detect Mycobacterium Tuberculosis in Ancient Skeletons,” International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 3, no. 2 (1993): 137–43; A. Rafi et al., “Mycobacterium Leprae DNA from Ancient Bone Detected by PCR,” Lancet 343, no. 8909 (1994): 1360–61; Wilmar L. Salo et al., “Identification of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis DNA in a Pre-Columbian Peruvian Mummy,” Microbiology 91 (1994): 2091–94; Heike Baron, Susanne Hummel, and Bernd Herrmann, “Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Complex DNA in Ancient Human Bones,” Journal of Archaeological Science 23, no. 5 (1996): 667–71.

43. Robert K. Wayne, Jennifer A. Leonard, and Alan Cooper, “Full of Sound and Fury: The Recent History of Ancient DNA,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30 (1999): 467–68.

44. “The First International Symposium on Biomolecular Archaeology,” Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 18–20, 2018.

45. Herrmann and Greenblatt, “A Short Essay on ADNA and Its Future,” 2.

46. Herrmann and Greenblatt, “A Short Essay on ADNA and Its Future,” 2.

47. Herrmann and Hummel, eds., Ancient DNA; Susanne Hummel, ed., Ancient DNA Typing: Methods, Strategies, and Applications (Berlin: Springer, 2003); Helen D. Donoghue et al., “Tuberculosis: From Prehistory to Robert Koch, as Revealed by Ancient DNA,” Lancet: Infectious Diseases 4, no. 9 (September 2004): 584–92; Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA”; Eske Willerslev and Alan Cooper, “Ancient DNA,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 272, no. 1558 (2005): 3–16; Alicia K. Wilbur et al., “Deficiencies and Challenges in the Study of Ancient Tuberculosis DNA,” Journal of Archaeological Science 36, no. 9 (September 2009): 1990–97; Beth Shapiro and Michael Hofreiter, eds., Ancient DNA: Methods and Protocols (New York: Springer, 2012).

48. Willerslev and Cooper, “Ancient DNA,” 3.

49. M. Thomas P. Gilbert et al., “Assessing Ancient DNA Studies,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20, no. 10 (2005): 541.

50. Gilbert et al., “Assessing Ancient DNA Studies,” 542.

51. Gilbert et al., “Assessing Ancient DNA Studies,” 542.

52. Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA”; Willerslev and Cooper, “Ancient DNA.”

53. Collins and Pinch, The Golem, 3.

54. Collins, Changing Order, 19.

55. Gieryn, Cultural Boundaries of Science, 63.

56. Peter Broks, Understanding Popular Science (Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press, 2006), 107.

CHAPTER 7.  ANCIENT GENETICS TO ANCIENT GENOMICS

1. Marcel Margulies et al., “Genome Sequencing in Microfabricated High-Density Picolitre Reactors,” Nature 437, no. 7057 (2005): 376–80.

2. Jonathan M. Rothberg and John H. Leamon, “The Development and Impact of 454 Sequencing,” Nature Biotechnology 26, no. 10 (2008): 1123.

3. Karl V. Voelkerding, Shale A. Dames, and Jacob D. Durtschi, “Next-Generation Sequencing: From Basic Research to Diagnostics,” Clinical Chemistry 55, no. 4 (2009): 461–62.

4. Roche (454) GS FLX is a technology based on a method known as parallel pyrosequencing, while the Illumina (Solexa) Genome Analyzer uses a method based on reversible terminators. The 454 technology generates longer reads of DNA (over 400 base pairs) but is somewhat error-prone in homopolymeric regions (e.g., CCCCCC). Illumina generates shorter reads of DNA (100–150 base pairs) but in greater numbers. Both technologies operate on the same rationale for the production of sequences. However, they differ in the amplification procedures and sequencing chemistry, resulting in different throughputs. See Ermanno Rizzi et al., “Ancient DNA Studies: New Perspectives on Old Samples,” Genetics, Selection, Evolution 44, no. 1 (2012): 1–19.

5. James P. Noonan et al., “Genomic Sequencing of Pleistocene Cave Bears,” Science 309, no. 5734 (2005): 597–600.

6. Hendrik N. Poinar et al., “Metagenomics to Paleogenomics: Large-Scale Sequencing of Mammoth DNA,” Science 311, no. 2006 (2006): 393.

7. Michael Knapp and Michael Hofreiter, “Next Generation Sequencing of Ancient DNA: Requirements, Strategies and Perspectives,” Genes 1, no. 2 (2010): 227–43.

8. Alan Cooper, “The Year of the Mammoth,” PLoS Biology 4, no. 3 (2006): 0311–0313.

9. Evgeny I. Rogaev et al., “Complete Mitochondrial Genome and Phylogeny of Pleistocene Mammoth Mammuthus Primigenius,” PLoS Biology 4, no. 3 (2006): 0403–10; Johannes Krause et al., “Multiplex Amplification of the Mammoth Mitochondrial Genome and the Evolution of Elephantidae,” Nature 439, no. 7077 (2006): 724–27; Mark G. Thomas, Neil Bradman, and Helen M. Flinn, “High Throughput Analysis of 10 Microsatellite and 11 Diallelic Polymorphisms on the Human Y-Chromosome,” Human Genetics 105, no. 6 (1999): 577–81.

10. Poinar et al., “Metagenomics to Paleogenomics.”

11. Cooper, “The Year of the Mammoth,” 0313.

12. Didier Raoult et al., “Molecular Identification by ‘Suicide PCR’ of Yersinia Pestis as the Agent of Medieval Black Death,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, no. 23 (2000): 12800–803.

13. M. Thomas P. Gilbert et al., “Absence of Yersinia Pestis-Specific DNA in Human Teeth from Five European Excavations of Putative Plague Victims,” Microbiology 150 (2004): 341–54.

14. Kirsten Bos et al., “A Draft Genome of Yersinia Pestis from Victims of the Black Death,” Nature 478, no. 7370 (2011): 506–10.

15. Alan Cooper et al., “Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequences of Two Extinct Moas Clarify Ratite Evolution,” Nature 409, no. 6821 (2001): 704–7; Oliver Haddrath and Allan J. Baker, “Complete Mitochondrial DNA Genome Sequences of Extinct Birds: Ratite Phylogenetics and the Vicariance Biogeography Hypothesis,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B, Biological Sciences 268, no. 1470 (2001): 939–45; Ann H. Reid et al., “Characterization of the 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Virus Matrix Gene Segment,” Journal of Virology 76, no. 21 (2002): 10717–23; Terrence M. Tumpey et al., “Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus,” Science 310, no. 5745 (2005): 77–80; Noonan et al., “Genomic Sequencing of Pleistocene Cave Bears”; M. Thomas P. Gilbert et al., “Characterization of Genetic Miscoding Lesions Caused by Postmortem Damage,” American Journal of Human Genetics 72, no. 1 (2003): 48–61; M. Thomas P. Gilbert et al., “Distribution Patterns of Postmortem Damage in Human Mitochondrial DNA,” American Journal of Human Genetics 72, no. 1 (2003): 32–47.

16. Jennifer A. Leonard, Robert K. Wayne, and Alan Cooper, “Population Genetics of Ice Age Brown Bears,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 97, no. 4 (2000): 1651–54.

17. Beth Shapiro et al., “Rise and Fall of the Beringian Steppe Bison,” Science 306, no. 5701 (2004): 1561–65.

18. Odile Loreille et al., “Ancient DNA Analysis Reveals Divergence of the Cave Bear, Ursus Spelaeus, and Brown Bear, Ursus Arctos, Lineages,” Current Biology 11, no. 3 (2001): 200–203; Carles Vilà et al., “Widespread Origins of Domestic Horse Lineages,” Science 291, no. 5503 (2001): 474–77; Ian Barnes et al., “Dynamics of Pleistocene Population Extinctions in Beringian Brown Bears,” Science 295, no. 5563 (2002): 2267–70; Michael Hofreiter et al., “Ancient DNA Analyses Reveal High Mitochondrial DNA Sequence Diversity and Parallel Morphological Evolution of Late Pleistocene Cave Bears,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, no. 8 (2002): 1244–50; Jennifer A. Leonard et al., “Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs,” Science 298, no. 5598 (2002): 1613–16; Peter A. Ritchie et al., “Ancient DNA Enables Timing of the Pleistocene Origin and Holocene Expansion of Two Adelie Penguin Lineages in Antarctica,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 21, no. 2 (2003): 240–48; Michael Hofreiter et al., “Evidence for Reproductive Isolation Between Cave Bear Populations,” Current Biology 14, no. 1 (2004): 40–43; Shapiro et al., “Rise and Fall of the Beringian Steppe Bison.”

19. “Neandertal Genome to Be Deciphered,” Max Planck Society, July 20, 2006, www.mpg.de/534422/pressRelease20060720.

20. Svante Pääbo, Neanderthal Man: In Search of Lost Genomes (New York: Basic, 2014), 124.

21. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 117, 124.

22. Jeremy Schmutz et al., “Quality Assessment of the Human Genome Sequence,” Nature 429, no. 6990 (2004): 365–68; “Timeline: Organisms That Have Had Their Genomes Sequenced,” Your Genome, www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-organisms-that-have-had-their-genomes-sequenced.

23. Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (New York: Freeman, 1995); Suzanne Anker and Dorothy Nelkin, The Molecular Gaze: Art in the Genetic Age (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2003); Dorothy Nelkin, “Molecular Metaphors: The Gene in Popular Discourse,” Nature Reviews Genetics 2, no. 7 (2001): 555–59; Elsbeth Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 25, no. 1 (2017): 99–142; Elsbeth Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA: Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung (Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag, 2017).

24. Matthias Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans,” Cell 90 (1997): 19–30; Igor Ovchinnikov et al., “Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus,” Nature 404, no. 6777 (2000): 490–93; Matthias Höss, “Neanderthal Population Genetics,” Nature 404, no. 6777 (2000): 453–54.

25. Krings et al., “Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans.”

26. Richard E. Green et al., “Analysis of One Million Base Pairs of Neanderthal DNA,” Nature 444, no. 7117 (2006): 330–36; James P. Noonan et al., “Sequencing and Analysis of Neanderthal Genomic DNA,” Science 314, no. 5802 (2006): 1113–18; Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, chap. 11.

27. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, chap. 11.

28. Jeffrey D. Wall and Sung K. Kim, “Inconsistencies in Neanderthal Genomic DNA Sequences,” PLoS Genetics 3, no. 10 (2007): 1865.

29. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, chap. 11.

30. Rex Dalton, “DNA Probe Finds Hints of Human,” Nature 449 (September 6, 2007): 7.

31. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, chap. 11.

32. Annalee Newitz, “Code of the Caveman,” Wired, July 2006, www.wired.com/2006/07/caveman/.

33. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, chap. 17.

34. Richard E. Green et al., “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome,” Science 328, no. 5979 (2010): 710–22.

35. “The Neandertal in Us,” Max Planck Society, 2010, www.mpg.de/617258/pressRelease20100430; Ewen Callaway, “Neanderthal Genome Reveals Interbreeding with Humans,” New Scientist, May 6, 2010, www.newscientist.com/article/dn18869-neanderthal-genome-reveals-interbreeding-with-humans/; Pääbo, Neanderthal Man.

36. Ker Than, “Neanderthals, Humans Interbred—First Solid DNA Evidence,” National Geographic, May 8, 2010, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100506-science-neanderthals-humans-mated-interbred-dna-gene/.

37. “Neanderthal,” Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/neanderthal/.

38. Pääbo, Neanderthal Man, 221–22.

39. M. Thomas P. Gilbert et al., “Paleo-Eskimo MtDNA Genome Reveals Matrilineal Discontinuity in Greenland,” Science 320, no. 5884 (2008): 1787–89; M. Thomas P. Gilbert et al., “Intraspecific Phylogenetic Analysis of Siberian Woolly Mammoths Using Complete Mitochondrial Genomes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, no. 24 (2008): 8327–32; Webb Miller et al., “Sequencing the Nuclear Genome of the Extinct Woolly Mammoth,” Nature 456, no. 7220 (2008): 387–90; Morten Rasmussen et al., “Ancient Human Genome Sequence of an Extinct Palaeo-Eskimo,” Nature 463, no. 7282 (2010): 757–62; Morten Rasmussen et al., “An Aboriginal Australian Genome Reveals Separate Human Dispersals into Asia,” Science 334, no. 6052 (2011): 94–98; Jakob Skou Pedersen et al., “Genome-Wide Nucleosome Map and Cytosine Methylation Levels of an Ancient Human Genome,” Genome Research 24, no. 3 (2014): 454–66; Morten Rasmussen et al., “The Genome of a Late Pleistocene Human from a Clovis Burial Site in Western Montana,” Nature 506, no. 7487 (2014): 225–29; Eske Willerslev et al., “Fifty Thousand Years of Arctic Vegetation and Megafaunal Diet,” Nature 506, no. 7486 (2014): 47–51; Turi E. King et al., “Identification of the Remains of King Richard III,” Nature Communications 5 (2014): 5631.

40. N. Izagirre and C. de la Rúa, “An MtDNA Analysis in Ancient Basque Populations: Implications for Haplogroup V as a Marker for a Major Paleolithic Expansion from Southwestern Europe,” American Journal of Human Genetics 65, no. 1 (1999): 199–207; Wolfgang Haak et al., “Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites,” Science 310, no. 5750 (2005): 1016–18; Joachim Burger et al., “Absence of the Lactase-Persistence-Associated Allele in Early Neolithic Europeans,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, no. 10 (2007): 3736–41; B. Bramanti et al., “Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers,” Science 326, no. 5949 (2009): 137–40; Wolfgang Haak et al., “Ancient DNA from European Early Neolithic Farmers Reveals Their Near Eastern Affinities,” PLoS Biology 8, no. 11 (2010): 1–16; Pontus Skoglund et al., “Origins and Genetic Legacy of Neolithic Farmers and Hunter-Gatherers in Europe,” Science 336, no. 6080 (April 27, 2012): 466–69; Christina Warinner et al., “Pathogens and Host Immunity in the Ancient Human Oral Cavity,” Nature Genetics 46, no. 4 (2014): 336–44; Eppie R. Jones et al., “Upper Palaeolithic Genomes Reveal Deep Roots of Modern Eurasians,” Nature Communications 6 (November 16, 2015): 8912; Helena Malmström et al., “Ancient Mitochondrial DNA from the Northern Fringe of the Neolithic Farming Expansion in Europe Sheds Light on the Dispersion Process,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 370, no. 1660 (January 19, 2015): 1–10.

41. Leonard et al., “Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs”; Ruth Bollongino et al., “Early History of European Domestic Cattle as Revealed by Ancient DNA,” Biology Letters 2, no. 1 (2006): 155–159; G. Larson et al., “Ancient DNA, Pig Domestication, and the Spread of the Neolithic into Europe,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, no. 39 (September 25, 2007): 15276–81; Amelie Scheu et al., “Ancient DNA Provides No Evidence for Independent Domestication of Cattle in Mesolithic Rosenhof, Northern Germany,” Journal of Archaeological Science 35, no. 5 (2008): 1257–1264; Greger Larson et al., “Rethinking Dog Domestication by Integrating Genetics, Archeology, and Biogeography,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, no. 23 (June 5, 2012): 8878–83; Greger Larson et al., “Current Perspectives and the Future of Domestication Studies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, no. 17 (2014): 6139–46; Pontus Skoglund et al., “Ancient Wolf Genome Reveals an Early Divergence of Domestic Dog Ancestors and Admixture into High-Latitude Breeds,” Current Biology 25 (2015): 1–5.

42. Green et al., “A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome.”

43. Johannes Krause et al., “A Complete MtDNA Genome of an Early Modern Human from Kostenki, Russia,” Current Biology, vol. 20 (2010): 231–36; Johannes Krause et al., “The Complete Mitochondrial DNA Genome of an Unknown Hominin from Southern Siberia,” Nature 464, no. 7290 (2010): 894–97; David Reich et al., “Genetic History of an Archaic Hominin Group from Denisova Cave in Siberia,” Nature 468, no. 7327 (2010): 1053–60; Ann Gibbons, “A Crystal-Clear View of an Extinct Girl’s Genome,” Science 337 (2012): 1028–29; David Gokhman et al., “Reconstructing the DNA Methylation Maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan,” Science 344, no. 6183 (2014): 523–27.

44. Mark Stoneking and Johannes Krause, “Learning About Human Population History from Ancient and Modern Genomes,” Nature Reviews Genetics 12, no. 9 (2011): 603–14; Chris Stringer, Lone Survivors: How We Came to Be the Only Humans on Earth (New York: St. Martin’s, 2012); Krishna R. Veeramah and Michael F. Hammer, “The Impact of Whole-Genome Sequencing on the Reconstruction of Human Population History,” Nature Reviews 15 (2014): 149–62; Ann Gibbons, “Revolution in Human Evolution,” Science 349, no. 6246 (2015): 362–66.

45. Margulies et al., “Genome Sequencing in Microfabricated High-Density Picolitre Reactors”; Craig D. Millar et al., “New Developments in Ancient Genomics,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, no. 7 (2008): 386–93; Knapp and Hofreiter, “Next Generation Sequencing of Ancient DNA.”

46. Nick Zagorski, “The Profile of Svante Pääbo,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103, no. 37 (2006): 13575–77; Carl Zimmer, “Eske Willerslev Is Rewriting History with DNA,” New York Times, May 17, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/05/17/science/eske-willerslev-ancient-dna-scientist.html.

47. Gideon Lewis, “Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths—or Falling Into Old Traps?” New York Times, January 17, 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/magazine/ancient-dna-paleogenomics.html.

48. David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Pantheon, 2018), xxiv.

49. David Reich, “How to Talk About ‘Race’ and Genetics,” New York Times, March 30, 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/opinion/race-genetics.html; Jonathan Kahn et al., “How Not To Talk About Race and Genetics,” Center for Genetics and Society, 2018, www.geneticsandsociety.org/article/how-not-talk-about-race-and-genetics.

50. Alexandra Ion, “How Interdisciplinary Is Interdisciplinary? Revisiting the Impact of ADNA Research for the Archaeology of Human Remains,” Current Swedish Archaeology 25 (2017): 87–108.

51. See Elizabeth D. Jones and Elsbeth Bösl, “Ancient Human DNA: A History of Hype (Then and Now),” Journal of Social Archaeology (February 2021): 1–20. See also Thomas Booth, “A Stranger in a Strange Land: A Perspective on Archaeological Responses to the Palaeogenetic Revolution from an Archaeologist Working Amongst Palaeogeneticists,” World Archaeology 51 (2019): 586–601; Craig D. Millar and D. Michael Lambert, “Archaeogenetics and Human Evolution: The Ontogeny of a Biological Discipline,” World Archaeology 51 (2019): 546–59; Catherine Frieman and Daniela Hofmann, “Present Pasts in the Archaeology of Genetics, Identity, and Migration in Europe: A Critical Essay,” World Archaeology 51 (2019): 528–45; Susanne Hakenbeck, “Genetics, Archaeology and the Far Right: An Unholy Trinity,” World Archaeology 51 (2019): 517–27; Michael L. Blakey, “On the Biodeterministic Imagination,” Archaeological Dialogues 27 (2020): 1–16; Martin Furholt, “Biodeterminism and Pseudo-Objectivity as Obstacles for the Emerging Field of Archaeogenetics,” Archaeological Dialogues 27 (2020): 23–25; Thomas Booth, “Imagined Biodeterminism?” Archaeological Dialogues 27 (2020): 16–19; Ion, “How Interdisciplinary Is Interdisciplinary?”

52. Rachel J. Crellin and Oliver J. T. Harris, “Beyond Binaries: Interrogating Ancient DNA,” Archaeological Dialogues 27 (2020): 37–56.

53. Ewen Callaway, “The Battle for Common Ground,” Nature 555, no. 7698 (2018): 574.

54. Blakey, “On the Biodeterministic Imagination.”

55. Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here, chap. 10.

56. Furholt, “Biodeterminism and Pseudo-Objectivity as Obstacles for the Emerging Field of Archaeogenetics.”

57. Blakey, “On the Biodeterministic Imagination.”

58. Jenny Reardon, Race to the Finish: Identity and Governance in an Age of Genomics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004); Jenny Reardon, “Decoding Race and Human Difference in a Genomic Age,” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 15, no. 3 (2004): 38–65; Jenny Reardon and Kim TallBear, “ ‘Your DNA Is Our History’: Genomics, Anthropology, and the Contruction of Whitness as Property,” Current Anthropology 53, no. 5 (2012): S233–45; Kim TallBear, “Genomic Articulations of Indigeneity,” Social Studies of Science 43, no. 4 (2013): 509–33; Kim TallBear, Native American DNA: Tribal Belonging and the False Promise of Genetic Science (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013); Joanna Radin, Life on Ice: A History of New Uses for Cold Blood (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017).

59. Reardon, Race to the Finish, 7.

60. Frieman and Hofmann, “Present Pasts in the Archaeology of Genetics, Identity, and Migration in Europe”; Hakenbeck, “Genetics, Archaeology and the Far Right.”

61. Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here, xvii.

62. Maria C. Ávila Arcos, “Troubling Traces of Biocolonialism Undermine an Otherwise Eloquent Synthesis of Ancient Genome Research,” Science, April 17, 2018, http://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2018/04/17/who-we-are-and-how-we-got-here/.

63. Ávila Arcos, “Troubling Traces of Biocolonialism”; Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here.

64. Lewis, “Is Ancient DNA Research Revealing New Truths—or Falling Into Old Traps?”

65. Clio Der Sarkissian et al., “Ancient Genomics,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 370, no. 1660 (January 19, 2015): 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0387.

66. Anna Källén et al., “Archaeogenetics in Popular Media: Contemporary Implications of Ancient DNA,” Current Swedish Archaeology 27 (2019): 69–91; C. Hedenstierna-Jonson et al., “A Female Viking Warrior Confirmed by Genomics,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology 164 (2018): 853–60.

67. Frieman and Hofmann, “Present Pasts in the Archaeology of Genetics, Identity, and Migration in Europe.”

CHAPTER 8.  CELEBRITY AS IDENTITY

1. Erika Hagelberg, Michael Hofreiter, and Christine Keyser, “Introduction—Ancient DNA: The First Three Decades,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 370, no. 1660 (2015): 1–6.

2. Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, “The 1959 Darwin Centennial Celebration in America,” Osiris 14 (1999): 274–323.

3. Hagelberg, Hofreiter, and Keyser, “Introduction—Ancient DNA.”

4. Michael Knapp and Michael Hofreiter, “Next Generation Sequencing of Ancient DNA: Requirements, Strategies and Perspectives,” Genes 1, no. 2 (2010): 227.

5. Henry Nicholls, “Ancient DNA Comes of Age,” PLoS Biology 3, no. 2 (February 15, 2005): e56, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030056.

6. Joseph Allen Cain, “Common Problems and Cooperative Solutions: Organizational Activities in Evolutionary Studies, 1937–1946,” Isis 84, no. 1 (1993): 1–25.

7. Elsbeth Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 25, no. 1 (2017): 99–142; Elsbeth Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA: Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung (Bielefeld, Germany: Verlag, 2017).

8. Elisabeth S. Clemmens, “Of Asteroids and Dinosaurs: The Role of the Press in the Shaping of Scientific Debate,” Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 421–56; Elisabeth S. Clemmens, “The Impact Hypothesis and Popular Science: Conditions and Consequences of Interdisciplinary Debate,” in The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, ed. William Glen (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1994), 92–120.

9. Clemmens, “The Impact Hypothesis and Popular Science,” 111, 119.

10. Michael Strevens, “The Role of the Priority Rule in Science,” Philosophy of Science 100, no. 2 (2003): 55–79.

11. Joe Cain, “Ritual Patricide: Why Stephen Jay Gould Assassinated George Gaylord Simpson,” in The Paleobiological Revolution: Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology, ed. David Sepkoski and Michael Ruse (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 252–53.

12. Hagelberg, Hofreiter, and Keyser, “Introduction—Ancient DNA.”

13. Bösl, Doing Ancient DNA.

14. Ann Gibbons, “Ancient DNA Divide,” Science 352, no. 6292 (2016): 1384.

15. Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung.”

16. Bernd Herrmann and Charles Greenblatt, “A Short Essay on ADNA and Its Future,” 2010, 3–4, Author’s Personal Collection (file from Bernd Herrmann and Charles Greenblatt).

17. Peter Galison, “Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone,” in The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, ed. Peter Galison and David J. Stump (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996), 118–57.

18. Elsbeth Bösl, “Zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der ADNA-Forschung,” NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 25, no. 1 (2017): 99–142.

19. Matthew Collins, “Archaeology and the Biomolecular ‘Revolution’: Too Much of the Wrong Kind of Data,” Stichting Voor de Nederlandse Archeologie 18 (2006): 1–18.

CHAPTER 9.  CELEBRITY AS STRATEGY

1. Erika Hagelberg, Michael Hofreiter, and Christine Keyser, “Introduction—Ancient DNA: The First Three Decades,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences 370, no. 1660 (2015): 1–6.

2. Russell Higuchi et al., “DNA Sequences from the Quagga, an Extinct Member of the Horse Family,” Nature 312, no. 5991 (1984): 282–84.

3. Rob DeSalle et al., “DNA Sequences from a Fossil Termite in Oligo-Miocene Amber and Their Phylogenetic Implications,” Science 257, no. 5078 (1992): 1933–36.

4. Morten E. Allentoft et al., “Population Genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia,” Nature 522, no. 7555 (2015): 167–72.

5. Ewen Callaway, “DNA Data Explosion Lights Up the Bronze Age,” Nature 522, no. 7555 (June 11, 2015): 140–41.

6. Iñigo Olalde et al., “The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe,” Nature 555, no. 7695 (2018): 190–96; Iain Mathieson et al., “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe,” Nature 555, no. 7695 (2018): 197–203.

7. This shift from “too little data” to “too much data” is meant to be understood as a comparison between ancient DNA research’s past and present. Even if researchers are able to produce more data, comparatively speaking, the data is still often of poor or patchy quality. This requires researchers to find ways of handling and analyzing the data. Today, there is much more data than before, but the amount of ancient DNA data, if compared to the influx of modern DNA data, is still far off.

8. Adrian M. Lister, “Ancient DNA: Not Quite Jurassic Park,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, no. 3 (1994): 82–84; Rob DeSalle and David Lindley, The Science of Jurassic Park and The Lost World; or, How to Build a Dinosaur (New York: Basic, 1997); Alan Cooper and Hendrik N. Poinar, “Ancient DNA: Do It Right or Not at All,” Science 289, no. 5482 (2000): 1139; Svante Pääbo et al., “Genetic Analyses from Ancient DNA,” Annual Review of Genetics 38, no. 1 (2004): 645–79; Martin B. Hebsgaard, Matthew J. Phillips, and Eske Willerslev, “Geologically Ancient DNA: Fact or Artefact?” Trends in Microbiology 13, no. 5 (2005): 212–20.

9. I cannot fully do justice to the scientific and philosophical elements that the demarcation discussion requires. However, I do intend to raise some points of connection between this history of ancient DNA research and what philosophers of science have said about the nature and implications of contemporary data-driven inquiry. The history of ancient DNA research has demonstrated the degree to which scientists in search of DNA from fossils were very much driven by data in terms of access to samples and availability of technology. It has also demonstrated that scientists, as well as major journals such as Nature and Science, were motivated by the celebrity that surrounded the science of ancient DNA research.

10. Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (London: Routledge, 1959); Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962); Imre Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Research Program,” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, ed. Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 91–197.

11. Maureen A. O’Malley et al., “Philosophies of Funding,” Cell 138, no. 4 (2009): 611–15; Chris Haufe, “Why Do Funding Agencies Favor Hypothesis Testing?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44 (2013): 363–74.

12. Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Research Program”; Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (London: New Left, 1975); Larry Laudan, Science and Hypothesis: Historical Essays on Scientific Methodology (London: Reidel, 1981).

13. Sabina Leonelli, “Introduction: Making Sense of Data-Driven Research in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 1–3; Sabina Leonelli, Data-Centric Biology: A Philosophical Study (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016).

14. Bruno J. Strasser, “Data-Driven Sciences: From Wonder Cabinets to Electronic Databases,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43 (2012): 85–87. For relevant articles in the special issue, see Staffan Müller-Wille and Isabelle Charmantier, “Natural History and Information Overload: The Case of Linnaeus,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 4–15; Sabina Leonelli and Rachel A. Ankeny, “Re-Thinking Organisms: The Impact of Databases on Model Organism Biology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 29–36; Peter Keating and Alberto Cambrosio, “Too Many Numbers: Microarrays in Clinical Cancer Research,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 37–51.

15. Strasser, “Data-Driven Sciences,” 85.

16. Müller-Wille and Charmantier, “Natural History and Information Overload.”

17. Strasser, “Data-Driven Sciences,” 85.

18. Strasser, “Data-Driven Sciences,” 86, 87.

19. Leonelli, Data-Centric Biology.

20. To be clear, archeologists, paleontologists, and curators are vital to the pursuit of DNA from ancient and extinct organisms. These researchers’ skills are valuable for sample access as well as knowledge of the historical and biological background needed in order to give context to the data obtained from a specific sample. But there is a tension between those researchers responsible for conserving specimen collections and those interested in sampling organisms for genetic information because sampling for ancient DNA is destructive to the specimen. This was certainly a concern in the early years of ancient DNA research. Museums value their collections for their rarity, and their main mission is to conserve past and present specimens for future generations to study or enjoy. While molecular methods offer opportunities for curators to make new uses of old collections, taking samples of skin, tissue, or bone can damage often rare or important specimens. This presents a clear challenge to researchers and curators to find a compromise between their motives. To a certain extent, this challenge can cause a significant dichotomy between the large labs in ancient DNA research that are driving more and more specimen sampling and those curators who are trying to minimize damage to museum collections. For more information, see J. Freedman, Lucy van Dorp, and Selina Brace, “Destructive Sampling Natural Science Collections: An Overview for Museum Professionals and Researchers,” Journal of Natural Science Collections 5 (2017): 1–14.

21. This business attitude toward the search for DNA from fossils is not without its critics. Archeologists, paleontologists, and curators are some of the most concerned about the intensity of sampling. See Ewen Callaway, “Divided by DNA: The Uneasy Relationship Between Archaeology and Ancient Genomics,” Nature 555, no. 7698 (2018): 573–76.

22. Jane Calvert, “Systems Biology, Synthetic Biology and Data-Driven Research: A Commentary on Krohs, Callebaut, and O’Malley and Soyer,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 81–84; Ulrich Krohs, “Convenience Experimentation,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 52–57; Werner Callebaut, “Scientific Perspectivism: A Philosopher of Science’s Response to the Challenge of Big Data Biology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 69–80; Maureen A. O’Malley and Orkun S. Soyer, “The Roles of Integration in Molecular Systems Biology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43, no. 1 (2012): 58–68.

23. Krohs, “Convenience Experimentation,” 53; Richard M. Burian, “Exploratory Experimentation and the Role of Histochemical Techniques in the Work of Jean Brachet, 1938–1952,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 19, no. 1 (1997): 27–45; Friedrich Steinle, “Entering New Fields: Exploratory Uses of Experimentation,” Philosophy of Science 64 (1997): S65–74; Leonelli and Ankeny, “Re-Thinking Organisms.”

24. Maureen A. O’Malley, “Exploratory Experimentation and Scientific Practice: Metagenomics and the Proteorhodopsin Case,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29, no. 3 (2007): 345.

25. “Neandertal Genome to Be Deciphered,” Max Planck Society, July 20, 2006, www.mpg.de/534422/pressRelease20060720.

26. Stephen Hilgartner, “Staging High-Visibility Science: Media Orientation in Genome Research,” in The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and Its Repercussions, ed. Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen, and Peter Weingart (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012), 190, 212.

CHAPTER 10.  JURASSIC PARK EFFECT

1. Ben Macintyre, “The Great Auk Needn’t Be as Dead as a Dodo,” The Times (London), March 8, 2013, www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-great-auk-neednt-be-as-dead-as-a-dodo-5gztjkjtrbb.

2. Hendrik Poinar, “Not All Mammoths Were Woolly” (Washington, D.C.: TEDxDeExtinction, 2013), http://reviverestore.org/events/tedxdeextinction/; Beth Shapiro, “Ancient DNA: What It Is and What It Could Be” (Washington, D.C.: TEDxDeExtinction, 2013), http://reviverestore.org/events/tedxdeextinction/.

3. Ben Novak, “How to Bring Passenger Pigeons All the Way Back” (Washington, D.C.: TEDxDeExtinction, 2013), http://reviverestore.org/events/tedxdeextinction/.

4. John Travis, “Making the Cut,” Science 350, no. 6267 (2015): 1456–57.

5. Jacob S. Sherkow and Hank T. Greely, “What If Extinction Is Not Forever?” Science 5, no. 340 (2013): 32–33.

6. D. T. Max, “Can You Revive an Extinct Animal?” New York Times, January 1, 2006, www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/magazine/01taxidermy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.

7. J. Folch et al., “First Birth of an Animal from an Extinct Subspecies (Capra Pyrenaica Pyrenaica) by Cloning,” Theriogenology 71, no. 6 (2009): 1026–34.

8. “The Great Passenger Pigeon Comeback,” Revive & Restore, 2016, http://reviverestore.org/projects/the-great-passenger-pigeon-comeback/.

9. “Woolly Mammoth Revivalists,” Revive & Restore, 2016, http://longnow.org/revive/projects/woolly-mammoth/woolly-mammoth-revivalists/.

10. Sasha Harris-Lovett, “ ‘Jurassic World’ Paleontologist Wants to Turn a Chicken into a Dinosaur,” Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2015, www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-horner-dinosaurs-20150612-story.html; Jack Horner and James Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur: Extinction Doesn’t Have to Be Forever (New York: Dutton, 2009).

11. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection; or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: Murray, 1859); Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963); David Hull, “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy: Two Thousand Years of Stasis,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16, no. 16 (1965): 1–18; John Beatty, “Speaking of Species: Darwin’s Strategy,” in The Darwinian Heritage, ed. D. Kohn (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1985); John Dupré, The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993); Jody Hey, “The Mind of the Species Problem,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16, no. 7 (2001): 326–29.

12. Alissa Greenberg, “A Brief Look at the Ethical Debate of De-Extinction,” Stanford-Brown International Genetically Engineered Machine Workshop Report (2013): 1–8, http://2013.igem.org/wiki/images/8/8f/De-Extinction_Ethics.pdf; Sherkow and Greely, “What If Extinction Is Not Forever?” 32.

13. Henry Nicholls, “Let’s Make a Mammoth,” Nature 456 (November 20, 2008): 310–14.

14. Beth Shapiro, How to Clone a Mammoth: The Science of De-Extinction (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2015).

15. Mac Margolis, “A Real-Life Jurassic Park,” Newsweek, January 29, 2006, www.newsweek.com/real-life-jurassic-park-108597.

16. Julian Ryall, “DNA Scholars Hope to Stock Siberia ‘Park’ with Mammoths,” Japan Times (Tokyo), August 20, 2002, www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2002/08/20/national/dna-scholars-hope-to-stock-siberia-park-with-mammoths/#.WJXl_7GcagQ; Stefan Lovegren, “Woolly Mammoth Resurrection, ‘Jurassic Park’ Planned,” National Geographic News, April 8, 2005, www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/topic/latest-stories; Sergey A. Zimov, “Pleistocene Park: Return of the Mammoth’s Ecosystem,” Science 308, no. 5723 (2005): 796–98.

17. Margolis, “A Real-Life Jurassic Park.”

18. Michael Archer, “Second Chance for Tasmanian Tigers and Fantastic Frogs” (Washington, D.C.: TEDxDeExtinction, 2013), http://reviverestore.org/events/tedxdeextinction/.

19. Don Colgan and Mike Archer, “The Thylacine Project,” Australasian Science 21, no. 1 (2000): 21.

20. Amy Lynn Fletcher, “Bring ’Em Back Alive: Taming the Tasmanian Tiger Cloning Project,” Technology in Society 30, no. 2 (2008): 194–201; Amy Fletcher, “Genuine Fakes: Cloning Extinct Species as Science and Spectacle,” Politics and the Life Sciences 29, no. 1 (2010): 48–60.

21. Fletcher, “Genuine Fakes,” 51–52.

22. Margolis, “A Real-Life Jurassic Park.”

23. Craig D. Millar et al., “New Developments in Ancient Genomics,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 23, no. 7 (2008): 386–93.

24. Nicolas Wade, “Regenerating a Mammoth for $10 Million,” New York Times, International Edition, November 19, 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?_r=0.

25. Philip Bethge and Johann Grolle, “Can Neanderthals Be Brought Back from the Dead?” Der Spiegel, January 18, 2013, www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/george-church-explains-how-dna-will-be-construction-material-of-the-future-a-877634.html.

26. Susan Young Rojahn, “Wanted: Surrogate for Neanderthal Baby,” MIT Technology Review, January 17, 2013, www.technologyreview.com/s/510071/wanted-surrogate-for-neanderthal-baby/.

27. Fiona Macrae, “ ‘Adventurous Human Woman’ Wanted to Give Birth to Neanderthal Man by Harvard Professor,” Daily Mail (London), January 20, 2013, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265402/Adventurous-human-woman-wanted-birth-Neanderthal-man-Harvard-professor.html.

28. “Neanderthal Baby Clone: George Church, Harvard Geneticist, Looks to Resurrect Extinct Species,” Huffington Post Canada, January 21, 2013, www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/01/21/neanderthal-baby-clone_n_2521027.html.

29. Svante Pääbo, “Neanderthals Are People, Too,” New York Times, April 24, 2014, www.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/opinion/neanderthals-are-people-too.html.

30. “Surrogate Mother (Not Yet) Sought for Neanderthal,” Der Spiegel, January 23, 2013, www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel-responds-to-brouhaha-over-neanderthal-clone-interview-a-879311.html.

31. Dorothy Nelkin, Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1995), 162.

32. Quoted from Nelkin, Selling Science, 82.

33. Sharon Dunwoody, “Science Journalism: Prospects of the Digital Age,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, ed. Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench (London: Routledge, 2014), 32.

34. Martina Franzen, Breaking News: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschriften Im Kampf Um Aufmerksamkeit (Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos, 2011).

35. Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, The Formation of the American Scientific Community: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1848–1860 (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1976); Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, Michael Sokal, and Bruce V. Lewenstein, The Establishment of Science in America: 150 Years of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1999); Melinda Baldwin, Making “Nature”: The History of a Scientific Journal (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015).

36. Peter Weingart, “The Lure of the Mass Media and Its Repercussions on Science,” in The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and Its Repercussions, ed. Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen, and Peter Weingart (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012), 29.

37. Michael B. Shermer, “This View of Science: Stephen Jay Gould as Historian of Science and Scientific Historian, Popular Scientist and Scientific Popularizer,” Social Studies of Science 32, no. 4 (2002): 490. See also Keay Davidson, Carl Sagan: A Life (New York: Wiley, 1999).

38. Graeme Turner, Understanding Celebrity (London: SAGE, 2004), 3.

39. Neil Hall, “The Kardashian Index: A Measure of Discrepant Social Media Profile for Scientists,” Genome Biology 15, no. 424 (2014): 1–2.

40. Nelkin, Selling Science, 13.

41. Massimiano Bucchi, “When Scientists Turn to the Public: Alternative Routes in Science Communication,” Public Understanding of Science 5, no. 4 (1996): 375–94.

42. Bruce V. Lewenstein, “From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga,” Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 403–36; Bart Simon, Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2002).

43. Angela Cassidy, “Popular Evolutionary Psychology in the UK: An Unusual Case of Science in the Media?” Public Understanding of Science 14 (2005): 115–41; Angela Cassidy, “Evolutionary Psychology as Public Science and Boundary Work,” Public Understanding of Science 15 (2006): 175–205.

44. Felicity Mellor, “Colliding Worlds: Asteroid Research and the Legitimization of War in Space,” Social Studies of Science 37, no. 4 (2007): 499–531; Felicity Mellor, “Negotiating Uncertainty: Asteroids, Risk and the Media,” Public Understanding of Science 19, no. 1 (2010): 16–33.

45. Rae Goodell, The Visible Scientists (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977); Jane Gregory, Fred Hoyle’s Universe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Declan Fahy, The New Celebrity Scientists: Out of the Lab and into the Limelight (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015).

46. Fletcher, “Genuine Fakes,” 49.

47. Rödder, Franzen, and Weingart, eds., The Sciences’ Media Connection.

48. Zimov, “Pleistocene Park.”

49. Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody, and Carol L. Rogers, eds., Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (New York: Free Press, 1986), xiii.

50. Sharon Dunwoody attributed this idea to Blumler and Gurevitch. See Sharon Dunwoody, “The Scientist as Source,” in Friedman, Dunwoody, and Rogers, eds., Scientists and Journalists, 13. See also Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch, “Politicians and the Press: An Essay on Role Relationships,” in Handbook of Political Communication, ed. Dan D. Nimmo and Keith R. Sanders (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1981), 467–93.

51. Peter Broks, Understanding Popular Science (Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press, 2006), 144. The use of the term “popular science” has a contentious history. Recently, James Secord has argued for abandoning it. See James A. Secord, “Knowledge in Transit,” Isis 95, no. 4 (2004): 654–72. Broks has reconsidered the term by redefining how we think and talk about popular science.

52. Broks, Understanding Popular Science, 107, 149.

53. Nelkin, Selling Science, 145.

54. “Media Frenzy,” Nature 459, no. 7246 (2009): 484.

EPILOGUE:  ANCIENT DNA AS CELEBRITY SCIENCE

1. Alida M. Bailleul et al., “Evidence of Proteins, Chromosomes and Chemical Markers of DNA in Exceptionally Preserved Dinosaur Cartilage,” National Science Review 7, no. 4 (2020): 815–22.

2. Josh K. Elliott, “Bingo? Possible Dinosaur ‘DNA’ Found in 75-Million-Year-Old Fossil,” Global News (Canada), March 4, 2020, https://globalnews.ca/news/6625164/dinosaur-dna-found-fossil/#:~:text=The%20Jurassic%20Park%20dream%20has,belonged%20to%20a%20baby%20dinosaur.

3. Michael Greshko, “Hints of Fossil DNA Discovered in Dinosaur Skull,” National Geographic, March 3, 2020, www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/03/hints-of-dna-discovered-in-a-dinosaur-fossil/.

4. Ludovic Orlando et al., “Recalibrating Equus Evolution Using the Genome Sequence of an Early Middle Pleistocene Horse,” Nature 499, no. 7456 (2013): 74–78.

5. Joe Hansen, “700,000-Year-Old Horse Genome Shatters Record for Sequencing of Ancient DNA,” Wired, 2013, www.wired.com/2013/06/ancient-horse-genome/.

6. Robin McKie, “Prehistoric DNA Sequencing: Jurassic Park Was Not So Wide of the Mark,” The Guardian (London), July 6, 2013, www.theguardian.com/science/2013/jul/07/prehistoric-horse-dna-genome-sequence.

7. Kate Wong, “Mammoth Genomes Shatter Record for Oldest DNA Sequences,” Scientific American, February 17, 2021, www.scientificamerican.com/article/mammoth-genomes-shatter-record-for-oldest-dna-sequences/.

8. Tom van der Valk et al., “Million-Year-Old DNA Sheds Light on the Genomic History of Mammoths,” Nature 591, no. 7849 (2021): 265–69.

9. Belinda Smith, “Million-Year-Old DNA from Mammoth Teeth Found in Siberia Is Oldest Genome Ever Sequenced,” ABC Science, February 17, 2021, www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-02-18/mammoth-woolly-dna-siberia-russia-palaeogenetics-permafrost/13160930.

10. Rae Goodell, The Visible Scientists (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977); Jane Gregory and Steve Miller, Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility (Cambridge, Mass.: Basic, 1998); Peter Broks, Understanding Popular Science (Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press, 2006); Declan Fahy, The New Celebrity Scientists: Out of the Lab and into the Limelight (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015).

11. William S. Pretzer, Working at Inventing: Thomas A. Edison and the Menlo Park Experience (Dearborn, Mich.: Henry Ford Museum and Greenfield Village, 1989); John D. Barrow, “Einstein as Icon,” Nature 433, no. 7023 (2005): 218–19.

12. Keay Davidson, Carl Sagan: A Life (New York: Wiley, 1999); Jane Gregory, Fred Hoyle’s Universe (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

13. Patricia Fara, Newton: The Making of a Genius (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).

14. Sharon M. Friedman, Sharon Dunwoody, and Carol L. Rogers, eds., Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News (New York: Free Press, 1986); Gregory and Miller, Science in Public; Broks, Understanding Popular Science.

15. Goodell, The Visible Scientists, 264. Goodell argued that visible scientists embody personal and professional traits that make them attractive to the public. She suggested that visible scientists are articulate, have a colorful image as well as a credible reputation, and speak on hot or controversial topics.

16. Sean Connor, “Boy from Bingley ‘Lobbed Intellectual Grenades’ at Science,” The Independent (London), August 23, 2001, 11; N. Martel, “Mysteries of Life, Time and Space (and Green Slime),” New York Times, September 28, 2004, E5; “Popularizer Greenfield Is Blackballed by Peers,” Nature 429 (2004): 9; J. Bohannon, “The Baroness and the Brain,” Science 310, no. 5750 (2005): 962; Declan Fahy and Bruce Lewenstein, “Scientists in Popular Culture: Making Celebrities,” in Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 2nd edition, ed. Massimiano Bucchi and Brian Trench (London: Routledge, 2014), 87.

17. Fahy and Lewenstein, “Scientists in Popular Culture,” 86, 93.

18. Fahy, The New Celebrity Scientists, 3.

19. Chris Rojek, Celebrity (London: Reaktion, 2001); Jessica Evans and David Hesmondhalgh, eds., Understanding Media: Inside Celebrity (Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press, 2005); Graeme Turner, Understanding Celebrity (London: Sage, 2004).

20. Turner, Understanding Celebrity, 9.

21. Quoted in Turner, Understanding Celebrity, 5.

22. Rojek, Celebrity, 10, 17–18.

23. I focus on the Public Understanding of Science (PUS) movement in the United Kingdom because it was the initial impetus behind the popularization of science and technology at this time. However, this is not a complete treatment of this movement or other movements elsewhere. See Gregory and Miller, Science in Public, for more information. In order to fully understand the context in which a celebrity science like ancient DNA research could have evolved, and indeed did, analyses of international science communication movements are necessary. On this note, it is interesting to mention ancient DNA researchers from different countries (United Kingdom, United States, and Canada to Germany, Denmark, and Australia) face different political pressures, as well as science and science communication traditions. Regardless of these differences, however, they all felt, and continue to feel, the pressure to publicize their science to the broader public. This is likely because many ancient DNA researchers are seeking high-profile publications in journals like Nature and Science that come from Anglo-Saxon traditions, which are in turn influenced by the U.K. and U.S. science communication movements. The extent of the effects of these movements and others requires further research.

24. Walter Bodmer, “The Public Understanding of Science,” report published by the Royal Society, London, 1985, 1–41; Gregory and Miller, Science in Public, 1–18; Broks, Understanding Popular Science, 96–117.

25. Gregory and Miller, Science in Public, 19–45.

26. Broks, Understanding Popular Science, 107.

27. Gregory and Miller, Science in Public, 2.

28. John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1987); Jan Golinski, Science as Public Culture: Chemistry and Enlightenment in Britain, 1760–1820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); Evans and Hesmondhalgh, eds., Understanding Media; Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen, and Peter Weingart, eds., The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and Its Repercussions (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012); Sharon Dunwoody, “Science Journalism: Prospects of the Digital Age,” in Bucchi and Trench, eds., Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, 27–39.

29. Rödder, Franzen, and Weingart, eds., The Sciences’ Media Connection.

30. Evans and Hesmondhalgh, eds., Understanding Media, 12.

31. Broks, Understanding Popular Science, 107, 149.

32. Elisabeth S. Clemmens, “Of Asteroids and Dinosaurs: The Role of the Press in the Shaping of Scientific Debate,” Social Studies of Science 16 (1986): 421–56; Elisabeth S. Clemmens, “The Impact Hypothesis and Popular Science: Conditions and Consequences of Interdisciplinary Debate,” in The Mass-Extinction Debates: How Science Works in a Crisis, ed. William Glen (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1994), 92–120; Bruce V. Lewenstein, “From Fax to Facts: Communication in the Cold Fusion Saga,” Social Studies of Science 25 (1995): 403–36; Angela Cassidy, “Popular Evolutionary Psychology in the UK: An Unusual Case of Science in the Media?” Public Understanding of Science 14 (2005): 115–41; Angela Cassidy, “Evolutionary Psychology as Public Science and Boundary Work,” Public Understanding of Science 15 (2006): 175–205; Felicity Mellor, “Colliding Worlds: Asteroid Research and the Legitimization of War in Space,” Social Studies of Science 37, no. 4 (2007): 499–531; Felicity Mellor, “Negotiating Uncertainty: Asteroids, Risk and the Media,” Public Understanding of Science 19, no. 1 (2010): 16–33; Stephen Hilgartner, “Staging High-Visibility Science: Media Orientation in Genome Research,” in The Sciences’ Media Connection—Public Communication and Its Repercussions, ed. Simone Rödder, Martina Franzen, and Peter Weingart (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012), 189–215; Rödder, Franzen, and Weingart, eds., The Sciences’ Media Connection.