Before taking this class, hearing “Jurassic Park” never triggered me to think of a SF film; rather, just another Hollywood classic. The general plot of the story is pretty straight forward: resurrected dinosaurs on a safari-like park on an island escape when a large storm comes through, and all park inhabitants must find a way out.

However, CRISPR- a genetic modification tool- was coming around the time this film was released in 1993 (and book written in 1990) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR#History). Therefore, Jurassic Park is a prime example of SF as a medium for warning the public of what could result from fresh technologies. Yet, there seems to be overly ambitious biotechnology ideas laid throughout the story. The principal investigator talks about how they extracted dinosaur DNA from blood found in mosquitoes trapped in amber, and mixed it with that of frogs to create the dinosaurs. Furthermore, as a back-up plan to kill off the dinosaurs they talk about turning off amino acid synthesis as if it is a programmable function. This brings up the question about how scientifically accurate SF literature and films should be. If people are not generally aware of new technologies, it is okay to cut corners or make things up to explain what’s happening? What are the consequences of doing so? Finally, am I being overly sensitive and the author was trying to create an authentic air to his story?

Despite these critiques, I think Jurassic Park was exceptionally well done in both excitement and audience range. As a biology major I appreciated how much molecular biology was mentioned while tying it into a unfathomable (for now) plot. Perhaps we will end up someday with resurrected dinosaurs; I’d prefer a size cap of no bigger than your average lizard.