Making Science Cool, with Jeff Goldblum

0:00Hey, StarTalkians, Neil here. You're about to listen to an episode specially drawn from our archives to serve your cosmic curiosities. Check it out. Welcome to StarTalk, your place in the universe where science and pop culture collide. StarTalk begins right now.

0:31My co-host tonight, comedian Chuck Nice. Hey, hey. Chuck in the house.

0:38Tweeting a Chuck Nice comic. Thank you, sir, yes. And also joining us tonight is a colleague of mine at the museum, paleontologist Ross McPhee. Ross. Ross. Oh. Boom. Boom. Thank you. your curator of mammals right here at the american museum of natural history and you travel the world digging up fossils to learn about extinct animals is that character is that like what your business card says it should okay it should that'd be good line yeah very good so thanks for joining us on star talk we're featuring my interview with geek actor jeff goblum and he plays scientists with a swagger right from the blockbuster film independence day and of course in jurassic park so i asked him how his sort of iconic scientist character in jurassic park came to be let's check it out well it was beautifully scripted you know i'm sure you read uh michael creighton's book yeah that you know and then steven spielberg and they'd written a beautiful script so it was really that character but i did try to influence i did have this idea that you know i could hip it up a little well right because there's swagger you know i i try isn't always in the script yeah i don't well it wasn't well it was maybe a little bit that richard adenberg has that line you know i bring a scientist you bring a rock star so somebody calls me a rock star so i thought hey i have license to shop for a jacket that i think will be right kind of had tried lobbied for a few articles of clothing What year was that?

2:10That was 93-ish. That may have been the first ever badass geek person portrayed in movies. I mean, think about that. Well. There you are, brilliant mathematician. Yeah. You're glib. You're clever. You've got philosophical points. Yes. You're good-looking, and you got a little kind of presence. This was breaking stereotypes, I think. Yeah, I think so, too. and it's important i'm sure you have feelings about this i'm passionate that um smart people not be uh undervalued yeah smart people have feelings too and they have attitudes and things that are never not previously ever explored right and the and their contribution of intelligence is in itself sexy and valuable and um good point intelligence as a point of sexy yeah you're using geeky i see now you're because you're using geeky to kind of agree with the conventional thinking of geeky smart is geeky i don't think i don't call a smart person a geek you know geek is originally the term is usually it originally comes from circus life you know geeks were the people who bit uh for entertainment bit heads off of live chickens i didn't know that well i think that's where it comes from and then it became you know a smart person but you know the next logical step is the movie uh idiocracy yeah where anybody who can read a little bit is called oh you're a sissy or you're a geek you know that's where that goes yeah no no it's a future where that there's the dumbing down of the population of the world we see where that goes and could go further no no we must uphold and champion, as you do better than I do, intelligence as beautiful, sexy, powerful, virile.

4:08Chuck, did he pull this off in the movie? I don't know, man. I think he's super sexy. You know what I mean? Okay. Did you notice his reaction, though, when you said he was sexy? Yeah. I said good looking. You said he was like, hmm. Yeah, it was.

4:27All right. So, Ross. Yeah. What was your reaction to Jurassic Park when it came out? Implausible, but great. Impossible or impossible? Implausible. Not impossible. Oh, well, you want to make a fine distinction. You're not going to bring dinosaurs back with ancient DNA. You're such a spoil sport. So what? The show has science fiction, emphasis on fiction. It was fantastic. In fact, science, in a real sense, did play a role. Things were explained. It wasn't just assumed. Oh, right. There was that descriptive section where they talk about evolution and embryos and this sort of thing. So that had some academic value.

5:07Yeah, I think so. No, you don't, Rob. I know. I don't know why you said that. Exactly. You just let us know exactly how you really felt. So, you know, here's what I liked about Jeff Goldblum. He put the badass in glasses. Thank you. Thank you. That's called bad glass. So professional scientists have the reputation that they can't talk to the public, right? You've got this guy quite in contrast to... Rock star. Yeah. But I don't think that's true. And I think it's increasingly true that we're very interested in talking to the public. And whether that comes through from interviews like this that we're going to have or through movies, there's an interest, there's practically even a need for people to be better informed about science.

6:01It's just interesting. And that's the point. So how about the part where they're just dusting a fossil and the fossil just pops out of the ground? It could happen. Really? Because I've seen videos of you guys. That's a hard thing, getting a fossil out of the ground. It can be. It really depends. So if you're talking Cretaceous dinosaurs, it's mostly going to be rock. Jackhammers are the sorts of things that you need most of the time. But I deal with much more recently extinct organisms. Like the ones from the movie The Ice Age, right? Yeah. Perhaps not cartoon characters. Because I was thinking more 10 ,000 B.C.

6:45Oh, okay. Yeah, not as much fun as the little squirrel with the nut, but that's okay. You had saber-toothed tigers then, didn't you? No? 10 ,000 years ago, we certainly did. Yeah, okay. There might be many species that have disappeared. We were coming out of the Ice Age. So I just arrived at this museum when Jurassic Park came out. So I only got sort of bits of the mood and emotion. Did we see institutionally a rise in public interest towards dinosaurs after Jurassic Park came out? Absolutely. You know, up until that time, mammals sort of ruled in paleontology. Dinosaurs were seen as kind of an evolutionary dead end.

7:25But with Jurassic Park and the animations showing that dinosaurs were, in some cases, extremely athletic, able to move around at great speed and things like that, bite lawyers, This really changed things. So since then, what are some big discoveries in the last 20 years, let's say? For things that I'm working on, the biggest change, I guess, would be moving not away from bones, but toward genetics. So that we're able to get ancient DNA from things that are not too old and do increasingly a lot with them. We're learning a heck of a lot about species that are no longer with us as to basic physiological processes and things of this nature that we never would have guessed we could get.

8:16Just from bones? From bones. There'd be no way. So in Jurassic Park 1, there's the now famous line uttered by Jeff Goldblum, which is, you scientists are so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop and think if they should. So let's start out with Jeff's reaction to the ethical implications of that line. Check it out. It's very interesting. I want to talk to you about that and canvas your feeling, because I'm interested in seeing what I can contribute to that conversation. It would be nice, because you started it. Right, right. So maybe you can help me. Maybe before I leave here, you can even enhance my thinking about it.

8:52So here's what my current thinking is that, well, I'll just tell you what's happened in this last in this next version that's coming out without ruining anything we talk about some issues that came up in the one 25 years ago i talked again about science and ethics issues i like that how polite dinosaurs eating people we call these issues well that's true but especially these issues that i am thinking about and my character talks about which is ethics around science and all that that line in the one 20 years ago maybe now we want to tweak it a little bit where there's no ambiguity in what we're saying, which is that we shouldn't deprecate science at all.

9:33We shouldn't indict science at all. And we tweaked my little speech, so I say something about, whether it's still in the movie, glorious science. I say something about the wonderful investigative curiosity and the continuum of the scientific approach is a wonderful thing, But it's the exploitation and the non-ethical use of it for profit, screwy entertainment, cheap entertainment, heaven forbid, militarism, et cetera, nationalism, et cetera, that must be fought with every breath in our body. Something like that. All of those thoughts went through my head when I heard you utter that line 20 years ago.

10:12Really? Yes. Except one could think that scientists, yeah, these scientists, these Frankensteins, Dr. Frankensteins, they got to be, you got to watch those guys yeah you're i said to myself he's blaming scientists oh good and which i don't want to do now and i said scientists don't actually have the power that you think their actual power comes from governments and legislations and funding sources that have priorities that go beyond what a scientist does in the lab and then they decide how they want to use it but i said all right it's a movie we got to let the let the line go yeah but now i said to myself at the time yes see if you like i don't know if you've seen it but see if you like this new one where i think we're clearer and we tweak that so right don't blame science

11:04ross how do you feel about the urge of some to blame science for the fallout of the applications of science in the world here's how i feel about it it's yin yang you want progress progress comes from science. Can it be misused? Of course it can. And there is nothing that an individual can do except be well-informed on what the issues are. So when this kind of misuse does come up, like in weaponization of space, that people speak out against it, that they're an informed electorate. I'm blaming scientists. Why? Well, you can do that. Yeah, that's all I know. But it's like this young man said. They're powerless.

11:43their products are used by people who do have power. So do you have issues with Goldblum movies for this reason? No! I just love the fact that he called getting eaten by dinosaurs issues. So, Ross, in your field, do you have controversial ethical issues going on right now? And I think specifically about, because you said now it's a genetic analysis, not just what bones fit together in a puzzle. So how about cloning, gene editing, that sort of thing? Here's the idea, that we can now go into the genome, to the genetic material of a species, and alter it in a way that is favorable to us or perhaps favorable to the organism.

12:29It depends on what the problem is. So in a way, you're playing God. Now, that brings up all kinds of issues about what the heck you think you're doing. My view of it is nature by itself is not subject to human ethics. It's not that there's good and there's bad. It's just the way it is. It just is. But to the degree that we interfere with nature, which is inevitable given the numbers of us on the planet, you have to ask the question, where do you want to stop? And where I personally want us to stop is to intervene as little as possible in the parts of the planet where we haven't made a complete screw-up.

13:09So that includes parts of the ocean. It also includes parts of the continents where humans are not as ubiquitous as they are in most other places. Make those sanctuaries. Make them safe. Keep us out. No humans allowed. No humans allowed. Beautiful. That's beautiful. Yeah, that's very nice. Yeah, yeah. Ross.

13:41I'm Nicholas Costella, and I'm a proud supporter of StarTalk on Patreon. This is StarTalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

14:13De-extinction. Would you bring back T-Rex, the dodo bird, or none of the above? I think the world has to work for everyone. Nice. Very important. I think that's a good credo. Very important. The world should work forever. Let's make a world that works for everyone. Whatever works means, and I think we know what that means. Nothing mysterious about that. Works for everyone. So, in thinking just about, and this is not to poo-poo my participation in the successful franchise, but no, no, well, my character says this is a bad idea. It's a bad idea. Evolution had its say. Darwin is a hero of mine. Evolution had its say, and the dinosaurs went out from the universe.

14:56That's their shakes. A story that the universe told, and now it's our turn, and like that. And yes, especially, you want to bring it back for, because you want to make an amusement park? You want to sell some tickets? Because, you know, I would say no. I would say no about that, certainly. Now, if it's just pure knowledge, like splitting the atom, is there something about resurrecting? That means we could bring back everybody who's ever died, I guess, or every species that's ever been. And, you know, we'd have to talk about that. But before we get into dinosaurs, aren't elephants, aren't all the species, not only the beautiful human species, but every other species, aren't they infinitely mysterious and magical and worthy of our respect and awe and protection?

15:46Elephants, you know what we're doing with elephants. If we're just talking about, hey, we like dinosaurs because they're big. We have big creatures here and in the oceans and all the creatures there. shouldn't we tend to those first and make sure that we protect them? Not put them in zoos, not make money off of them, but just make sure we all, that it works for everybody. And we all get along. That would be my moral instinct. I'm no doctor. No, you played one. I play one on TV. Very nice. Very nice.

16:21Ross, you specialize in this among your multiple specialties that I know of. One of them is extinction and de-extinction. So tell me how de-extinction would work. Very simply, de-extinction is the idea of bringing back species, populations that are no longer with us because they've disappeared. So think woolly mammoths. We've been talking about woolly mammoths as a good example. The last of them died out on continents about 10 ,000 years ago. There were remnant populations on islands until about 4 ,000 years ago, but they're gone. And the question, accordingly, is were we responsible? A lot of people think so.

17:01So do we owe it to woolly mammoths to the degree that we can bring them back to bring them back? Because we were accountable. Whereas we're not accountable for the death of T-Rex, so let them stay dead. That's right. Right. Well, it goes beyond that. That's right. Did you hear you said that? That's right. It goes beyond that because ancient DNA, which is the building blocks that you'd have to use for the experiments to bring the animals back, has a life of no more than a million years. So you're not going to go back 66 plus million years and bring back the dinosaurs. That was always the fundamental problem with Jurassic Park.

17:38Okay, so let's just imagine. If we could bring back T-Rex, should we? What's it going to do? What's its ecosystem function? It's going to eat lawyers. Okay. What else is it going to do? And the answer is nothing. It has no place. You're right. It'll be in a zoo. It has no... Yes, exactly. So it's going to be an exhibit, like we have here at the American Museum, except everything here is dead and stuffed, which is a difference. But you might consider, Britain, if we are entirely responsible, our cave troglodyte ancestors are responsible for the extinction of the woolly mammoth, you feel some guilt there, I guess.

18:21Well, that's the ethical question. See, I don't think we should bring it back because here, woolly mammoth, we're thriving during the Ice Age, we're going to bring it back just in time for global warming. But what the hell is that? They will be so uncomfortable! My God, it's hot. What have you done with the place? I know. Yeah, right.

18:44So Chuck, would you bring back animals, Chuck? I would bring back animals. What? But quite frankly, I like food. And so as a foodie, I would only bring back those that are delicious. Oh. Well, how would you know what was delicious? I don't know. That is why I have a little game that I would like to show you right now. Okay. where Ross will tell me if these animals are delicious. Are they tastier? Oh, they didn't. Could we bring it back? To eat it. Yeah! Wow. My first submission would be the Clip-to-don. All right. First of all, I will tell you... Wait, is that a real... Ross, is that real? Is that real?

19:24Yes, it is. It's a gigantic armadillo that lived in South America. How big? Some also lived in North America. Some of them were upwards of 2 ,000 kilograms. So 4 ,000 pounds. 4 ,000 pounds. So a ton. Yes, these are big armadillos. Yes. Right. Now, what would it be like for Chuck? I think it would be a lot like eating a tennis racket, frankly. Damn it. If you just look at the beast, you can see that it's very heavily armored. There's bone sort of everywhere. Right. Like a little tank. Right. And in order to support that mass... It needs really tough tissue. Big bones. Really tough, yes. And tough tissue.

20:02That's good deduction. So it's not good. It's not good to eat. Good deduction. But could we bring it back? The last of them died out about 10 ,000 years ago. It's within reach of ancient DNA. So that's a yes. That's a yes as to could we? And then we go Jeff Goldblum to say should we. Ooh. I don't know. An animal that looks like Epcot Center, I think I want to bring it back.

20:25That's good. All right, here's my next one. Megatherium. Okay, megatherium. Megatherium. This is now getting very serious in body size. This could be upward of 4 ,000 kilograms. So we're talking the size of the largest elephants that are around today. Wow. What I need to say is that this is a sloth. You know about tree sloths, right? Those are the only sloths that are still with us. They come in at 5 kilograms, so 11 pounds. This guy, a couple of orders of magnitude larger. Jeez. I think more tennis racket more than anything else. Once again, not a good, doesn't taste good. Well, I don't know.

21:03But easy to catch is a sloth.

21:09So can we bring it back? It's the same as the glyptodon. Died out 10 ,000 years ago. There's ancient DNA. I've worked on its ancient DNA. It's there to work on. It's within reach. Right on. The question, boy, is... Don't worry, Megatherium. We're going to take our time bringing you back. Here's the last one. Last one. And we talked on it. We touched on it. The woolly. First of all, how would a woolly taste? And, I mean, if we were part of its extinction, I can only hope that we were eating it. Well, you know, there are stories. When these carcasses appear in places like Siberia, as they do from time to time.

21:47When they emerge from a receding glacier or something? Yeah, where they melt out of riverbanks. That's the commonest way. There are stories of people, and dogs in particular, of having had a steak or two. Now, I personally have never done that, nor would I want to. I mean, think about it. This is something that's been dead 10 ,000 years. This is the worst road pizza you can imagine. Well, my buddy Bill Nye, the science guy, has some thoughts on Jurassic Park-style de-extinction. Let's check it out. We're all fascinated with dinosaurs. That's part of why the movie Jurassic Park was such a hit. It's a classic and classic science fiction.

22:32Now keep in mind that science is not inherently good or bad. It's a process. But let's face it, in science fiction movies, we want to see scientists doing something dangerous. And those scientists are usually evil. But what if we could really do that Jurassic Park DNA thing and bring back an extinct species to de-extinct some extraordinary animal? Well, I guarantee you we'd learn a lot about biology. We'd learn a lot about evolution and ourselves. But is it a good idea? What if we accidentally produced a population of vicious predators who would think nothing of biting your head off and chewing you up and spitting you out?

23:14Now, that really would be scary. Fortunately, that technology is a long way off.

23:24so up next in my interview with jeff goldblum we discuss the butterfly effect when star talk returns

23:36this is star talk welcome back to star talk from the american museum of natural history right here in new york city We're featuring my interview with actor Jeff Goldblum. And I asked about his character in Jurassic Park, where he evokes the concept of chaos theory. Let's check it out. Did you have to do any homework to justify, as an actor, using the word chaos in a sentence? Oh, you know, chaos itself, or chaos theory. Chaos theory, yeah. That I was talking about in that movie. You know, I did my due diligence. I'm nothing if not conscientious. That's good. I'm a good worker. My dad was a work ethic person.

24:13He was a doctor. Yeah, I read that book and whatever else I could get my hands on in the time I had and tracked down a couple of pioneering high class, I was told, practitioners, devotees. Because you delivered the line with some panache. Well, I do enough to pretend like I can't. You know, when you play these parts, you realize, hey, I could never. I'm not a brain surgeon. These people have devoted. I'm not an astrophysicist. But I can be curious. And I do enough. in the time, from the time I get the part, to do my best at pretending well so that I can credibly, you know, say, whatever I say.

24:52I think you pulled it off. Well, thank you. And chaos, what I think in modern times, it's been, the word has less currency today than it did, you know, a couple of decades ago, unfortunately, because it's still a force to be reckoned with. Is it? Is it? In the world. Oh, good. Yeah, yeah. Chaos theory is you can model a system that's very complex. You put in the initial conditions and watch it go. And it makes a cloud, or in the case of weather, you can make wind patterns. And the butterfly effect, of course. Yeah, yeah, that's what it comes down to, right? And so then you say, okay, let me change these initial conditions by the tiniest amount.

25:25Yes. And see if I can change the result by a little bit. So you change by a tiniest amount, and you get a completely different result. Can you imagine us in our lives when we say, hey, should I make this decision? Should I have that impossible burden now? The contingencies of branch points in our lives. So I guess that's kind of a chaotic analog. you don't know how different your life would be from that one little change. If you've been one little thing. One little thing.