More descriptive title: Making a 3D reconstruction of a very well preserved nodosaur fossil for National Geographic.

It was very misleading. I eagerly clicked on the article expecting genetic research... cloning a dinosaur using a common ancestor or something.

Why is this down voted?

I was gonna give the article a skip then I thought "What if they actually engineered a dinosaur into existence", felt I had to click it just in case.

Instead I got an, albeit interesting, article about 3D.

It was the same for me. I was expecting cool biotechnology, found web programming.

Or: Using basic computergraphics to display a nodosaur 3D model