Young Great White Shark Bite Isn't That Great

Until a great white shark reaches about three meters in length, its jaws can't handle the kind of Spielbergian bite force usually associated with the killer fish. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

They’re everyone’s worst nightmare when it comes to swimming in the ocean: great white sharks. That’s despite the fact that the number of fatal shark attacks annually can usually be counted on the fingers of one still attached hand. But a new study finds that until great whites get at least three meters long, they’re less [Jaws music] and more [gentle music]. Because a full-force bite could wind up hurting them.

In research published in the Journal of Biomechanics [Stephen Wroe et al., article in press], scientists used 3-D computers models and advanced engineering techniques to study how sharks hunt and kill their food.

Great whites have jaws and teeth that are perfect for a powerful chomp on prey ranging from small fish to large marine mammals. But the researchers were surprised to find that a shark less than three meters long only looks like it could manage that killer bite. Because it hasn’t developed enough stiff, mineralized cartilage yet. A bite that would be lethal to a large marine mammal could damage the shark’s jaws.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The finding may explain why the few shark attacks that do happen on people are rarely fatal—until it’s pretty big, the great white’s reputation is worse than its bite.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe