Sci-Fi and one of the issues biologists have with it...

[SckizoBoy]

Cloning...

It's a fairly common plot device, we all know it, some of us love it, some of us hate it, while others, like me, roll their eyes at just how much they get wrong (Aeon Flux, curse its existence, being the first one that comes to mind).

I'm wondering if there's any media that accurately portrays human cloning (ReGenesis excepted, though even then it wasn't really cloning, just embryonic cells frozen and replanted later).

Ethics & politics aside, I reckon they should be able to have a plot involving viable cloning effects that is still very compelling.

TL;DR Supposedly hard science in fiction sucks... gripe away.

Belated EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm griping about the representation of scientific concepts/applications, not the plausibility of them. Though I will say this: FTL? Yeah, ain't happening... ever.

 

[Maya Posch]

When is science in movies/games/etc. not mangled beyond recognition to squeeze it into the plot?

 

[Revenge Revisited]

Well, how do you do cloning right? and what are they doing wrong?

 

[Oliman43]

Real scientists should make their own clones first, before criticizing everyone elses.

 

[leedwashere]

I dunno how right or wrong it is, but the movie The Island had some interesting thoughts about it, and a pretty awesome twist on it, even if it was a tad predictable. And the reasoning behind it makes sense, too

 

[SckizoBoy]

Well, how do you do cloning right? and what are they doing wrong?

If you cloned a 30yo, how long will the clone live (in all likelihood)?

Spoiler: Answer

The original will probably outlive the clone (based on western life-expectancies of approx. 75 yrs) by at least twenty years. It's all about the aging process of the clone, because it has DNA that has already been through the ringer for thirty years, which means errors have clocked up big time. The clone will probably not go through puberty, but still be prematurely aged and have multi-organ dysfunction (if not outright failure) by the time it's in it's early teens (I'm using 'it' so that I don't have to write 'his/her/etc.').

With current technology (which looks as though it can't be significantly improved upon) the ideal time to clone someone is at conception (for obvious reasons), but assuming it is done after birth, the cells need to be 'harvested' before puberty definitely, so basically the earlier the better.

I guess I'm getting worked up over this (yes, yes, it's petty, I know) because every time I see an adult clone the bell rings and the mouth goes 'bullshit'. Accelerated aging in a clone also needles at me, though I tolerate it for dramatic/artistic purposes.

 

[Trolldor]

Cloning...

It's a fairly common plot device, we all know it, some of us love it, some of us hate it, while others, like me, roll their eyes at just how much they get wrong (Aeon Flux, curse its existence, being the first one that comes to mind).

I'm wondering if there's any media that accurately portrays human cloning (ReGenesis excepted, though even then it wasn't really cloning, just embryonic cells frozen and replanted later).

Ethics & politics aside, I reckon they should be able to have a plot involving viable cloning effects that is still very compelling.

TL;DR Supposedly hard science in fiction sucks... gripe away.

That's your gripe?

Mine are humanoid fucking aliens.

I really don't get why so many people think humanoid aliens make for plausible Sci-Fi.

COUGH BIOWARE COUGH

 

[SckizoBoy]

That's your gripe?

Mine are humanoid fucking aliens.

I really don't get why so many people think humanoid aliens make for plausible Sci-Fi.

COUGH BIOWARE COUGH

Well, it's one of my gripes, other gripes are FTL, AI, non-projectile based weaponry, force fields, alien communication, alien technology and its differences with that of humans, space elevators, teleportation, time travel and so on, and so forth. Cloning was the one that came to mind because of that 'you've just met your clone' thread.

Though given that there's a 'fi' in sci-fi, I know I'm being a bit of a dick here.

 

[Trolldor]

That's your gripe?

Mine are humanoid fucking aliens.

I really don't get why so many people think humanoid aliens make for plausible Sci-Fi.

COUGH BIOWARE COUGH

Well, it's one of my gripes, other gripes are FTL, AI, non-projectile based weaponry, force fields, alien communication, alien technology and its differences with that of humans, space elevators, teleportation, time travel and so on, and so forth. Cloning was the one that came to mind because of that 'you've just met your clone' thread.

Though given that there's a 'fi' in sci-fi, I know I'm being a bit of a dick here.

Given that science fiction was traditionally about 'plausible science' as a setup for 'fiction', not really. Science fantasy is something relatively new.

FTL and Humanoid Aliens have always been my biggest gripe.

 

[kurupt87]

I thought this'd be about amino acids...

 

[SckizoBoy]

Given that science fiction was traditionally about 'plausible science' as a setup for 'fiction', not really. Science fantasy is something relatively new.

FTL and Humanoid Aliens have always been my biggest gripe.

Wow, someone who denies my dickishness, thank you! Anyway, what annoys me most about FTL is that subsequent communication is also often fucked up i.e. instantaneous, regardless of distance.

I thought this'd be about amino acids...

Nope, but I can start a rant about graphical representations of DNA... quit forgetting the DAMNED SUGAR!! (Plus... 'where's the water?')

I will be honest to god astounded if anyone gets that reference.

 

[Scabadus]

It's not a perfect solution, but replenishing the telemers at the end of the DNA chain (using chemicals, radiation, nanobots, magic, take your pick) would drastically improve the life of a clone. It would be a fairly basic element of establishing a viable mass-cloning technique so it can be safely assumed that the scientists behind the cloning schemes did it. And remember that while a significant amount of DNA would be "damaged" by age, most of the stuff is just junk sequences anyway. Again, assuming that cloning is established as a viable thing to do, it can be assumed that a few cells are harvested and each screened for errors in the important bits of the DNA.

 

[Puzzlenaut]

Well, how do you do cloning right? and what are they doing wrong?

If you cloned a 30yo, how long will the clone live (in all likelihood)?

Spoiler: Answer

The original will probably outlive the clone (based on western life-expectancies of approx. 75 yrs) by at least twenty years. It's all about the aging process of the clone, because it has DNA that has already been through the ringer for thirty years, which means errors have clocked up big time. The clone will probably not go through puberty, but still be prematurely aged and have multi-organ dysfunction (if not outright failure) by the time it's in it's early teens (I'm using 'it' so that I don't have to write 'his/her/etc.').

With current technology (which looks as though it can't be significantly improved upon) the ideal time to clone someone is at conception (for obvious reasons), but assuming it is done after birth, the cells need to be 'harvested' before puberty definitely, so basically the earlier the better.

I guess I'm getting worked up over this (yes, yes, it's petty, I know) because every time I see an adult clone the bell rings and the mouth goes 'bullshit'. Accelerated aging in a clone also needles at me, though I tolerate it for dramatic/artistic purposes.

You don't necessarily need a cell taken before puberty -- just a cell with telemeres long enough so that the DNA hasn't been significantly damaged.
It might require the sampling of tens of thousands of cells, but the chopping off of bits of DNA is a random process, and when there are 10 to the 14 cells in the body, odds are a few are still pretty much intact.

 

[SckizoBoy]

You don't necessarily need a cell taken before puberty -- just a cell with telemeres long enough so that the DNA hasn't been significantly damaged.
It might require the sampling of tens of thousands of cells, but the chopping off of bits of DNA is a random process, and when there are 10 to the 14 cells in the body, odds are a few are still pretty much intact.

Fair point, though an option would be to treat extracted cells with TERT enzyme activators (i.e. get telomerase going), and while it's yet to be proven in humans (I think), it's still plausible, I guess. Anyway, I believe they've already identified the spinal stem cells as being the best for such 'purposes' since they're the ones with telomerases that are most active.

However, that's only part of the problem. Since the remainder of the DNA has undergone a lot of division/replication, and DNA polymerases aren't known for fidelity... though I might just be thinking of family Y here. So errors can become an issue once replication starts kicking off.

*shrug*

Off-topic: idiot moment just then, was seriously wondering what you meant by '10 to the 14 cells in the body' o_0'... oh yeah, 10[sup]14[/sup].

 

[Puzzlenaut]

You don't necessarily need a cell taken before puberty -- just a cell with telemeres long enough so that the DNA hasn't been significantly damaged.
It might require the sampling of tens of thousands of cells, but the chopping off of bits of DNA is a random process, and when there are 10 to the 14 cells in the body, odds are a few are still pretty much intact.

Fair point, though an option would be to treat extracted cells with TERT enzyme activators (i.e. get telomerase going), and while it's yet to be proven in humans (I think), it's still plausible, I guess. Anyway, I believe they've already identified the spinal stem cells as being the best for such 'purposes' since they're the ones with telomerases that are most active.

However, that's only part of the problem. Since the remainder of the DNA has undergone a lot of division/replication, and DNA polymerases aren't known for fidelity... though I might just be thinking of family Y here. So errors can become an issue once replication starts kicking off.

*shrug*

Off-topic: idiot moment just then, was seriously wondering what you meant by '10 to the 14 cells in the body' o_0'... oh yeah, 10[sup]14[/sup].

yeah I'm too much of a pleb to know how to make superscripts and too lazy to find out (though quoting your post has proved lucrative in this regard [sup]omg the text is little and at the top![/sup]

 

[Smooth Operator]

Dude it's sci-fi (i.e. only barely relateable to reality)
I understand that is why alot of people don't like it, but there is no shortage of genres out there to keep you entertained.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Another problem i often see with sci-fi cloning is the "cloned personality". Yes, some sci-fi addresses this issue, but most makes the moronic assumption that a clone will be mentally the same as the original.

 

[Arluza]

I would think the X-men "next step in human evolution" would be a biologist's worst in this. Though granted, anyone who passes 3rd grade science knows (or should know) that isn't really how it works.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

I don't think real science can make stable humanoid clones yet, so how come you expect the details to come from Science Fiction? In addition to such a detailed description better fitting a research paper or school book rather than a story which utilizes it as a plot device.

Don't get me wrong, I do like it if stuff is explained in stories and not just handwaved with something like "It's magic/nanomachines, I won't explain shit!", but there's things that go above and beyond that for me. After all, without the escapism, fiction becomes dull reality quick, so I can excuse a story not going over such details in order to keep the pacing straight.

Of course there's a difference between Acceptable Breaks From Reality and You Fail Biology Forever / Critical Research Error, the amount of bullshit the reader can swallow may differ.