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

[HAVERSHA]

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.

Interesting topic of debate right there. Nature or nurture?

 

[flamingjimmy]

Just be thankful you don't do physics, then you get annoyed at almost all science fiction technobabble. I love a good hard science fiction story but they are very rare these days.

 

[flamingjimmy]

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.

Interesting topic of debate right there. Nature or nurture?

Clearly both! I've never got why people consider this some deep question.

 

[darkorion69]

I am often amazed and chagrined by people that get bent out of shape by topics such as Time Travel and FTL in Science Fiction. Often the science fiction of today becomes the science fact of tomorrow.

 

[warthoggunner]

Adult clones like the clone army in Star Wars

My "explanation":
They have technology that can fix the damaged/aged DNA

There, now I can sleep better and enjoy all the mediocre/bad
prequel movies/novels/stuff

 

[Hyper-space]

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.

There are different types of sci-fi, theres hard science-fiction and light science-fiction. The former is more about accurate and plausible science, while the latter is more science fantasy.

So its not a problem with Science-fiction, but just a matter of taste.

 

[Crimson_Dragoon]

You know what? Its science-fiction. The name explains it all: fictional science. For the most part, I don't care how realistic their science is (though using bad science when real science could work just as well can be annoying), as long as it's used well. Cloning, for example, can be used in a story to explore the idea of humanity, and what makes a person a person. That's what is important, not how realistic their cloning is.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

I don't mind internal logic (force fields, plasma weapons even things like telekinesis) that's fine.

I hate it when they murder modern science and pretend it's true. The worst ones are "ZOMG THE X HAS MUTAETID AND WESA GONNA DIES?!?!!"
Please.
I don't mind if you make stuff up or go flying into the future but please, lord please don't butcher the real world. I hate the stupid crap we hear in every science fiction, just don't do it. Be more original and make something up, don't just abuse modern science because you lack the imagination to be creative. It's annoying as hell.

 

[Woodsey]

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

*cough* Its because they're easier to design and animate *cough*

OT: I find its helpful to be completely useless at science. Problem solved!

 

[Cenequus]

I think people are missing that when it's been talked about human cloning in medical research they reffer to the possibility to clone different parts of the body(sorry the actual word slips my mind now) like heart,liver etc and transplant them into the body of the patient. This would both eliminate the long waiting lists for dire in need patience and also the refusal of the body of said parts from a donor. So yeah not the same thing as having a replicant(which would be the more apropriate word in that case)of yourself.

 

[Outright Villainy]

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]

You could have just said 10^14.
But then, I'm a physicist, this sort of lazy shorthand is bred into us.

 

[Ranorak]

Hi, scientists here.
Molecular biochemist to be precise.

I know Hollywood science is a joke and I don't care.
It's SCIENCE FICTION. Fictional science.

 

[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.

Interesting topic of debate right there. Nature or nurture?

Clearly both! I've never got why people consider this some deep question.

Yes, it's definitely both. But "Hitler clone" fiction is one of the worst offenders. Even if you raised a Hitler clone to be Hitler, you would most likely fail, as it would be virtually impossible to exactly replicate his formative experiences.

 

[Truly-A-Lie]

With current technology...

Isn't that usually a prerequisite of science fiction? To go beyond current technology? Whether it's explained via some plot device or simply left unanswered by "this story takes place in a world where this is possible and is happening" it allows for stories to be told that would otherwise have equally unrealistic explanations. If it weren't sci-fi cloning, it would have to be supernatural doppelganger or something like that.

 

[KingGolem]

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.

Is that a reference to some work of science fiction or to the fact that the sides of the DNA double helix are made up of the saccharide deoxyribose?

Yeah, cloning in SF is full of bullshit. They get all kinds of things wrong, but the rapid aging thing is what grinds my gears the most. I'm pretty sure the clone would have to be born as an infant and grow at the normal rate, barring some kind of futuristic hormonal/steroidal hand wave treatment. It would still be mentally underdeveloped, though, unless you gutted its tiny clone brain and implanted some kind of cybernetic computer thing programmed with a facimile of the cloned person's memories and personality. But then again, you would REALLY need a flawless duplicate of a person to go through all that trouble. The sad part is that without all these flimsy justifications cloning is next to useless as a plot device. Eh, I'm just thinking out loud, now.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Hmmm... I spend half an hour over at the other lab and ooo, replies...

Actually force fields are possible, but they require so much energy tight now. They say within 50 years we can have an economic version.

*meh* It's more the use of the term than what it actually is... because 'force field' is a molecular dynamics 'feature' that protein biophysicists/biochemists use for drug design (and all that... stuff).

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]

*shrug* Glad to show you something... even if it was entirely unrelated. ^_^

 

[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

*cough* Its because they're easier to design and animate *cough*

OT: I find its helpful to be completely useless at science. Problem solved!

They don't do it because it's easier, they do it because they're pulling a 'James Cameron'. Designed to play to emotional attatchments, intelligence and depth be damned.

We've come a long way science Dr. Who and Star Trek. Ease-of-access isn't an excuse anymore.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Yah! It's called science-fiction, guys. Sure, some things make no sense by modern scientific standards, but I figure that we really have no idea how things will change over the centuries as new discoveries pop up. Star Wars is a great example of science-fantasy, as most everything about the setting is not focused on why the tech works, so much as the journey the characters go on over the story's course.

 

[messy]

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

Or the crossing of human and alien genetic material. Why the hell would aliens have DNA?! I mean it is possible but so unlikely its practically a chance of zero that'd we'd both use DNA. I mean they'd be bound to have some form of genetic replicator but DNA? Come on.

Humanoid aliens are possible, but once again still very unlikely.