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

[GaryH]

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.

You just said everything that I was going to, so I'll just say "this."

 

[Grospoliner]

Hard science in fiction is what makes the world interesting.

Of course real cloning would have to take natural cellular division into account. Meaning the clone would need to gestate for 9 months, then grow natural unless there is a way to artificially accelerate cell growth.

The problem with cloning is that the clone wouldn't be a duplicate of the existing person. Unless you could copy the exact pattern of neurons inside the person's brain and reproduce it in the clone as well as "upload" all of that person's memories. Otherwise the divergence in experience would cause them to be a totally different person.

 

[SckizoBoy]

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?

Nah, it's the 'where's the water?' (wrt DNA) quote that I'll be amazed if anyone knows what that's from.

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.

Fair enough. I'm sure that in however many years time, humans will be able to perfectly clone other organisms (and perhaps humans... please, leave the ethical debate for another time). But, and this is a subjective point, I prefer having at least a partial explanation of the cloning process and surrounding conditions (i.e. that ensure survivability of the clone). Now, I understand that a lot of viewers/players/readers don't need this, so it is just my personal gripe.

One that I will get worked up over is FTL. I sincerely believe that mankind will never be able to transport itself at speeds greater than that of life. Whenever a TV show or film has FTL as a feature, I pause it, growl to myself for about fifteen minutes (and start threads like these), then play it again so I can enjoy the story. However, regardless of how well written/well acted/well designed the story/world/characters is/are, technological inconsistencies and excesses are a main reason why I read far more fantasy than sci-fi. If that's a bit jerk-ish, sorry.

EDIT:

Oh its biology only? Instead of Sci fi shitting all over science? Well, that's a different story altogether. My mistake. Oh well, at least it isn't as bad as the bat-shark-repellent.

No, please, indulge me!

 

[Togs]

hell one issue? I could write you a list that would go on for 500 odd words.

Media students have no place to be talking about that which is so above them there aint no humour in it.

 

[sketch_zeppelin]

The reason Cloning in Sci-fi is often so different from real cloning is because the fiction has existed for much longer than the real thing. Cloning has only been a reality for less than 20 years. We've been imaining and writing about it for about a century (possibley longer, i'd need to research it more). Back when it was just a dream we had no idea that it would ever come to pass, let alone how it would actually work in real life. We're used to seeing cloning in that fictional mindset and so we continue to forgo the reality of it for the sake of story telling.

 

[SckizoBoy]

hell one issue? I could write you a list that would go on for 500 odd words.

I did put in a proviso TLDR thing, so you may gripe till your heart's content.

And media students talk about this stuff? (Granted, I don't know any, but really? And they expect to be taken seriously?)

The reason Cloning in Sci-fi is often so different from real cloning is because the fiction has existed for much longer than the real thing. Cloning has only been a reality for less than 20 years. We've been imaining and writing about it for about a century (possibley longer, i'd need to research it more). Back when it was just a dream we had no idea that it would ever come to pass, let alone how it would actually work in real life. We're used to seeing cloning in that fictional mindset and so we continue to forgo the reality of it for the sake of story telling.

Aldous Huxley... I think. And yeah, eighty years, yeesh. Forty years of the idea banded about and science decides to go 'y'know, think I'll have a go at that'. Well, we can't deny Man his imagination.

 

[Mcupobob]

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

I'm with this guy. I would understand the request if cloning was common knowledge amongst people. Its not like everyone is at home with human growing in vat tube next to the t.v watching Aeon Flux and thinking to themselves "Pssh that not how clone a human they got it all wrong your suppose to put the hemo fluid first!".

Note- that hemo fluid line was just made up for laughs.

 

[DanielDeFig]

The single most effective "biologist" argument that will kill most sci-fi, is the principle we learned from "War of the Worlds":

We cannot interact with alien organism, for we have zero immunity against the billions of bacteria that live inside the aliens and on heir worlds. The same goes for them, we would kill each other whenever we met.


Incorrectly explained science in fiction is as annoying as incorrectly conducted math in fiction. I don't mind fictional science, as long as they keep a certain level of it unexplained and let our imagination fill in the blanks. Talking generally about atoms, molecules, energy, and the laws of physics is okay, but making up new laws or simply being incorrect, like the OP pointed out, is not.

 

[4RM3D]

Cloning in movies? Go see MOON [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/], now! Ah shi... now I've spoiled the movie. Anyway, its the best and most "realistic" movie about cloning that I have seen.

Cloning and FTL are common subjects in science fiction. I have nothing against it. What I do hate are series/movies that try to explain stuff to make it sound interesting but in the end is all bullshit. Star Trek with it's techno babble is the first thing that comes to mind.

Now science fiction has been used, re-used and abused in movies. There are a few good implementations for science fiction. I'll shall name one here:

Non-existing technology is introduced into an existing world, e.g. Inception [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1375666/]. The movie introduces 1 new piece of tech and creates a what-if situation and cleverly pushes that to its limits.

 

[Togs]

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.

If we lived in a perfect then yes youd be right, but unfortunately the general public can rarely tell the difference between science fiction and science fact, which leads to all sorts of aggravating, stupid and sometimes just plain scary misunderstandings.

 

[thiosk]

FTL and Humanoid Aliens have always been my biggest gripe.

I think theres nothing wrong with FTL. It works for science fantasy. I mean, if you have characters that want to get somewhere and get there fast, its either FTL, stargates, or long-boring-voyage where everyone gets cabin fever and goes homicidal and when the dust settles and the people are all dead the movie ends with the ship still .5% of the way to the destination. Or you could do the firefly model, with no FTL but every single planet in the solar system is capable of sustaining life (after some magical terraforming) even way out past the reaper zone.

As for humanoid aliens, again I don't have a huge problem with it either. The simple reason is that if you want the aliens to be proper characters, you have to have an actor in there somewhere. However, theres no real reason aliens wouldn't be vaguely humanoid. Sure, they might have their digestive systems in different locations, they might not have proper lungs, they could have mandibles. For most species that develop around bilateral symmetry, you'll see some similarities, if not humanoid, then at least humanesque (pro tip: even a tyrannosaur qualifies for my just made up word of humanesque). Maybe we'll get some radially symmetric aliens to talk to, but I somewhat doubt that the super-amoebas of Alpha Ceti VI are going to make for interesting conversation.

As for bioware mentioned by the other guy, I played ME1, and there was a central theme in the plot where they figure out the nature of the reapers; who actually directing the development of life in the galaxy to spur it to develop in the way they want it to, i suppose to increase the fruitfulness of the cullings. That, to me, explained why the majority of intelligent life was humanoid, it was their preferred style. And there were the mammoth dudes and the floaty blimp dudes and the bug-people, so its not that horrible.

If we lived in a perfect then yes youd be right, but unfortunately the general public can rarely tell the difference between science fiction and science fact, which leads to all sorts of aggravating, stupid and sometimes just plain scary misunderstandings.

To be fair, the general public can rarely tell the difference between much of anything.

 

[DEAD34345]

It's science fiction, you can't know what we will be capable of in the distant future, so why not make it up? The point is that they make up technology that we don't have at the moment (i.e. perfect clones that come out at age 30 or whatever), and then just roll with it. If it made perfect sense and we could explain it, then it wouldn't be science fiction because we would already be doing it. What is the point in imagining a future where we only have the technology we had now?

 

[Togs]

And media students talk about this stuff? (Granted, I don't know any, but really? And they expect to be taken seriously?)

Ah just watched Deadwood, always makes me use weird ways of speaking- by media students I meant the folk who write films books and tv based on some misheard, poorly understood half possibility that really means little.

And yes Ive had some art students go to guest lectures by some big name in the field and then try and hold a debate with me, its borders on a form of punishment its so bad.

 

[Nocturnal Gentleman]

I don't mind bullshit science so much as long as they don't try to pass it off as modern day technology. Otherwise the inaccuracies just nag at me the entire time I watch the show/movie/whatever. Anyway, people like to stretch real science because it makes the subjects more dramatic and ridiculous.

 

[conflictofinterests]

Supposedly hard science in fiction sucks... gripe away.

*horror flick announcer voice* In a research facility, deep in the arctic, a child was born. Raised to be a military weapon/animalistic beast/suicide bomber, and hand picked by evil allegiance du jour, this person will wreck ALL YOUR SHIT UP. Oh, and even though it grew in a woman's womb like anyone else and had to have the exact same amount of training as any kid, this person is extra-unnerving because THEY PUT THE DNA FROM AN ALREADY EXISTING PERSON INTO AN EMPTIED EGG CELL AND IMPLANTED IT INTO THE MOTHER! IT'S A CLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE!!1

:|

It would be more feasible to just kidnap kids or force women to conceive and take the child.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

I'm a simple man. Science is something I adore from afar like its a beautiful movie star because my limited understanding of its world will not allow me to move within its inner circles and I envy those with a greater understanding of its intricacies and nuance.

However, when I sit down to watch something like Star Trek or Avatar, I really couldn't give a flying fuck about how the science is presented; largely because of my disconnect from the subject itself but also because I'm pretty sure those who do know what they're doing will probably either a) not watch this tripe or b) will watch it, and take a sip for every mistake. Although I can sympathise with the unrealistic or bizarre expectations it can create in the public mind.

This of course means a double dose of respect for the writer who can take realistic science, take it to its logical conclusion and still make the show/book/comic/film visually and intellectually engaging at the same time.


In fact I'm reminded of an anecdote from a Star Trek convention: in the cutaway books of the Enterprise D it singles out a random component in the Transporters as the 'Heisenberg compensator' , presumably a throwaway for the uncertainty principle of quantum theory. A fan asked them how it works; and the writer replied 'It works very well, thank you'.

 

[conflictofinterests]

FTL and Humanoid Aliens have always been my biggest gripe.

SNIP

As for humanoid aliens, again I don't have a huge problem with it either. The simple reason is that if you want the aliens to be proper characters, you have to have an actor in there somewhere. However, theres no real reason aliens wouldn't be vaguely humanoid. Sure, they might have their digestive systems in different locations, they might not have proper lungs, they could have mandibles. For most species that develop around bilateral symmetry, you'll see some similarities, if not humanoid, then at least humanesque (pro tip: even a tyrannosaur qualifies for my just made up word of humanesque). Maybe we'll get some radially symmetric aliens to talk to, but I somewhat doubt that the super-amoebas of Alpha Ceti VI are going to make for interesting conversation.

SNIP

After taking biological anthropology, I have learned that humans are kind of a "perfect storm" of intellect. If you wanted to be perfectly scientifically sound in science fiction, something with the brain power to communicate on a human level would probably look very human, if not technically BE human, or closely related.

 

[Trolldor]

FTL and Humanoid Aliens have always been my biggest gripe.

SNIP

As for humanoid aliens, again I don't have a huge problem with it either. The simple reason is that if you want the aliens to be proper characters, you have to have an actor in there somewhere. However, theres no real reason aliens wouldn't be vaguely humanoid. Sure, they might have their digestive systems in different locations, they might not have proper lungs, they could have mandibles. For most species that develop around bilateral symmetry, you'll see some similarities, if not humanoid, then at least humanesque (pro tip: even a tyrannosaur qualifies for my just made up word of humanesque). Maybe we'll get some radially symmetric aliens to talk to, but I somewhat doubt that the super-amoebas of Alpha Ceti VI are going to make for interesting conversation.

SNIP

After taking biological anthropology, I have learned that humans are kind of a "perfect storm" of intellect. If you wanted to be perfectly scientifically sound in science fiction, something with the brain power to communicate on a human level would probably look very human, if not technically BE human, or closely related.

....I'd retake that course then.

 

[thiosk]

FTL and Humanoid Aliens have always been my biggest gripe.

SNIP

As for humanoid aliens, again I don't have a huge problem with it either.
SNIP

After taking biological anthropology, I have learned that humans are kind of a "perfect storm" of intellect. If you wanted to be perfectly scientifically sound in science fiction, something with the brain power to communicate on a human level would probably look very human, if not technically BE human, or closely related.

As much as I agree in principle that aliens will most likely tend to convergently evolve, sometimes this viewpoint is taken a little further than we would normally allow in science. Especially given it is based on approximately zero other case studies in evolution.

....I'd retake that course then.

Theres no reason to be a jerk.

 

[shiajun]

I think there's a very clear distinction about people expect when they read the term "science fiction". People forget that due to English grammar "science fiction" is not synonymous with "fictional science". It means "fictional work" (i.e. not historical or based on real events) within a scientific framework. That mostly corresponds to hard science fiction. The other interpretation, and the most common, is the "made-up" science to tell a story, which is basically electricity-based magic. The former is usually used in what-if scenarios that delve into ethical or other considerations about human society or human nature. The latter is used to make space ships explode and go pew-pew with lasers. Which one do you think gets the most box office returns? I really don't expect much in terms of plausibility in the second catergory as they really don't give a fuck, they just want to make fantasy that doesn't involve fairy dust, wands or dragons. I'm extremely peeved when book stores put things like Twilight or ghost books in the Sci Fi shelf. When did the "fiction" part overtake the "science" part of the term? It's tiny details like that which erode people's ability to discern true science from pseudo-science hoaxes.

Cloning is usually treated as the second category. It's not in itself undoable, and if you manage to get early stem cells (or germ line cells from an adult would be most adequate) the clone, when the tech gets therre to implant and grow and whatever, would probably grow just fine into an adult. Cells from skin, heart, spine or whatever will have to be coaxed back into stem cell state and carry on with all the DNA errors that have accumulated as the person aged. That clone will probably have a shorter life span, might develop cancer or degenerative diseases much faster. Either way, that would only clone the body, not the personality or memories although certain traits do have predispositions. Most sfi fi glosses over this. The Island and Moon are probably two that do make a point about that fact (althought The Island is crap in most other ways). It's difficult to explain all this without boring the audience so they skip it. And most skipping leads to "deus ex ovum" solutions for flimsy plots. Bad cloning in sci fi is just laziness or lack of skill to explain things with clarity as far as I'm concerned.