I'm Sorry I'll Be Missing ScienceOnline09

I'm sorry to say that I'll be unable to attend ScienceOnline09 due to a family emergency. I was looking forward to both my session and meeting all the science bloggers I only know by name/pseudonym.

I'm sure Stephanie will do an excellent job moderating the science in SF session discussion. I'm hoping to at least watch the sessions remotely.

You can get info about live coverage here.

Science and Science Fiction: What the scientists say: SF to discuss science

This is part three of my overview of the responses of scientists to the questions Stephanie Svan and I asked about the relationship between science and science fiction. You can find links to all the contributors' complete answers and our summaries at the ScienceOnline09 Wiki.

Also, be sure to check out the compilation of recommended science, science fiction, and related web sites.

Below I've highlighted snippets from some of the responses to the question:

Have you used science fiction as a starting point to talk about science? Is it easier to talk about people doing it right or getting it wrong?

There were a number of respondents who said they have used SF as a starting point for discussing science:

Nina Munteanu @ The Alien Next Door : "Yes, I have, particularly to do with my own work. My SF thriller, Darwin’s Paradox, examines—and even challenges— many scientific premises and theories within the context of “what would you do?” SF provides an excellent platform for scientific discussion and the deeper social and ethical questions that follow."

Peter Watts : "All the time."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics "Absolutely. Not only here at CPP and on my own blogs, but in the classroom. For a couple of years, I taught a freshman composition course based on writing about science. We used one of Stephen Jay Gould's essay collections and a couple of science fiction novels each semester to both illustrate the difference between writing factually and writing about science and to ask questions about science itself. [...] The lesson I learned from this is that most people don't notice whether the science is wrong or right when it's a good story. They suspend disbelief, which is what writers want. What matters is that the plot seems plausible."

Arvind Mishra @ Science Fiction in India : "Quite often. To begin a lecture on science or technology stories act as attracting contrivances /devices for the audience and thus could be used in various medium of imparting knowledge from class room to open theater as par the need and demand."

Schadwen @ Elemental Home "Every now and then I have been talking to people about science fiction books or stories, and we've segued into science discussions. Or I've used science fiction examples to expand on a point in a scientific discussion. Sometimes to extreme thoughts of science fiction can help set an upper bound for what people see as possible."

kcsphil of DC Dispatches : "I had a general chemistry professor who did years ago - he taught us equation balancing using the breakdown of Tri-Lithium."

Several pointed out that using science fiction is a way to spark enthusiasm and make science memorable:

Mike Brotherton : "I’ve developed and taught an entire course about physical science starting from science fiction. Even good, motivated science students react enthusiastically when science fiction is used to introduce particular topics. "

Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0) : "When I am teaching, I'd like to make people excited about real science, not just Sci-fi. I want them to realize that that same "wow" factor is in real life as well as in fiction. This is part of why I write, trying to express real science in an interesting and exciting way to hold people's interest. And some real science IS just as 'out there' as Sci-fi. Think of string theory. Heck, think of neural networks and things like memory formation! I hope that for many people, Sci-fi provides the "wow" that gets them started looking at our earth-bound science, and making their own science-nonfiction."

Blake Stacey @ Science After Sunclipse : "Arrogant popularizers of science like myself will seize on anything to make a bit of science memorable. If that means joshing a silly mistake in a screenplay, well, that's the price we have to pay."

Some scientific fields aren't very well represented in science fiction, making it difficult to use SF to discuss those topics:

Miriam Goldstein @ The Oyster's Garter "I really haven’t. This is probably because I’m a marine ecologist and not too much science fiction is about that type of thing. (Except for the horrible abundance of “dolphins with mystical knowledge” books. I would never use these book as examples because a) people do not need to be encouraged to harass poor cetaceans for Mystical Truths; and b) they are BAD books.)"

Kim @ All My Faults are Stress Related : "Geology is rarely explicitly part of science fiction. (Any time a different world is imagined, geology could be used to build a world that makes sense. I've rarely seen an imaginary world that makes geologic sense, unfortunately.) Off the top of my head, I can think of only one set of books that does geology well (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson), and I have yet to run across a student who is familiar with them."

Bad science fiction can be an easy way to start discussion about science:

Mike Brotherton : "On my blog, my most popular posts tend to be science fiction I love or hate because of the quality, or lack thereof, of the science."

Z @ It's The Thought that Counts : "It’s certainly easier to strike up a conversation with my fellow physics grad students by talking about people doing it wrong; the movie The Core is a classic in this regard. As a starting point for some more educational endeavor, I think the standard wouldn’t be so much whether the science was accurate or inaccurate, but rather whether the underlying science stuck out as strange to a viewer or reader. Often this would be blatantly inaccurate science, but I could easily imagine it being something verifiably true that happens not to match our real-world intuition. In either case, it’s a good hook to get people interested in the lesson to come."

Blake Stacey @ Science After Sunclipse : "Yes, Virginia, a lot of science on TV is rather silly. Pointing out these mistakes, whether they are due to carelessness or otherwise, is a way to make scientific discoveries memorable, and is therefore a valuable tool of science education. We can, in principle, work together to get things right so that everybody wins, if everybody holds on to their sense of humour."

Eva Amsen @ Expression Patterns : "It is easier to talk (and laugh) about the obvious mistakes, simply because you notice the silly stuff, but you tend not to notice when it’s not wrong. And you can use the unrealistic scenarios to say “This is not possible, because…” [...] Things that are clearly impossible are a lot easier to point out, and probably easier to use as a teaching tool than things that are just on the edge of being possible."

Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0) : "I've found in general it's easier to start with what people are getting wrong. Shows like "Bones" are always good starting points. "

But sometimes the bad science in SF makes discussion more difficult:

Eva Amsen @ Expression Patterns : "But when I was writing the fact sheets for ReGenesis I much preferred the episodes that were based on things that really happened, because at least I could find references for it and explain what was going on. The ones that were really stretching it were so difficult. Is it not possible? Why not? Is it really not possible? I ended up saying a lot of “probably not” and “maybe” because there is a big area of things that we simply don’t know enough about. "

Kim @ All My Faults are Stress Related : "I guess The Core could count as a science fiction movie (as well as a bad disaster movie). I've encouraged students to watch it and criticize the geology, but it's so goofy that it's difficult to get much science from it. I haven't seen the new Journey to the Center of the Earth, but I've watched the old version with geology students. Again, it was fun to laugh at it, but it was so wrong that it was hard to know where to start with a critique. "

Peter Watts: "That first thing ["it's easier to talk about people doing it right"]. There's far, far fewer examples to keep track of."

It was also pointed out that SF is not necessarily a good introduction to science:

Ken @ GeoSlice : "Simply put – no. I think that there are much easier and more applicable ways to introduce science than from science fiction. In an ideal world I think that it should be the other way around – science should be the introduction for science fiction."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics : "I think worrying about "wrong science" or "bad science" in science fiction is something of a red herring, truthfully. I don't think it has that much influence, even on TV. [. . . ] I don't think the non-geeky public at large pays much attention to SF, or, sadly, to science. And it's the non-geeky public that science needs to reach most."

Personally, I use SF as a starting point to discuss science all the time. I started this blog for that very reason. But that's a sort of formal discussion. More informally, SF movies and TV shows have often inspired me to complain about discuss the poor way that genetics, evolution and other bioscience is often depicted. Sometimes it's just me pointing out the flaws, but it has occasionally led to actual discussions about what the science should have been. When Jurassic Park was at the peak of its popularity it seemed like every other person wanted to know if dinosaurs could really be cloned from insects trapped in amber.

Sometimes I get annoyed when the main stream media frames a science story in terms of SF. But they do that for a reason. "Jurassic Park" headlines catch people's attention, for one. But it also becomes a cultural shorthand for certain scientific ideas that would otherwise be completely foreign to most people. You say "cloning" and the average person may not have a clear picture of what you mean, but you mention those dinosaurs being brought to life and there is immediate recognition. Of course there is the problem that popular SF with bad science can actually give people false ideas about science. An example of that is all the comics and movies where a "mutation" always creates a drastic change of some sort - usually depicted as bestowing a superpower or a causing a gross change in form. You'd never know from SF that mutations are often neutral. I do think there's an upside, though: people are at least familiar with the idea of a "mutation" causing heritable changes in DNA, even if they don't really understand how it works.

So does writing about the science behind SF make a difference in people's understanding or perception of science? From the stats about how people arrive here at Biology in Science Fiction, it looks like a lot of people search for information about their favorite TV shows, movies and books. I'd like to think that at least some people who visit here end up knowing a bit more about the biosciences than they did before. Does the information reach everyone? No. But it does reach people who wouldn't necessarily have been otherwise exposed to discussions about science.

Tags:science fiction, ScienceOnline09, science in fiction

Kyle XY and Einstein's Brain

ABC Family's Kyle XY is one of those shows that sounds interesting, but I've never quite gotten around to actually watching. Maybe it's because ABC Family isn't one of the stations that's on my schedule radar, or maybe it's because the teen angst aspect of the show makes it less appealing than the other shows in its time slot. In any case, the new season starts Monday, and I thought it was high time that I looked at a bit of the biology behind the show. Forgive me (and feel free to leave a comment) if I get part of the storyline wrong .

Here's the general premise of the show: Hunky 26-year old Matt Dallas plays teenager Kyle, who one day wakes up naked and belly button-less in the forest with no memory of his childhood. He's an innocent who needs to learn to learn everything: from learning to speak to simple social interactions, all while trying to discover who he is. Of course it helps that has superior mental and physical skills.

During the first two seasons, Kyle's origins are revealed: he's a clone - subject 781227 - who is part of an experimental program funded by the Zzyzx Corporation to develop super soldiers. At this summer's Comic-Con, io9 interviewed Matt Davis about the show. He talks a bit about Kyle's origins, and suggests that Season 3 (which premiers Monday) will delve heavily into science.

So what sets Kyle apart from your usual supergenius clone? It all started with Albert Einstein. You see, Einstein supposedly spend an extra three weeks in the womb, which allowed his brain to develop further in utero than usual. The result was that he became a physics genius - and started a research program to create others like him. Kyle is one of the latest results of that many-decade long research project. He actually spent 16 years in an artificial womb which allowed him to develop high intelligence, telepathy and other mental skills. It also explains his lack of a belly button.

Now is this based on real science? Not really, as far as I can tell.

- Did Einstein spend an extra 3 weeks in the womb?

I couldn't find any mention of anything unusual about Einstein's birth in any of the biographies I browsed online or on Google Books. It's possible that his birth was later than expected, but I would think that even in the 19th century a pregnancy three weeks past its due date would have been a serious cause for concern. The doctor or midwife attending Einstein's mother would likely have tried to induce childbirth before that time. Today doctors usually induce labor when pregnancy continues two weeks beyond the due date.

- Was Einstein's brain special?

As a boy, Einstein excelled at mathematics, solving problems far above his grade level. However, that aptitude didn't extend to every subject. Einstein's parents supposedly consulted a doctor about his slow verbal development. Even at the age of nine he had difficultly speaking. That may have made him seem slow to his teachers and family. It doesn't seem that anyone expected him to end up an icon of scientific genius.

We actually know a lot about Einstein's brain. Since his death in 1955 it has been analyzed by a number of neuroanatomists. While we still don't understand what made Einstein a genius, it appears that his brain differed from the average in several ways:

• In the early 1980s Marian Diamond examined the ratio of glial cells to neurons in Einstein's brain. In she found that Einstein had a higher than average number of glial cells per neuron in one region of the left inferior parietal lobe of the cerebral cortex which is involved in language and similar functions (see Diamond et al (1985) for details). The significance of these results are unclear and the methodology Diamond used has come under fire.
• A 1996 study showed that Einstein's cerebral cortex had the average number of cells, but was thinner than the control brains. That meant that the neurons were packed more densely in that region. (see Anderson & Harvey (1996)).
• A 1999 study showed that the pattern of grooves in Einstein's parietal lobes wasn't quite normal: the groove called the lateral sulcus or Sylvian fissure was shorter than normal and the inferior parietal lobe, a region of the brain responsible for mathematical thought and the manipulation of objects, was 15% wider than average (see Witelson et al. (1999)).

So what does all of this mean? One suggestion is that Einstein's abilities were due to the fact that the parts of the brain involved in language were smaller than than typical, which allowed parts of his brain involved in processing numbers and spatial relationships to grow larger. That's highly speculative, though, and we may never really know the answer.

One thing is clear: Einstein's brain doesn't appear to have developed more than usual, just differently from average.

- So could extended development in the womb increase intelligence?

Einstein is really only a small part of the Kyle XY mythos. The real biological claim is that Kyle has extraordinary abilities because he remained the equivalent of "in utero" for sixteen years. Is that possible? I don't think so. Human intelligence is determined by a complex set of factors, including genetics, nutrition, and other environmental factors. The connections between neurons in our brain are set in response to training and education, particularly during childhood. That means that it's unlikely that Kyle would develop into a genius would develop without some sort of outside stimulation. And if Kyle wasn't exposed to language in the early years of his life, it's unlikely that he would be able to learn to speak normally at all.

I'd be interested in hearing from any of you readers that have seen the show about what Kyle's development was actually supposed to be like. Was he really isolated in an artifical womb? or was he actually allowed to grow up in some sort of accelerated learning environment? Perhaps that's what will be shown in the show's upcoming season.

Season 3 premieres on Monday, January 12. Or, if you can't wait, you can watch the opening episode right now.

I've only seen the 10 minutes, but it looks like it'll be good entertainment if you are in the mood for teen angst (prom night!) mixed with your SF. You can see full episodes from the first two seasons on the ABC Family web site. (Note: as of 2012 the free episodes of Kyle XY are unfortunately no longer available.)
(I was going to discuss Kyle's missing belly button, but this post is long enough already. Maybe I'll get to it later in the season.)

Sponsored Links Buy the Kyle XY 3rd Season DVD on Amazon.com Download full episodes of Kyle XY on iTunes

Science and Science Fiction: What the scientists say: Using Science Fiction to Promote Science

This is a continuation of my overview of the responses of scientists to the questions Stephanie Svan and I asked about the relationship between science and science fiction. You can find links to all the contributors' complete answers and our summaries at the ScienceOnline09 Wiki.

Below I've highlighted snippets from some of the responses to the question:

What do you see as science fiction's role in promoting science, if any? Can it do more than make people excited about science? Can it harm the cause of science?

Many of the respondents thought science fiction could indeed play a role in stimulating the public's interest in science.

Schadwen @ Elemental Home : "I think good science fiction can interest children and adults into following a science education and career. The best example I can think of is "How William Shatner Changed the World". [...] The combination of imagination and science can only help fields grow."

kcsphil of DC Dispatches "I think SF has to help promote good science. We scientists are a bit . . . . dry . . . . so good sound science, perhaps stretched a bit, in SF is a real boon."

Arvind Mishra @ Science Fiction in India : "At least in India sf could play a pivotal role in popularizing sf but for this we have to look for many new innovative formats and procedures [...] An ingenious mix of mythology and sf could also be tried to attract the common masses. [...] If you rationally mix something very familiar like myths of a country with something very unfamiliar like sf ,things get going very well to carry and communicate the intended message to masses."

Chad Orzel @ Uncertain Principles : "Plenty of young people are pushed toward physics by stories that riff off various odd quantum phenomena, or talk about black holes and curved space-time, and all that astrophysical stuff."

Ken @ GeoSlice: "[... ] the answer to the first question is that science fiction has both no role in promoting science and that it often serves as a de facto introduction to science for the general public."

Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0): "One of the things I think is most important about Sci-fi is that it makes people excited about science. It gives you the "wow" factor that you may never get in science class, and it encourages people to imagine beyond the limits of human possibility."

Mike Brotherton : "People learn from story, too easily. Anecdote trumps science all too often in the minds of many. Why not put out some stories that get the science right? People who are not in a position to take a class, or who won’t pick up a textbook, still turn on their TV. There’s a real opportunity that hasn’t been exploited. [...] It’s both a matter of achieving a base level of scientific literacy in the public, and making people care about it. "

Eva Amsen @ Expression Patterns: "I don’t think science fiction needs to actively promote science, but just by being more realistic it can undo some misunderstandings."

Some thought that SF is better at promoting a scientific attitude and making scientists looks interesting than actually teaching science.

Peter Watts @ No Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons (Reloaded) : "I believe the genre can slip a little real science under the reader's guard, but more importantly I think it can help instill scientific attitudes. The best science fiction carries the subtext that the universe works according to consistent rules, dammit, and if you're smart enough you can pop the hood and figure them out. "

Chad Orzel @ Uncertain Principles : "The real power of SF, it seems to me, is to show people, particularly younger kids, a world in which science really matters, and Knowing Stuff is cool. The occasional disaster novel aside, the heroes of most science fiction books and movies succeed because they know things, and more importantly, they remain calm and think their way through the problems that get in their way."

Greg Laden : "The other angle is a little less obvious, and this is about making science and scientists sexy, or at least, interesting. Or at least, not total dickheads or hopeless nerds."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics : "What science fiction can do that science journalism can't (or just doesn't, often) is not just elide the boring stuff, the drudgery of lab work, the negative results, the scratching for grants, but gussy up that process. [...] Fiction is great at communicating the sense of possibility and the excitement of discovery. It humanizes the scientific process. "

Science fiction can inspire scientists and engineers to both develop new technologies and think about the possible consequences of their research.

Z @ It's The Thought that Counts : "I think science fiction’s role with respect to science is primarily to give it context, to help us hypothesize about science ethics or to help us recognize benefits and drawbacks to thinking scientifically. Occasionally a sci-fi author’s message may be to discourage a certain path of R&D, or to discourage a certain style of scientific inquiry, but if that attempt at supposedly stifling science is based on a belief that such work would be unethical, I think it would be aiding the cause of science rather than harming it."

Janet Stemwedel @ Adventures in Ethics and Science:"I think science fiction has the potential to help us make better science. I don't mean that works of science fiction should create the wish-list of technologies for scientists and engineers to bring into existence (although I'd like a rocket-pack as well as the next guy). Rather, I'm interested in science fiction's ability to paint a picture of everyday human relations in worlds that did not follow precisely the same course that ours has. "

Greg Laden : "Not only does science fiction potentially inspire science and technology, it also gauges science and technology. If you don't know what I mean, just sit down and watch three or four episodes of the original Star Trek and pay special attention to the technology itself, and its use in day to day life (on a Starship) and see how that washes in relation to day to day technology today. "

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics "What stories like, say, A Canticle for Leibowitz or The Road or even Dr. Strangelove do is make us think about the possible consequences of new or old technologies. That's never a bad thing. [...] Even if it's not entirely factual or absolutely correct in every detail, SF is serving science. Ask those engineering geeks who went around WorldCon chanting "The Ringworld is unstable!" at Larry Niven. Asked to derive those same equations for some other unstable system, they'd have been bored stiff. Sometimes those mistakes are just as important as the absolutely correct science facts."

Nina Munteanu @ The Alien Next Door: "The SF writer is both herald and conscience of science. It is a responsibility that some don’t realize they have when writing in this unique of genres. They are—we are—commentators of the present and reporters of the future."

Some thought that the science in science fiction is just too inaccurate to use it to teach science:

John S. Wilkins @ Evolving Thoughts "[...] I had to unlearn much of the "science" I had picked up by reading SF (scifi is for latercomers). I recall one book, well before the film Altered States in which an astronaut travelling at faster than the speed of light "de-evolved" through a chimps stage, a monkey stages and then a lemur stage, thereby doing great harm to both physics and evolutionary biology. "

Chad Orzel @ Uncertain Principles : "Science fiction, for the most part, does a really lousy job of teaching science. I'm sure that I'll get a couple of comments from people who learned everything there is to know about orbital mechanics from reading old Hal Clement stories, but the science in most science fiction tends to be pretty shaky. It's often dated, almost always distorted, and frequently warped to serve dramatic purposes. "

Miriam Goldstein @ The Oyster's Garter : "Right now, I don’t see scifi as having much to do with real science. Most of the science in science fiction is so bad that it is either neutral (not associated with real science at all) or harmful to science. I stopped watching Farscape over some nonsense about Aeryn Sun being cold-blooded and how that meant she couldn’t get hot. Hadn’t anyone in LA been to the desert and seen all the lizards scuttling around?"

Several argued that the depiction of science as dangerous and frightening in science fiction can harm public perception of science:

David Brin : "Silly movie sci fi can be harmful. It often goes for the simplistic tale, and cares little about how people would really react to new technologies. The standard Idiot Plot is lazy and assumes that people and society will be stupid, because that drives a simpleminded plot easiest. Viewers come away convinced that progress is bad, society is helpless and we will always misuse technology. A dumb notion to propagandize!"

Peter Watts @ No Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons (Reloaded): "Can it harm the cause of science? Sure, especially if it's anti-science polemic tarted up in sf tropes. Did Michael Crichton ever write a novel in which there weren't Some Things Man Was Not Meant To Know?"

Kim @ All My Faults are Stress Related "I don't think science fiction is particularly good at promoting science. (One word: Frankenstein.) An awful lot of science fiction seems to reveal a fear of the unknown, a fear of tampering with nature or with going too far in trying to understand something. It's not true of all science fiction (or fantasy), but I've seen it in places as different as Tolkien and the new Dr. Who."

John S. Wilkins @ Evolving Thoughts : "Few novels are accurate, but even fewer show science in a good light. Frankenstein is the model of the SF scientist, meddling where he (usually a he - SF was very masculine for a long time) had no right to meddle. Arthur Clarke, despite the woodenness of his characters and dialogues, at least stood out in that respect - scientists were the good guys for him (and for a number of Eastern Bloc SF writers like Lem). But most SF showed science in a very apocalyptic and dangerous aspect, as befitted the post A-bomb era."

Z @ It's The Thought that Counts : "It can harm the cause of science if it’s unnecessarily alarmist."

And even the glorification of science in SF can have a negative impact if it sets up unrealistic expectations that modern science simply can't live up to:

Mike Brotherton : "As for the harm, well, there has been a lot of discussion about that, too, following Buzz Aldrin’s comments that unrealistic and unscientific science fiction has dampened interest in the space program. I don’t think his case is overwhelming, but I agree that science fiction has an effect and it isn’t always positive, at least to the public at large that isn’t already a fan of science and discovery."

Miriam Goldstein @ The Oyster's Garter : "[...] the science portrayed is so far away from what is possible now. For example, somebody who became a computer programmer to be like Hiro Protagonist in Snow Crash would be sadly disappointed."

Ken @ GeoSlice : "In the case of science fiction movies and TV, I think that harm often results. Most of the general public wouldn’t consider the various CSI shows as science fiction, but that’s exactly what they are. One consequence is that people serving on juries often expect more than is actually possible from prosecutors and have little understanding of important details and caveats of scientific evidence – so, our legal system is suffering due to missunderstandings that often originate from TV shows."

Eva Amsen @ Expression Patterns: "I think that the kind of science fiction that portrays a type of future that is unrealistic doesn’t so much harm science in general, but it does leave people with some unrealistic expectations. Sure, it’s fiction, but by labeling something as 200 years in the future, it suggests that the fictional scenarios are maybe possible some day. "

Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0): "Of course, Sci-fi (and medical shows and things) can harm people's perceptions of scientists and doctors. [...] I think some of these problems arise from issues such as simplifying what we DO know, and how that comes across in books and on-screen. Most people who watch or read sci-fi don't actually know that much about science, and the simplification can get them confused. We do know a LOT, but a lot of what we know is so intricately detailed that it doesn't come across. And what does come across is often over-simplified and results in people thinking that scientists are gods, and then being horribly disillusioned when they realize they aren't. "

But a couple of respondents think doubt that SF can do any harm:

Arvind Mishra @ Science Fiction in India : "No, there seems to be no damage to the science itself, instead it serves the very purpose of sci communication. Its helpful to bring out the science out of our iron walled laboratories to the public."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics : "If the cause of science is to discover how everything works, to advance human knowledge, I doubt that much said about it in science fiction would stop or harm that. Humans are too curious to let much stop them from asking "Why?" and "How?" If the questions aren't asked now, they will be eventually. The mad scientist has been an archetype in the culture at least since Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, if not Prometheus, and that hasn't stopped or hindered anything. Politics and ignorance do far more damage in that area than sketchy science in SF ever will."

The excerpts I picked out don't really do justice to the thoughtful answers people gave, so if you are interested in the topic, I'd urge you to read the full responses.

---

Personally, I think that science fiction can and does influence the public's perception of science, both positively and negatively.

In my teenage years SF novels both stimulated my interest in science and taught me a few interesting tidbits about astrophysics and cosmology. As I mentioned in yesterday's post, it also reinforced my view that the universe operates on physical laws that are knowable. It's hard to know, though, if the SF I read shaped my interests, or if I read SF because my interests already leaned in the direction of science and technology. I suspect it's more the latter than the former, since the other kids I knew who read SF were also big ole science nerds too. Honestly, I don't think that SF novels have that much impact on how most people view science.

On the other hand, almost everyone watches the occasional SF movie or TV show. That means visual media can have a much greater influence on the perception of science and scientists. I think that can be both positive and negative. On the positive side, popular SF movies can generate interest in scientific research. I've had a number of conversations with people who saw movies like Gattaca or Jurassic Park and were interested in learning more about the science behind the scenes.

It does concern me, though, that there is so much bad science on screen. In the absence of other sources of scientific information I don't think it's a surprise that people start believing in the reality of Hollywood science, where every mutation causes either a gross deformity or bestows a superpower, clones grow to adulthood in a few days, and new diseases are cured within an hour by the efforts of a lone doctor/scientist. It can make real science seem dull and disappointing in comparison. And worse, it means that people have serious misconceptions about both how the natural world works and what it is possible for present-day science to achieve, which can have a harmful effect on public policy relating to science.

That's one of the reasons why I started this blog. I'd like to think that having an easily Googled discussion about the science behind the SF people are reading and watching is a useful resource for those who are inspired to learn more about the science. But since many people who simply absorb what they watch without seeking additional information, I'd really love to see programs like the Science and Entertainment Exchange improve the accuracy level of on-screen science.

Tags:science fiction, ScienceOnline09, science in fiction

Science and Science Fiction: What the scientists say: Do you like SF?

As you may recall, Stephanie Zvan and I will be moderating a panel at the fast-approaching ScienceOnline09 conference about the role of science fiction in science communication. We asked a bunch of science fiction writers and scientists (and a number of people who are both) several questions about their thoughts on science in SF.

This is the first in a series of posts that gives overview of the answers the scientists gave - there are links to the full replies on my original post. Meanwhile, Stephanie is summarizing the writer's responses over at her blog. Be sure to check them out too.


What is your relationship to science fiction? Do you read it? Watch it? What/who do you like and why?

All of the people who answered the questions read or watch at least a bit of science fiction. That's not particularly surprising, considering that number of the responses are from science fiction writers with science backgrounds, or scientists who regularly write about SF.

It may be overly reductionist, but it seems to me that the reasons why science types like science fiction can be roughly split into three categories:

1. Imaginative ideas and exploring strange new worlds

David Brin "Science Fiction is the literature of change... the genre that admits that human life is in flux and that transformations occur all of the time. Sometimes these are propelled by scientific advances or technology. But not always. The changing roles of women in society, for example. These have long been grist for SF stories that predicted the important shifts that have taken place. Modern environmentalism was first pushed in SF."

Kim @ All My Faults are Stress Related : "As an adult, I like stories that imagine societies different from ours. Science fiction (and also fantasy) seem like great ways to explore human-ness by imagining what happens if things were a little different. Maybe the difference is some kind of technology. Maybe the difference is a cultural attitude. In a way, it's like experiments in science."

Z @ It's The Thought that Counts : "In general I think sci-fi appeals to me because of its capabilities to challenge our most basic assumptions and to explore human nature in different settings. Sci-fi is not just narrowly about imagining future technology, but rather about imagining future society in the context of human discoveries and how they influence our lifestyles. Also, I’m impressed by the many discoveries and inventions that were foreshadowed in science fiction, and to some extent as a scientist I read sci-fi to find new ways of thinking about research questions."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics : "What attracts me to science fiction and its various subgenres is not just the hardware or the science but the world-building: how that science fits into the larger scheme of things, how it shapes society, how society interacts with it, how society shapes science in turn. I've been at least as fascinated by the interaction as I've been by the science itself. I think scientists sometimes unconsciously think of their research as occurring in a vacuum; it's pure and righteous because it's the search for knowledge. But history is full of boxes that were opened too early, or that couldn't be slammed shut again and I think that's one of the useful checks and balances of science fiction. It asks those questions about consequences."

Martin R. @ Aardvarchaeology : "That honour goes to good old sense of wonder. Sf is good when it's gripping and exciting, preferably emotionally, artistically and intellectually. And if you learn some science along the way, real or fictional, then all the better. It's probably very hard to remain ignorant of and hostile to science if you like sf, but then, if such is your background, chances are you won't seek out sf anyway." Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0) : "I love thinking about aliens: what if they weren't carbon-based? Would they be anything we would even recognize? What other self-replicating systems could there be beyond DNA? These are ideas that bench scientists often consider a waste of time, and it's great to know that there are writers out there thinking of it and making us all think deeper than we might ever go on our own. We spend a lot of time confronted by the dull face of reality. I love that writers in general, and Sci-fi and fantasy writers in particular, look beyond that, and give us the funny little questions that make us stop, and make us think. If there were androids, would they dream of electric sheep? I also feel that Sci-fi (and fantasy) provides another lens for looking at issues of society and morality. It is easier to look from the outside when you're looking a society of aliens. Personality traits can be thrown into sharp relief and actions can be emphasized to raise moral and psychological questions."

Chad Orzel @ Uncertain Principles :"The science aspect was definitely a draw, but I think the real attraction was a little more mundane-- science fiction books were books in which Really Cool Things Happened-- space battles and alien encounters and gateways to different dimensions-- as opposed to boring mainstream stories about people with relationship problems and beloved pets who die in the last chapter. "

John S. Wilkins @ Evolving Thoughts : "The flights of imagination about large things, ideas and worlds, was enough to trigger off my own imagination. I read pretty well everything I could for over two decades before it all petered out into second rate thick books of fantasy and Star Wars knockoffs. Science fiction had a use-by date, and roughly when Dick Tracy's radio watch became ordinary, it stopped appealing, and I started getting interested in the science."

Janet Stemwedel @ Adventures in Ethics and Science :"[...] I'm interested in science fiction's ability to paint a picture of everyday human relations in worlds that did not follow precisely the same course that ours has. The strange worlds of science fiction play out against different environmental backdrops, different choices made at crucial junctures, and different assumptions about what people can do and about what will make them happy. Yet, for the fiction to succeed, there needs to be a way for the real-world reader to relate to the characters -- which is to say, they are not completely different from us but rather are people like us moving through a world interestingly different from our own."

Nina Munteanu @ The Alien Next Door: "My favorite movies are those which ask the deeper questions about us as a species and where we are going and, yes, how science propels us into new territory that forces us to ask even deeper questions about ourselves, God and the universe."

2. Entertainment and escapism

Ken @ GeoSlice: "I read primarily for entertainment and escape, though I certainly enjoy some ‘meat’ to the books I read. It’s hard for me to pin down exactly why I enjoy SFF specifically – I imagine that a large reason why that I deal with the ‘real world’ all the time, so I want something different, something more, when I read. I also think that SFF allows a lot more flexibility in an author than ‘normal’ fiction and seeing what authors do with that flexibility is quite rewarding."

Miriam Goldstein @ The Oyster's Garter : "I suppose I’m kind of sterotypically girly in that I care a lot about character development and less about speculative technology, though I do love me some space fights."

kcsphil of DC Dispatches : "I think it gives me the opportunity to let my imagination go, instead of thinking about how much damage this r that policy is doing to science."

Eva Amsen @ Expression Patterns : "I used to watch Star Trek years ago, and last year I was introduced to Doctor Who and Torchwood. They all have in common that anything can be explained away with some supernatural “science”. That’s not what I like about them. In all three cases I think I just liked the characters and stories as a few minutes of distraction. And then I obviously watched ReGenesis, which is different from the classical genre of science fiction because its based on real science and set in our regular world. It’s more a drama/mystery series with lots of scientists. [...] I like mysteries that are set in a regular world, and that need believable solutions."

3. An optimistic view of the future

Arvind Mishra @ Science Fiction in India : I like the stories particularly with optimistic note and happy endings. This may be due to the deep sacraments through which an Indian undergoes since his childhood. As a matter of fact most of the Indian stories have happy endings and a positive thought towards human life [...]

Dr Isis @ On Being a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess : "So why did [Star Trek:TOS, Star Trek:TNG, Star Trek: Voyager] have such an impact on Dr. Isis? There are two reasons. First, each series demonstrated a progressive inclusion of women and minorities in science and technology. [...] Second, Dr. Isis appreciated the idea of the pursuit of science as a means to fulfill one's own curiosity -- the mission to explore where no totally hot domestic and laboratory goddess had gone before. [...] So, I suppose Virginia, the role I see for science fiction in science is to offer us a vision of how the future might be and to give us something to dream about. [...]"

---

Of course there is overlap between those categories - imaginative world building creates those optimistic futures, and I doubt anyone would care for either if the stories weren't entertaining.

So what about me? Obviously I enjoy science fiction or this blog wouldn't exist. I have always been a voracious reader, but I didn't start really getting into science fiction until I was in my early teens. I enjoyed the adventures and reading about strange places, but the science was a big part of my enjoyment too. You see, I was a bit of a know-it-all, and I felt like the bits of science I picked up just made me that much smarter (Reading that, I realize I must have been a bit insufferable. Sorry mom.). Neutron stars, cloning, even the bad sex found in so much SF - I gobbled it all up. I think all the SF I read influenced - or at least reinforced - my view that while the universe is full of wonders both known and unknown, it operates under knowable physical laws. Learning those laws, even if it takes thousands of years, will let humankind conquer both the stars and mother Earth. I like the optimism of that idea.

Over the years my tastes have changed a bit. While I still like a good adventure, these days I'm less interested in stories that include diagrams of black holes and more interested in character development and the effects of changing technology on society. I've also become a lot more sensitive to the way that women are portrayed. I like to read about futures where women have interesting roles to play other than just being wives and secretaries. Ultimately, though, I think SF should have either an extremely interesting idea that it explores, or an entertaining storyline. Ideally, it has both.

Some favorite SF writers:

Peter Watts @ No Moods, Ads or Cutesy Fucking Icons (Reloaded) : Most influenced, growing up, by John Brunner, Samuel Delany, Robert Silverberg. Tried to imitate William Gibson and Neal Stephenson while breaking into the field. It's probably just as well I didn't succeed.

Arvind Mishra @ Science Fiction in India :"My all time favorite sf writer has been Issac Asimov who still has many of his admirers in India.His many stories have social implications and is appreciated by Indian audience. "

Mike Brotherton : "As for writers, I have one list posted on my website and happily keep finding others. John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War was my most recent happy discovery. My shortlist of current writers I like would have to include: Scalzi, Vernor Vinge, David Brin, Robert Sawyer, Robert Charles Wilson, Joe Haldeman, Nancy Kress, Michael Swanwick, Eric Nylund, Robert Reed, Jack McDevitt, and many more."

Schadwen @ Elemental Home : "My first introduction to science fiction was H.G. Wells and The War of the Worlds. More Wells followed with The Time Machine and The Invisible Man. I've read others of his works, so I learned about cavorite, but none of the others really captured me like the big three. [...] I read the Dune series, and a few of his other books, and was very depressed when he died. And then I found Robert Heinlein, and Job introduced me to the wide range of alternate realities. And then I found Larry Niven who has consistently remained my favorite for science fiction. Known Space keeps me coming back wishing for more. "

Z @ It's The Thought that Counts :"My favorite book of all time is Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card, and I love the rest of that series as well. Some other examples of books I like for the above reasons are Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle and Galapagos, Ursula K. LeGuin’s The Left Hand of Darkness, and pretty much everything ever written by Philip K. Dick."

Miriam Goldstein @ The Oyster's Garter : "Though I read all kinds of tripe in my callow youth, I now no longer enjoy books without decent female characters. (Though I don’t mind if they’re sexbots as long as they have a personality and actual humanoid motivations - I thought Charles Stross’ Saturn’s Children was tons of fun.) My favorite scifi author is Ray Bradbury. I’m going to count China Mieville in there too, since he kind of writes about speculative (albeit dystopian) biotechnology."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics : "I cut my teeth on the original Star Trek in the 60s and quickly moved on to harder drugs in the 70s: Heinlein, Bradbury, Asimov, Cherryh, Norton, Pohl, Niven, Clarke, Frank Herbert, and reluctantly, Philip K. Dick. [...] Currently, I'm following Iain M. Banks, China Mieville, Melissa Scott, Neal Stephenson, Dan Simmons, Connie Willis, and William Gibson, among others. [...] I also have a deep fondness for Spider Robinson, who is one of the most humanist of contemporary science fiction writers, but because he's funny as all hell, gets little credit. He's the guy who first got me interested in Tesla. How could I resist someone who carries lightning in his pockets?"

Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0) : "Reading-wise, I'm a big fan of Dan Simmons, the famous writer of the "Hyperion" cantos. I really admire the way he combines the old (referencing things like Proust, Shakespeare, the Iliad, etc) with the futuristic, adding extra layers to the plot and characters that leave you interpreting actions for days."

Martin R. @ Aardvarchaeology : "I started to read novels and ploughed through Heinlein and Clarke. I remember finding Stranger in a Strange Land a little weird at about age eleven, but I enjoyed it. Later I became a devotee of LeGuin and Lovecraft. Sf was such an obvious thing to me from an early age, and so the fantasy of Tolkien and his tradition came as more of a revelation to me when I discovered it. I spent ten years in the Stockholm Tolkien Society, and when the time came for me to choose a profession, there were really only two alternatives: either astronomy (inspired by sf) or archaeology (inspired by fantasy). [...] Weaning myself off television as a teen, and never a being a big moviegoer, I may not look much like an SF/F fan to people who have the Babylon Five and Battlestar Galactica boxed sets on their shelves. But I read, and I listen to weekly short-fiction podcasts like Escape Pod."

---

As for me, I've always been a voracious - some might say promiscuous - reader. During my teen years I think I checked out most of the SF books at my small local library, which was in addition to many murder mysteries, thrillers, mainstream YA and adult fiction, and the occasional fantasy. When I find a novel I like, I usually seek out all the sequels, even if they don't quite measure up to the original. I've read a lot of junk and a lot of gems.

Connie Willis is one of my favorite writers, as is Neal Stephenson (particularly Snow Crash and Diamond Age). Spider Robinson's terrible puns and hippie heroes have given me hours of reading pleasure, although I'm not sure I'd want to read all the Callahan books in one sitting. I recently read and enjoyed Robert Charles Wilson's Spin and Chronoliths, and like to find more from him. Some other SF novels that particularly stnd out to me: Herbert's Dune, Heinlein's The Moon is Harsh Mistress and the collected "Past Through Tomorrow" stories, Huxley's Brave New World (one of my favorites in high school), Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama, Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Butler's Dawn, Niven's Ringworld, Pohl's Gateway, Asimov's Robot novels and the original Foundation series (which is really dated, but fascinating). I also have fond memories of Steve Perry's Matador series, maybe more because my husband had those on his bookshelf when we started dating than because I particularly enjoy SF-martial arts novels. I'm sure I've left some off the list, but those are what come to mind immediately. And I'm a huge fan of short stories, which I think are the perfect vehicle for exploring interesting ideas.

Some favorite TV shows and movies:

Mike Brotherton : "My favorite on TV right now is Battlestar Galactica, although it has its flaws, and I watch Heroes, although the “science” is laughable. Waiting to see if Life on Mars fully hooks me. I haven’t seen what I would consider a really good science fiction film released in many years — Gattaca and Contact are two that come to mind. I have my top ten list of my own favorite sf movies."

Schadwen @ Elemental Home : "As for watching science fiction, it's really difficult sometimes. I will refrain from naming the trinity of geology movie bastardizations. My favorites for science fiction are "Firefly"/"Serenity", "Eureka", and the lamented "Journeyman"."

Miriam Goldstein @ The Oyster's Garter : "I listen to several scifi podcasts, mainly Escape Pod. My favorite scifi show is Battlestar Galactica, particularly the first and second seasons, with their optimal combination of space fights, daring rescues, and interesting, flawed characters. (Please, gentle readers, DO NOT spoil the fourth season. I watch it on DVD so I haven’t seen it yet!) I still pine for Firefly. I found Heroes tedious and derivative, and could never bear any of the Stargate series."

Lee Kottner @ Cocktail Party Physics : "I still think Babylon 5 is one of the finest pieces of TV science fiction ever made, though Firefly is certainly interesting and could have been a close rival had it gone on longer. Networks have a bad habit of canceling stuff just when it gets interesting, which is why I've always been more of a fan of SF (or specfic) in print than on TV or in the movies. That said, Star Wars hooked me when it first came out and deeply disappointed me later (though I'm an undying fan). I also saw Silent Running at about the same time and still think of it fondly. It kind of rode in on the cusp of the ecology movement and the thought of that orbiting forest was just heartbreaking. I still hope it wasn't prophetic. And, of course, there was 2001: A Space Odyssey, which I didn't see until several years after it came out. That just reinforced my interest in astronomy, cosmology and space travel, Hal or no. "It's full of stars!"

Scicurious @ Neurotopia (version 2.0) : "I've been a Sci-Fi geek since my youthful days, watching Star Trek with my mom. Now I read, watch, whatever. I've always been a Next Gen fan, mostly because Patrick Stewart is SO brilliant. [...] I also love Firefly, though since it's a "Space-Western", I'm not entirely sure it counts. Excellent character development and fantastically funny writing."

Dr Isis @ On Being a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess : "Dr. Isis grew up a huge Star Trek fan. I mean, massively huge. She started out watching The Original Series and all but lost her junk when The Next Generation started. While Dr. Isis prefers to pretend that Deep Space Nine and Enterprise never happened, she is one of the few who enjoyed Voyager (yes, even when Seven of Nine showed up). Dr. Isis might own the three complete serieses on DVD and consider an ideal night to be a glass of wine, an Aveda clay mask, and the tribbles episode."

---

Like Dr. Isis, I was a big fan of the original Star Trek growing up. When I think back, it seems like was on every afternoon all through the 70s, but that can't have been the case, can it? Anyway, I loved the exploration of a new world in each, the trials of wits and character where humanity was always demonstrated to be a superior moral species, and the heavy-handed (in restrospect) morality tales. But what I think I liked best was the easy camaraderie of the crew, who seemed more like a bunch of buddies than members of the military. I don't think the subsequent series never really recaptured that completely, even though they were entertaining (and I did watch them all from TNG through Enterprise). I went through a Doctor Who phase in high school and watched Babylon 5 religiously in grad school. My current favorite is the Battlestar Galactica reboot, which has sadly run its course. Sometimes I hope next season's new shows turn out to be duds, because I spend far too much time infront of the TV.

Next up:

What do you see as science fiction's role in promoting science, if any? Can it do more than make people excited about science? Can it harm the cause of science?

Tags:science fiction, ScienceOnline09, science in fiction

Ideas from Science Fiction are a Career Killer?

The December issue of Esquire Tom Junod profiled biologist Mark Roth, whose lab at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center studies suspended animation. Long term human hibernation is a staple of science fiction, particularly as a method for transporting people for the very long journeys necessary to traverse our galaxy at sub-light speeds.

The style of the Esquire article is pretty breezy, particularly if you are used to reading profiles of scientists in Science (or even the New York Times), so can be a bit hard to tell what bits are based on facts, and what Junod included because he liked the sound of it. That's why I'm not quite sure what to make of this:

Now, Mark Roth is a scientist. He's not a philosopher or a crank. He proves things, experimentally, according to the scientific method. In 2007, he got a MacArthur, so he's a genius, certified. [snip long description of Roth's appearance] He sometimes gives you a goofy double thumbs-up when he thinks he's proved his point, when he's proved that what he's talking about -- be it ball lightning or the philosopher's stone -- is not a crazy idea but rather a gamer. Still, he's got a lot of ideas, for a scientist, and some of them come from unusual sources, like tabloidy news reports and science fiction.

It's a weird thing about scientists -- you would think that they would love science fiction. But they don't. To admit that you get your ideas from science fiction, if you're a scientist, that's, like, career-threatening, man, just like it might be professionally risky to say you work in Mark Roth's lab, no matter how outlandish and game-changing its accomplishments. And so, yes, Mark Roth is a scientist. But he's a scientist in the way that you used to want to be a scientist when you were a kid, with weird substances -- dangerous substances, toxic substances, indeed the most toxic substances known to man! -- bubbling away in his lab, rather than a scientist in the way that most scientists are scientists, with NIH funding, a stack of grant applications to catch up on, and a commitment to pursue the one or two ideas that got them that precious federal funding to the death.

Now from where I sit, this reads like a tiny kernel of truth surrounded whole lot of stupid. Junod doesn't seen to have ever met a scientist or seen a lab, and he doesn't appear have a clue that even unusual scientific ideas owe credit to the research that has gone on before.

Take, for example, his description of Roth as having a lot of ideas "for a scientist". Most scientists I've met have lots of ideas. I suspect that Junod actually meant to write "Roth has lots of ideas I find really cool". And that's pretty much the theme of the whole article: Roth doesn't just punch the clock doing boring research like all those unimaginitive scientists with NIH grants. He's a maverick doing weird science who found creative ways to fund his work. He's like totally rad!

The jab about most scientists not loving science fiction falls along those lines. Some scientists love science fiction and some don't. Just like some scientists are of differening opionions on the entertainment value of murder mysteries and Tom Clancy novels. But the implication seems to be that scientists dislike SF because they can't use the ideas in their grant proposals, which is just stupid.

Which brings me to his next point:

"To admit that you get your ideas from science fiction, if you're a scientist, that's, like, career-threatening, man...".

Well yes, if all your scientific ideas are only based on science fiction and not on, you know, actual science, that would be a problem. Most science fiction is fiction first and science second. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but not really that useful for basing your research on.

I suspect that Roth's scientific ideas about inducing suspended animation actually are based on previous research and not just The Forever War, even though he did apparently have a lot of trouble getting them funded (but, like, NIH funds only boring unoriginal stuff, so, like, dude, it's better that he didn't get any grants). You'd never know that reading this article, though.

And I don't want to give the impression that I don't think Roth's research is interesting. It is. I'm just not keen on the way it's been framed as better than what other scientist have been doing because it's so science fictional.

(via Ansible)

Tags:science fiction, suspended animation

Help Needed: Can you identify this novel with a body-parts-for-sale plot line?

Mark Tushnet emailed me with a question I couldn't answer, and I'm hoping one of you kind readers might be able to help:

I'm trying to locate a novel I read, published in the last decade but not one of those on your list in that post, with the following plot line (it's a subordinate plot line to the main story): A person needing money sold a small body part, and prospered, but also found the sale altruistically satisfying. So, part by part, he sold off major body parts, to the point where he was reduced to a torso and head carried around by his close friend. In the end, a recipient of one of the body parts invents a technique for perfectly replacing lost body parts, so the donor is at the book's end restored to a full complement of body parts, mostly "artificial." (I use the story in teaching about legal regulation of risk -- students tend to think that there's something wrong about selling some body parts, although they disagree about where to draw the line, but don't have any objection to "selling" the risk to those same body parts at ordinary, risky jobs.)

The main story line probably had something to do with the "amputee's" friend, but he can't remember any other details. It's not any of the novels mentioned in this post.

If you think you can identify the story, you can email Mark at
mtushne (at) law (dot) harvard (dot) edu
or leave a comment below.

Tags:body parts, organ selling

Time Lord regeneration physiology; or, Does the Doctor have to be a white dude?

If you've been following the science fiction news over the past few days, you've probably heard the BBC's announcement that Matt Smith will follow David Tennant in the role of the Doctor in the long-running Doctor Who series. Ever since Tennant announced he would step down in the role, there has been rampant speculation as to who would replace them.

Some of the rumors were that the eleventh Doctor might be played by a black actor such as Chiwetel Ejiofor or Paterson Joseph (who would have been my pick) or a woman like Alex Kingston or Catherine Tate. It doesn't take more than a glance at Smith's photo to realize that he is neither a woman, nor black. Maybe he'll be the greatest Doctor ever, but even if he is, I'm still a bit disappointed that he's a super young white dude. Graeme McMillan summed it up nicely in his rant at io9:

Maybe the BBC didn't want to bring too much upset to their flagship family program, especially with the change in producers and showrunners, and worried that moving too far away from the familiar would make viewers leave the show in concern that it's not the same show they've loved for the last X number of years. If so, it's a shame, and - I think - a miscalculation; I really doubt that audiences would have had any problem with a black Doctor, or a female Doctor (or, for that matter, a black female Doctor, for anyone who wants to write fanfic that Martha Jones is actually a future Doctor herself); despite a stereotype and tradition for stuffiness, Britain is a strongly multicultural environment, and even if it wasn't, characters like Martha, or the admittedly-annoying Mickey, or even Captain Jack Harkness, had been quietly pushing the envelope on Who since its revival. Even if the BBC wasn't ready for a different kind of Doctor, the audience, I believe, was.

Of course this sparked a lot of discussion in the comments of the post, with some people agreeing and others disagreeing, with some people arguing that the Doctor just is white and is male and can't actually be anything else. But can he? What do we know about the biology of the Time Lords?

In case you aren't a Doctor Who fan, a bit of background is in order. The Doctor is a Time Lord from the planet Gallifrey, a member of a race who can live a very very very long time by the process of regeneration when their body is at the point of death. They aren't immortals, though, since they can only regenerate 12 times, giving them a total of 13 long lives. During regeneration every cell in a Time Lord's body is replaced, but memories (and perhaps their whole brain) remains intact. The regenerated body has a completely different appearance and personality. But how different can different be?

Over the years the Doctor has changed the color and texture of his hair, the shape of his face and mouth and nose, and even his height. While his skin color hasn't changed much, fellow Time Lord Romana was able to "try on" a blue body during her first regeneration, so it seems that variation in skin color is certainly possible. We even glimpsed a black Time Lord in the Doctor's flashback to his youth on Gallifrey in the episode "The Sound of Drums". Taking all these factors into account, I don't think it would be at all inconsistent with what we know about his physiology for the Doctor to regenerate with dark brown skin and tightly curled black hair, looking very much like a human with black African ancestry.

So what about the possibility of the Doctor changing from male to female? While it appears uncommon, the Doctor did meet another Time Lord, I. M. Forman, who had regenerated in both male and female form. It certainly doesn't seem implausible for a sex change to occur if the newly regenerated version sports modified DNA and every cell is regrown from scratch.

It seems like anything is possible. Will we see a non-white, non-male doctor? Only time will tell.

Image (top): Matt Smith, the Eleventh Doctor.
Image (middle left): Eleven Doctors, from the Doctor Who Tardis Index File article on The Doctor.
Image (middle right): Regeneration forms "tried on" by Romana in the episode "Destiny of the Daleks". From the Wikipedia article on regeneration.
Image (bottom): black Time Lord glimpsed in the episode "The Sound of Drums", from the YouTube clip.

Tags:Doctor Who, Time Lord, regeneration