Chemistry vs. Biology in Science Fiction

Weixiang (Andrew) Sun, a materials science graduate student at South China University of Technology and Nature Network blogger, bemoans the lack of chemistry-based science fiction while dissing biology-based SF.

As a chemist I should be well frustrated at the oversight of science fiction toward chemistry. There are plenty of particle physics, astronomy, AI and molecular biology in science fiction but seldom is there…Wait…molecular biology? isn't it in fact biochemistry? But still too 'bio' one, filled with gene cloning technology, sometimes even something about neuroscience. Bioscience fiction is the dullest because the discoveries about gene have too explicitly implied too much for sci-fi writers to suppose literally anything. Gene only encode the sequence of amino acids in one or more peptides. How does the sequence determine the subsequent folding, packing and functioning is mysterious. But the sci-fi works just keep telling us that we only need the primary structure of something to have the desired functions, regardless of its secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures. That is, biology is omnipotent; chemistry is nothing.

I agree with him that too many times genetics is used as a lazy plot device: all you have to do is insert a gene or cause a mutation and voila, a character has special powers or an extra limb. However, while we may not necessarily understand how the sequence of amino acids in a protein determines its final three dimensional shape, I'd argue that we don't need to. That's what distinguishes biology from chemistry, at least in part - biology can look at the effect on a whole organism, or at least a cell, without understanding all of the chemical steps involved. not surprisingly, I don't think that makes bioscience fiction dull, just different.

The disciplines of chemical biology, biochemistry and molecular biology are in that fuzzy area where chemistry and biology meet. Andrew is right that often any sort of science having to do with natural products or the human body is assumed to lie on the biology side of the border (even though we are all made of chemicals). For better or worse the public associates chemistry with practical science and biology with larger philosophical questions. As Andrew points out:

But chemical imaginations are always some temporary fulfillment of the minor technical gaps in the stories (like the above mentioned omnipotent windscreen). The readers just don’t mind any absurdity. I suppose that the status of chemistry in science fictions is just reflecting its status in the present public. Chemistry is indeed regarded as something just useful to fill the minor gaps in our everyday life, thinking about all those plastics, detergents, and insecticides. Science fictions are just putting people today in a different age. The environment may be different, but the thoughts are the same.

Honestly, I can't think of any chemistry-based science fiction off the top of my head. If anyone has any to suggest, they should go over and leave Andrew a comment.

Tags:science fiction, chemistry

Star Wars and the Midi-Chlorian Menace

Just over 30 years ago, Star Wars Episode IV was released in the U.S. and it changed the way science fiction would be portrayed in the movies. As a 10-year-old I loved it. I wanted to be Princess Leia - brave, smart, and pretty - and I had a little girl's crush on Hans Solo. And there were so many cool things to see - magnificent space ships, the race to destroy the death star, light swords and a holographic chess board, not to mention the alien-filled bar. But one of the things that caught my fancy was the idea of "The Force". It was everywhere and in everything, and, if you were the right kind of person, you could tap into its power. Of course there was a "dark side" to The Force, but those who used it were ultimately punished. It was indistinguishable from magic. Star Wars was essentially an epic sword and sorcery movie in sci-fi clothing that it made no pretense of being hard science fiction.

Fast forward 22 years to the release of Star Wars Episode I. My husband and I were among the thousands who caught a midnight showing on the day it was released. There was so much anticipation . . . and disappointment. The stilted dialog, annoying little Anakin, stupid to the point of offensive Jar Jar, and obvious plot just didn't live up to my happy memories of Star Wars as a kid. One of the many things that irritated me was the changed premise of The Force: no longer was it a sort of universal life force. Instead George Lucas added the sciency explanation that it was due to "midi-chlorians," symbiotic microorganisms that live inside all cells.

According to Chris Knight's excellent article on The Force.net, Lucas envisioned the midi-chlorians as something like mitochondria. It is thought that mitochondria are derived from microorganisms that took up residence in simple cells millions of years ago. Over the eons they gradually changed from symbiotes to essential cellular components. Based on that example, it's not so odd that there is a similar organelle in the life forms of the Star Wars galaxy. But what of the Force? That's where it gets complicated.

Here is the process as it might happen (in the Star Wars saga, anyway). A cell begins to generate its presence in the Force. It has its own special "signature" that it adds to the Force as a collective. The greater Force symbiotically adds a bit of itself to the cell by organizing organic matter at its most basic level into structures that are "in sync" with the Force. This manipulation of matter is the smallest manifestation of the Force possible, and also its most natural. Just as cells are the basic unit of life, so too is this interaction between life and the Force the base for all other interactions between an organism and the Force. And the amount of midi-chlorians generated would be proportional to the Force being created: the more Force a cell makes, the more midi-chlorians the Force produces in kind. Why it would do that... who knows? Maybe midi-chlorians are a kind of adaptation to the energies of the Force... it would fit within modern thought about species adaptation to changing environments (often just to stay in "one place" as a species: the "Red Queen" model).

Knight argues that facility with The Force is inherited, but the inheritance is through chromosomal genes, not the midi-chlorians.

Two things indicate that strength in the Force is passed down genetically. First, mitochondria are bestowed from mother to child. Because of the sperm cell's structure and need for speed, transmitting of mitochondrial DNA is more nuisance than need. Unless Luke and Leia were conceived in some artificial way that allowed for Anakin to pass along his midi-chlorians, the twins' strength in the Force came from Anakin's chromosomes. Even if midi-chlorians are NOT like mitochondria in structure but are instead a smaller "organelle", that doesn't mean that Luke or Leia would have an abundance of them, either. Second, the Force ability seems to follow the rules of Mendelian genetics in that it appears to be a dominant trait. Anakin has a sense of the Force, as do Luke and Leia. Shmi Skywalker, being Anakin's mother, perhaps has it also (she had a "sense" for when Anakin was near). Apparently Amidala does not, but dominant trait that it is, it goes along to her offspring via Anakin. If the Skywalker clan is unlike anything else in real life, it at least follows the rules of sophomore-year biology.

The inherited "Force genes" increase the level of midi-chlorians in an individual, marking rather than creating the ability to easily manipulate the Force.

According to Wookieepedia, the midi-chlorian concept has been expanded in the Star Wars novels and is fully integrated into the Star Wars mythos. Does it add anything to the storytelling, though? At least in the movies, I would say no. The midi-chlorians aren't based on much real biology (other than the "inspiration" of mitochondria), as Chris Knight's complicated analysis attests. Sure their presence let the filmmakers show a nifty gizmo that can detect the Jedi-ready with a simple scan. Beyond the sciency-souding veneer, however, the concept of midi-chlorians does nothing to actually explain the facility some individuals have in manipulating The Force. I think it was one of those elements that should have been cut in the editing room so as not to distract from the epic adventure. That's all I was really waiting for.

Image: Mitochondria, Mammalian Lung By Louisa Howard [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Tags:star wars, biology, midichlorians, The Force

Novel Reading and Science Education

I have a confession to make. I'm a read-a-holic. I read all kinds of things - science fiction novels (natch), murder mysteries, chick lit, biographies, science and history, newspapers, magazines, gardening guides, cereal boxes, et cetera, et cetera. Who is to blame for this addiction? My parents, of course. Regular trips to the library were a fixture of my childhood and I was given pretty free reign to read whatever interested me. There were also lots of books around the house that I gobbled up, sometimes in "secret" if I thought the folks wouldn't approve (it turns out The Naked Ape is not nearly as titillating as the title lead me to believe).

A lot of kids aren't as lucky as I was, though. Their parents might not be readers themselves or may not have the time or means to bring their kids to the public library. Many kids may not even be introduced to the wonderful world of reading until they enter school. That's why it's dismaying to read this opinion post by law professor Ann Althouse:

And why does reading even need to be a separate subject from history in school? Give them history texts and teach reading from them. Science books too. Leave the storybooks for pleasure reading outside of school. They will be easier reading, and with well-developed reading skills, kids should feel pleasure curling up with a novel at home. But even if they don't, why should any kind of a premium be placed on an interest in reading novels? It's not tied to economic success in life and needn't be inculcated any more than an interest in watching movies or listening to popular music. Leave kids alone to find out out what recreational activities enrich and satisfy them. Some may want to dance or play music or paint. Just because teachers tend to be the kind of people who love novels does not mean that this choice ought to be imposed on young people via compulsory education. Teach them about history, science, law, logic -- something academic and substantive -- and leave the fictional material for after hours.

I'm going to speculate that Ms. Althouse's childhood was not too different than mine - she grew up in a household where her parents were readers and she was both encouraged to read and had access to books. She may find it hard to imagine that there are lots of folks out there that don't have that luxury.

As I commented on Dawno's blog:

I personally believe that it's important to do all we can to turn kids on to reading - any kind of reading. There are lots of kids who get to high school with poor reading skills and that not only hurts their ability to read novels for pleasure, but also for them to read and comprehend serious texts in history and science. Kids who don't have parents who read for pleasure may not be exposed to "fun" reading anywhere but the classroom. Reading exclusively from textbooks is likely to turn them off from reading for fun. I think that once kids catch the reading bug, education becomes a life-long experience, not just a bunch of facts that they memorize in the short term.

And that's what Althouse just doesn't get. Reading is an essential skill in and of itself - one that is necessary for all other subjects, including history, science and math - remember those word problems? Story books are great tools to both teach kids how to read and to get them critically think about their reading, as Dawno nicely explains.

Not surprisingly, I think science fiction is very useful in that regard. Embedded in the entertaining stories are juicy tidbits of science that can be used as jumping-off point for science education. And it's not just about learning science facts, it's about instilling an interest in and passion for science itself.

As NancyP, a commenter at Pandagon so nicely put it:

[snip]
Where does Althouse think all the science geeks come from? I guarantee you that if you ask scientists/ maths/ engineers of all ages, 95% or more will have read either science fiction or popular natural history narratives (Ring of Bright Water, Gavin Maxwell, comes to mind; also Born Free, etc). The rest were too glued to the tinkertoys and build-your-own kits to read much - these are mostly the engineers.

Our GDP is tied to CREATIVITY. Not natural resources, not cheap labor. The Japanese have long ignored the creativity of children, and do an excellent job of producing high level technicians, but true scientific advances don’t come from Japan very often.

Science-filled fiction not only can inspire kids (and adults) to find out more about the science on their own, but also get them think about the possible effects, both positive and negative, of scientific discoveries on society. That's an important skill in a world in which the biological sciences - DNA testing, embryonic stem cell research, and human cloning, to name a few* - are having an increasing impact on our daily lives. I would like my fellow citizens to be able to read about and understand these issues on their own and not rely on sound bites from pundits and politicians for their information. Reading - of any kind - is fundamental for the development of such critical thinking skills.

* Not to mention the modern-day snake oil salesmen who count on people's ignorance of science to make a quick buck.
Tags:science fiction, biology, literacy

Where are the Scientists on Television?

On the eastern blot blog Eva points out that scientist television characters usually fall into one of three categories:

1. Scientists in a show about medical or forensic science. These characters are quite well developed. They’re all different, they are carefully selected to cover different races and genders and attitudes. But they’re always at work, because the show is about their work.

2. The funny “mad scientist” type in any other type of TV show. These are usually stereotypically male and white, and either very old or nerdy little kids.

3. Someone who just happens to be a scientist, but this is otherwise irrelevant to the story line.

While there are lots of characters that fall into categories 1 and 2, very few fall into category 3. The only one that Eva could think of is Ross on the sit-com Friends, who happens to be a paleontology professor.

What about the current TV lineup? I can only think of a couple:

• The character Jack on Men in Trees is not only Anne Heche's love interest, but also a a ruggedly handsome "fish and game" biologist. I haven't actually seen the show, so I don't know whether his job is important to the plot or not.
• On Medium, Patricia Arquette's husband is some kind of engineer or physicist. I'm not sure he counts, though, because his scientific background is used to make him the skeptical voice about supernatural powers.

And that's it. (If you know of any others, please leave a comment!)

On science fiction shows, the scientist characters are scientists to help drive the plot. The work of scientists such as Mohinder Suresh on Heroes, Samantha Carter on Stargate, or Gaius Baltar on Battlestar Galactica is not incidental to the story lines of those programs.

I agree with Eva - it would be great if more scientists were shown as just regular people, not just sexy and ultrafashionable CSIs or nerdy and obsessive geeks (or worse, megalomaniacs); scientists who are part of the "real" world and not the science fiction universe.

Tags:television, scientists

NLB on Bio-technology Fiction

The National Library Board of Singapore (NLB) has an online brochure on SCIENCE FICTION - SubGenre: Bio-Technology (pdf). It's pretty generic, simply listing a bunch of authors without citing any particular works. However, I thought their view of the genre was interesting:

What is unique about this sub-genre of Science Fiction is that it explores the possibilites of technology that challenges the limits of morality. It is, in simple terms, stories of how we, as homo sapiens, can reflect on what it means to be human.

There is more about science fiction on the NLB ASK! blog. (via SF Signal).

Tags:science fiction, biology

Are hard science fiction readers squeamish?

Science fiction author Chris Moriarty (most recent book: Spin Control) has an essay on his web site about "hard" science fiction. He points out that until recently some considered the biological sciences were considered to be too "fantastic" to be science fiction. He speculates, though, that perhaps part of the problem that the biosciences have had in being accepted into the "hard science fiction" realm is that descriptions of biology (particularly human biology) make some readers uncomfortable.

Hard sf may be a broad field and getting broader daily -- I remember when people said C. J. Cherry's Cyteen wasn't hard sf because cloning was 'fantasy science' (5) -- but it will always be a genre written by and for people who are passionate (albeit at times foolishly passionate) about science and technology.

(5) Actually, I think there may be another, non-political factor behind the longstanding reluctance to include stories based on biology in the hard SF cannon. Part of it is a straightforward and perfectly understandable aesthetic impulse; until the advent of genetic engineering and mathematical biology, there was a truly deplorable absence of equations in most biology texts, which made biology-based sf stories a hard sell for the numerophilic hard-cord hard SF fan. However, I can't quite buck the suspicion that part of hard SF's historic biology phobia was mere squeamishness. The kind of squeamishness so entertainingly encapsulated in the old Star Trek episode, Amok Time, where Spock precedes a highly euphemistic discussion of salmon spawning procedures with the shamefaced admission that his illness "has to do with biology . . . Vulcan biology."

Is that true? It certainly sounds plausible to me. I've certainly met "engineering types" that are much happier in a simple universe made up of numbers and circuits and metal than the fluids and squishiness of the biological world.

Oh, and the dialog from Amok Time"? Here is a sample of the dialog where Spock dances around the basics of Vulcan biology:

"There are precedents in nature, Captain... the giant eel-birds of Regulus Five. Once each eleven years, they must return to the caverns where they hatched. On your Earth, the salmon. They must return to that one stream where they were born, to spawn – or die in trying."
"But you're not a fish, Mr. Spock–"
"No – nor am I a man... I'm a Vulcan. I had hoped I would be spared this, but the ancient drives are too strong. Eventually, they catch up with us... and we are driven by forces we cannot control – to return home, and take a wife... or die."
(pause) "I haven't heard a word you said – and I'll get you to Vulcan, somehow."
- Spock and Kirk

It's silly dialog, but I suspect it was written as much to get around television censorship of anything having to do with s-e-x as squeamishness on the part of the writers and fans. I could be wrong, of course, since Star Trek has a long history of really crappy biology. (But happily for me, lots of blog fodder).

Tags:science fiction, biology, Chris Moriarty, Star Trek

Science Fiction by Scientists: Joan Slonczewski

I would be remiss if I didn't devote a post to Kenyon College Professor Joan L. Slonczewski. Slonczewski and her students study how bacteria can live under extreme acidic or basic conditions. She also supervises the Microbe Wiki, where you can learn all about bacteria and viruses. Those achievements aren't why she is relevant to this blog, however.

Professor Slonczewski also writes science fiction novels (including Brain Plague and A Door Into Ocean) and essays on science, especially biology, and gender in science fiction. Best of all, she teaches BIOL 103: Biology in Science Fiction. Now this is a course I would have (figuratively) killed for as an undergraduate. It would have been awesome to read Dune and The Time Machine and watch Star Trek and X-Files for science class. This method of teaching works; the projects created by her students are often interesting and thought-provoking.

It's clear that science doesn't have to be exclusively taught from text books.

More about Slonczeski and the Biology in Science Fiction course:
• Interview with Slonczewski in the journal Nature (pdf).
• Article in the HHMI Bulletin (The course receives funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.) (pdf)

A sampling of Slonczewski's essays:
• The Future Biology of Sex: Science Fiction Perspectives
• Genomics and Humanity: Science Fiction Perspectives
• Science in Science Fiction: Making it Work
• Read more essays by Slonczewski on Dave Switzer's fan site

Tags:science fiction, biology, Slonczewski, education