Foolish Mistakes in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics - does anyone else care?

[hej]

Don't sweat it @hej - I suspect the writers just didn't know enough about biology to confidently add any specifics. However, the real danger is that if they had tried, the information would have become outdated - certainly ideas about epigenetics appear to have repeatedly changed, and significantly so, over the past few decades, to the point where it's no longer seen as an addendum to an established field (genetics) but instead an embryonic new science in its own right.

Thanks for the reassurance.

I will give them the benefit of the doubt and just say lazy. A friend of mine is a veteran, and he said scriptwriters' knowledge of the military is pretty bad. Even when they have consultants, they regularly err. My friend told me, he cringes whenever he hears 'well-oiled, military machine.' He knows of no such thing!

For an unusually egregious example, see the imdb page of Crimson Tide. The litany of folly is huge!

Your comment about becoming outdated certainly applies sometimes, but not to the scene in Blade Runner.

Too, you remind me of a statement by George Gamow (astronomer) in one of his books I read. I think he was doubting the existence of either black holes or neutron stars. Either way, he was expressing an opinion that was wrong.

I'm all for discarding the factual when it interferes with good story telling. Yeah, I'm kind of uptight about verisimilitude -- but not all the time. If an author/screenwriter captivates me, I can ignore a lack of reality.

Otherwise, I wouldn't enjoy 99.5% of Blade Runner, you know?

 

[Dave]

As you say, it isn't only scientists who have a problem with inaccuracy and error. I'm sure that any professional will see or read things in fiction that make their blood boil. I read a Tweet from a paleographer who had seen a script in Agents of Shield that was claimed to be Norse but was clearly (to him) Germanic. I'm sure that Military, Lawyers, Town Planners, Stunt Drivers etc. can all find faults. It only becomes a problem when it is so glaringly obvious that you stop being immersed in the story and instead become fixated on the error.

However, Science Fiction, of the harder kind at least, often takes present cutting edge science and says "what if?" All I think that I, and others here, are saying is merely that:
1. Writers very often play low and loose with the science.
2. Some things i.e.Transporters or Time Travel can never become real, and are therefore fantasy.
3. When Bladerunner was made, the science of making a simulacrum was to all practical purposes fantasy, so to criticise any science technobabble just seems pointless.

 

[hej]

For me, it is a question of good storytelling. I do not have professional expertise in any area of science, so it's easy for me to suspend my disbelief at an advanced level of dialogue. However, if there are other problems, like huge plot holes, bad acting, or lazy writing and they all build up, I will lose my interest - especially if the science is terrible too. Things that don't usually bother me are details like lines of dialogue or visual effects glitches for example.

If I were an expert, on the other hand, that might not be the case, so I can understand it when people squirm at their area of expertise being misrepresented in scifi.

I whole-heartedly agree with your first four sentences. Dunno about the fifth.

Nice that you understand.

I do see how and why it can be irrelevant to non-experts, but I wanted to share this one, tiny tidbit that's been bugging me for a good while.

 

[Vince W]

Okay, lets go through it.

1. Reversion mutation - It's perfectly reasonable. Once a sequence has been mutated, it cannot be reverted by the mutagen that creates it. Saying the developing mutated colonies are essentially killing the host is not unreasonable.

2. EMS recombination - Ethyl methanesulfonate (1-Methylsulfonyloxyethane) produces random nucleotide mutations, including guanine alkylation, that is often harmful to cells and most probably carcinogenic. While saying a virus would develop is a bit of a liberty, but the base science is solid.

3. A repressor protein - a protein that binds either to the DNA or RNA sequence with both causing the inhibition of mRNA binding that inhibits the expression of that gene. Saying that the error in replication is a going to cause a virus is a liberty, but again, the base science is sound.

The writers did do their homework. They just extrapolated to the conclusions they wanted.

 

[hej]

Okay, lets go through it.

1. Reversion mutation - It's perfectly reasonable. Once a sequence has been mutated, it cannot be reverted by the mutagen that creates it. Saying the developing mutated colonies are essentially killing the host is not unreasonable.

2. EMS recombination - Ethyl methanesulfonate (1-Methylsulfonyloxyethane) produces random nucleotide mutations, including guanine alkylation, that is often harmful to cells and most probably carcinogenic. While saying a virus would develop is a bit of a liberty, but the base science is solid.

3. A repressor protein - a protein that binds either to the DNA or RNA sequence with both causing the inhibition of mRNA binding that inhibits the expression of that gene. Saying that the error in replication is a going to cause a virus is a liberty, but again, the base science is sound.

The writers did do their homework. They just extrapolated to the conclusions they wanted.

Hunh. Perhaps, I was immature in my knowledge at the time of my viewing. Though I don't think so, I am now unsure. I will revisit the scene when I can.

I appreciate being corrected if/when I am wrong.

Thanks!

 

[hej]

2. EMS recombination - Ethyl methanesulfonate (1-Methylsulfonyloxyethane) produces random nucleotide mutations, including guanine alkylation, that is often harmful to cells and most probably carcinogenic. While saying a virus would develop is a bit of a liberty, but the base science is solid.

3. A repressor protein - a protein that binds either to the DNA or RNA sequence with both causing the inhibition of mRNA binding that inhibits the expression of that gene. Saying that the error in replication is a going to cause a virus is a liberty, but again, the base science is sound.

Upon review, I am grateful for your input. I stand partially corrected (it's been a long time since I saw the scene), but indeed it was the creation of the virus from within mammalian DNA that threw me. Too, a virus that kills within hours I found absurd. I won't elaborate on acyclovir and possibly other antivirals b/c they should not be relevant.

In sum, I misremembered why I had objected.

Thanks for your excellent defense of the scene.

 

[Vince W]

Upon review, I am grateful for your input. I stand partially corrected (it's been a long time since I saw the scene), but indeed it was the creation of the virus from within mammalian DNA that threw me. Too, a virus that kills within hours I found absurd. I won't elaborate on acyclovir and possibly other antivirals b/c they should not be relevant.

In sum, I misremembered why I had objected.

Thanks for your excellent defense of the scene.

You're welcome. It's always fun to chat biochemistry and science fiction. The two so rarely intersect.