posted
Gan's question time. Rather than post two separate topics, I figured I'd just post them both in here.
I've found various people stating different rules for the usage of nor. Unsure of which is right, I come to you. "Actions do not always reflect intelligence, nor morality." Would this be correct usage? I feel silly for not knowing this. Are there any commonly used but incorrect usages of nor that I should avoid?
I've been playing around with an idea for a story. The story will not by any means be hard science fiction -- That said, I still want to have a plausible scientific explanation for the main thing within (A new type of DNA). I guess you could label the genre as utopia science fiction. The idea is that in the future, something akin to DNA is found. This 'new DNA', when decoded, lists off all of the 'highly moral' actions a person will ever do. For example, should a man rape someone in his lifetime, it will be listed in this blueprint. However, it does not list context. It will not say who he rapes, where, when, or why. Only that he does. How could I describe this in a manner believable to biologists, or those familiar with DNA? What matter would it likely be composed of (Proteins?), and what other pitfalls am I going to need dodge? Theoretically, if this DNA did exist, would one be able to test a baby before it has a heartbeat, and within the bounds of what is considered ethical for abortion? Lastly, do you have any suggestions for a 'scientific' name? I have a non-science name so far, but I haven't the slightest idea of what its science name would be.
As always, thanks a bunch for your responses.
[This message has been edited by Gan (edited September 12, 2010).]
posted
Arguably, your problems (from a readership perspective) are not biological here, but philosophical (though there are connections). Basically what you are doing is coming down entirely on the side of nature vs nurture, and setting an absolute biological determinism. That pretty much tosses free will out of the window, and with it a great dealof religious thought.
The idea of killing an "innocent child" to prevent far-from-innocent actions that child will take in the future (which appears to be the thrust of your story from what you say here) is fairly well-trodden ethical ground, even if there remain strong arguments on both sides. I think you're setting yourself up for something that will be very difficult to pull off well.
posted
I have a problem with the way DNA is represented. DNA doesn't determine what will occur, only what may occur out of a set of options. It's not a permanent code; it's more like an internet language than Latin. Environmental influence changes an individual's DNA over time.
Also, recent studies on the connection between morality and the human body continue to show that a change to the body can change a person's choices in ethical situations. Have you heard of the magnet studies?
If you really want to write this utopia as science fiction rather than social commentary, then I suggest you conduct a considerable amount of research.
Thanks for the comments, and they do help put things in perspective.
While I'm still in the process of throwing things around, the main story will not be focused on the extermination of 'violent' babies, or the ethical implications of it. I agree it's very well trodden, and I'm aiming for something less so.
The philosophical issue will exist, and I imagine a great deal of my time will be spent trying to figure out just how I need put it together. My goal here isn't to convince people it's all biological, nor that this society would necessarily be bad or wrong. I suppose it truly won't be a utopia novel, but it will exist in this utopia type society.
Thanks for the comment about how difficult it will be, while we may not enjoy hearing these things, they do make us question whether the desire to write the story is truly worthwhile.
In my case, I think I feel something building here. It will likely fail as a story, but hey, they can't all be winners, right? It'll be a good learning experience, I think.
quote:Also, recent studies on the connection between morality and the human body continue to show that a change to the body can change a person's choices in ethical situations. Have you heard of the magnet studies?
Yeah. I personally subscribe to the belief that environment plays a gigantic role in things, and that nothing like this new DNA could ever exist. My goal here isn't so much to convince the readers that this is real and could happen in our world. My goal is to convince readers that it is real and could happen in the made-up world. I suppose it will be more Fantasy than science fiction. I do, however, want the science in this made up world to make sense as a science.
Hrmm. Communicating my thoughts on this is terribly difficult. I'm not aiming for utopia social commentary, or science fiction, but rather somewhere between the two.
posted
One suggested area of research with the DNA would be the disproven XYY research. The problem is that I see no way you could use anything DNA, protein, RNA, made up particle that isn't just magic, to determine what a person would do without context. The DNA in a weird way is more likely to be context (though as aspirit points out, DNA changes). For example, perhaps you get the daredevil gene. You might then have a tendency towards risk taking. But how will this be manifest? Will you be a famous mountain climber, a firefighter, bomb squad member, rapist, terrorist, bank robber? All would make use of that trait but not show how. For example, imagine a person who has some gene that requires a specific nutrient. If everything in society provides that nutrient, his need will never manifest itself (for moral side, maybe genetic need to sleep with lots and lots of women- if society is set up so that it is super easy to find willing mates, it is unlikely the guy would ever be a rapist).
For me, predicting an act based only on the action with no context is going to be dang hard to justify with science.
What if the world were presented as more of a fantasy? Perhaps science cannot explain it, but science still exists. For example, it simply defies science, and science cannot explain it. Yet it exists. It becomes magic, then, but I still keep a similar world based in sciences.
posted
If I understand correctly this is your setup: The magical force gets glimpses of the future and these glimpses are manifest on people in some distinguishable way (perhaps secret, perhaps not). Let's call these blurps. After hundreds of years of investigation, we know that someone trained in reading can make out pictures, but they are incomplete- such as a red blurp means a thief, a black blurp means responsible for someone's death. The science comes in the ability to read them, not in how they exist as everyone just knows these blurps do exist but how they exist is unknown. That could work for me. The studies were done using the scientific method, so almost science, but their existence is one of those mysteries (and perhaps someday it will be solved, but that is another story).
Posts: 232 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, it simply defies science, and science cannot explain it. Yet it exists. It becomes magic, then, but I still keep a similar world based in sciences.
Would that work at all?
Well, now you're talking about some sort of biological oracle that foretells a person's actions instead of their fate.
Depending on how you handle it and how original the concept is, maybe.
As for nor: I've always used it in conjunction with neither. Neither/nor just like either/or.
posted
Tameson: Exactly! Can I hire you as my personal idea translator?
Meredith: Yep. Only the prophets in this story are the people able to 'view the future' -- They view the future through technological means.
As an example I'll just use a possible religions view on it: God is what science cannot explain. The scientists are only able to view it because God provides it. Technology is simply the looking glass.
Whereas, a scientist would more probably think along the lines of: It isn't proven by science. Not yet, but it will be. After all, it was science that let us view it in the first place.
I need more information on what you want from this "new DNA." Is it natural? Has it always been there, but is now just discovered? Or is it man made?
From what you have, I don't think you need a new DNA for the "moral code." DNA can work just fine. Now that the human genome has been encoded we may theoretically, not saying that we have or will, find certain genes that rapist have in common, and murderers, etc. We could potentially map out the potential moral and physical blueprint of everyone the second they are conceived.
However, it is much, much, much more complicated than this. You cannot ignore how environment affects the expression of our DNA (DNA doesn't physically change by our environment, unless it is damaged, but the environment greatly influences how DNA is expressed).
An easy example of this is height. Someone may have the genes to be tall, but they won't be without proper nutrition and exercise. Does that make sense? We are a combination of our genes and our environment.
I think this would be even more so when it comes to our morals. I am not sure of any studies on this. You might want to look up any studies on adopted children to see if they are more similar to their biological parents or their adopted parents. But I honestly can't imagine that our morals are ingrained in our DNA without any environmental influences.
If scientist ever discover a gene or group of genes commonly shared by rapists, I am almost positive that most of the people who have these genes wouldn't be rapists. In other words, having the genes alone is not enough to turn someone into a rapist. Does that make sense?
ETA: Sorry, it looks like what I wrote is no longer applicable. A whole conversation went on in the thirty minutes it took me to write this. Darn kids, always interrupting.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited September 12, 2010).]
posted
Does it have to be a new type of DNA? DNA as it is has large regions of "junk DNA" or noncoding DNA. Your scientists could find your new highly moral action sequence in this perhaps.
ETA: Sorry, should really refresh my page before deciding to post Not sure if this is applicable anymore.
[This message has been edited by Delli (edited September 12, 2010).]
posted
In your science of reading blurps, you could view it kinda similar to Mendel. Mendel worked out some simple rules of genetic inheritance (very simple but still first thing every high school studies about genetics). At this point, he did not know what he was even studying- DNA as the heritable unit wasn't proven until like a hundred years after he did his studies. He figured out a bunch of rules but he still couldn't tell you why those rules were true- just that they were.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the suggestions. I think you're right, keeping it within DNA will work better. So it could simply be one of the sequences we once thought useless. From a science standpoint, what does it take to 'view' a gene, and how is it translated into coherence?
Tameson: Exactly. Thanks again, haha.
Would it be reasonable if some religions viewed the 'unknown' gene to be something of God's origin? They have been able to see the gene for a long time now, but still no one has a science explanation for it.
[This message has been edited by Gan (edited September 12, 2010).]
posted
First, let me address nor. Nor has two uses: 1. As a conjunction between two or more similar parts of speech (nouns, verbs, etc.) used with neither - Neither he nor I have the key. - He nor I have the key. (Neither is implied) - I will neither hop nor skip in the hall. 2. As a conjunction between two main (complete) clauses. - I will not run to her, nor will I crawl to her.
quote:"Actions do not always reflect intelligence, nor morality."
The above sentence would be the second use, however, it is missing the predicate phrase "do they reflect" between "nor" and "morality". This is understood within the context and is often used in literature, but it's not technically correct grammar. The problem is with what is understood. If the word "does" is understood between "nor" and "morality", it creates an entirely different meaning (this might actually be your meaning). Therefore, in this instance, it might be a good idea to use correct grammar and complete the clause with the appropriate verb/predicate.
Second, regarding the DNA issue. Identical twins are basically two people from identical DNA. However, identical twins will have physical differences (fingerprints, moles, etc.) as well as personality differences. Your story is starting to sound a lot like The Minority Report.
Edited to include use of other parts of speech with nor.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited September 12, 2010).]
posted
I have been thinking and actually don't have a problem with this "new DNA". I think that the likeness between your "new DNA" and normal DNA is that it codes for something. Other than that - my feeling is that you could get away with your new DNA being completely different. Normal DNA is complicated - but your DNA doesn't have to be, it can be as simple as you want it to be - it doesn't have to have gene regulators, it doesn't have to interact with the environment, it doesn't have to be a double helix, it doesn't even need to be made up of nucleotides if you don't want it to. You could make up whatever you liked.
Just because we believe that everyone is made up of just DNA here, does not mean they have to be made up of just DNA in your world. In your world there could be an extra not-DNA-but-like-DNA molecule that contains the genetic instructions for moral actions that is present in every cell in the body. Perhaps your DNA codes for specific proteins that influence moral actions.
Sorry, just rambling here. That may not have made any sense!
quote:Your story is starting to sound a lot like The Minority Report.
Haha, yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm not too worried about it, though, as it'll be changing a great deal in the coming days. Generally I have to polish a good deal before I can make it seem the least bit unique. Thanks for the correct usage of nor, too. Now I can use it confidently.
I'm still uncertain as to which route to go on the DNA. There are advantages to both sides.
posted
Regarding religion- going to real world examples which is always a little difficult considering that religion is a hot button issue. If you look at the concept of a soul, a scientist might view that as sorta the interaction between environment and genetics. You are more than just your genes is a statement agreed upon by reputable scientists. The more than genes part though is for some scientists simply the environmental influences- nutrition, chemicals, family beliefs, cultural assumptions all of that. For many religious people though, the extra bit- the stuff that isn't just environment- the part of an identical twin that makes one a master pianist and the other a drug dealer comes from the soul.
As far as seeing the gene but not understanding it, that sounds a bit like the God in the gaps theory. The places that science can not explain in scientific theories are filled by God.
posted
I'm a biologist and I've been working in the field of genetics for the past eight years. I'm afraid there is no way a biologist would believe in an absolute genetic determinism. Very few things in science are that absolute, and usually we raise more questions than we answer when a breakthrough is made.
Genetics influence on our behavior is most often referred to as a predisposition. Genetics may predispose you to smoking, or having a tendency towards violence, or even belief of disbelief in God. But it does not determine these things in any absolute sense. Someone mentioned the nature vs. nurture debate. I think scientists are finally moving on to a nature with nurture model. These things exist in a synergistic fashion, where nature and nurture work together not against each other.
My recommendation would be to go back to your original idea and find a way to make it logical within the framework of known science.
For example, say you wanted to have a utopia in which a certain behavior is minimized. Suppose scientists determine a particular gene predisposes a person to commit murder (thought most often these things involve many genes, for example alzhiemer's is believed to involve about 130 genes). Well, scientists have been "knocking out" specific genes in animals for years, removing the ability to produce certain enzymes or other chemicals in the body and observing the effects under certain conditions.
So you could design a setting in which the gene(s) believed to be involved in aggression are knocked out of the population. Sure, it creates a peaceful world, but it would be more interesting to see what the consequences of that are. Would people then tolerate oppression? Would they not resist against an external invader?
Anyway, I'd be happy to help you work this out.
[This message has been edited by Osiris (edited September 12, 2010).]
posted
My favorite nature combined with nurture example is breastfeeding. If you have gene X and your parents breastfeed you, you get like a 6 point IQ boost. If your mom doesn't breastfeed, then it really didn't matter that you had that gene. If you lack the gene, your mom breastfeeds or not and it doesn't make any difference at all in IQ. So, does breastfeeding (nurture) affect your IQ? Does genetics (nature)? Nurture matters if you have the genes, the genes matter if you have the right nurturing. Fun stuff.
And just cause I am a somewhat competitive person, I have ten years experience in research labs. Though to be fair, I also only have a master's in biochem.
posted
Gan, let me make a suggestion in relation to what others have said regarding the whole nature/nurture argument. Why don't you have one of the main premises of your story to be the fallibility of the system. Some group (government, council, organization, etc.) are playing the odds. They give everyone a certain percentage chance of being or doing this or that based on genetics and environmental factors. In a sense they are playing God, and making judgments based on these odds. Your protagonist then goes against the odds (good or bad).
posted
The nature vs nurture arguments has an analogy in modeling. If you have a model with both configured inputs (nature) and run-time inputs (nurture), which is responsible (or should you blame) for good or bad outcomes? The answer is only clear if there is absolutely no interaction between the two input types. If there is interaction, then neither on their own can be held responsible. That is because interactions can, and often do, produce responses outside the bounds of both types of input. Furthermore, it can have more to do with the nature of the interaction than with either of the inputs. And that makes the argument of one vs the other an invalid understanding of the problem because it seeks a solution from a limited/simplistic set of outcomes which may not reflect the true nature of the solution set at all.
For example, what happens if you strike a flint? A spark forms that raises the local temperature slightly. What happens if you pour out a gallon of gasoline onto the ground? It lowers the local temperature a little more than slightly. What happens when you do one after the other? That depends on the order (or nature of the interaction). One way, it raises the local temperature considerably. The other way, it decreases the local temperature a little more than slightly. So which is more important, the nature of the inputs, or the interactions?
On the DNA idea. Firstly, I like the idea. Despite the temporal issues being well trodden, it has room for novelty. (It even allows an interesting pun with "moral agents".) How about this question: Let’s say that this “DNA” actually had a quantum computing element to it. Then by viewing it and interpreting it, you actually make the DNA into the morality potential it exhibits. So who is actually responsible for the moral actions? The person doing them or the person who, wanting to find out what they would be, set them into what they are by viewing them? (So perhaps the Bible's dislike of soothsayers was due to the reduction of free will that they produce?)
Alternatively, what about moral vectors? Can morality be secured by an innocence virus? What if memes can be encoded in materials that interact with the DNA. Can it be protected by chemico-informatics blockers, which prevent RNA-meme combinations from entering a host?
quote:I'm afraid there is no way a biologist would believe in an absolute genetic determinism. Very few things in science are that absolute, and usually we raise more questions than we answer when a breakthrough is made. Genetics influence on our behavior is most often referred to as a predisposition. Genetics may predispose you to smoking, or having a tendency towards violence, or even belief of disbelief in God. But it does not determine these things in any absolute sense. Someone mentioned the nature vs. nurture debate. I think scientists are finally moving on to a nature with nurture model. These things exist in a synergistic fashion, where nature and nurture work together not against each other.
This is very true - for our world.
However, in a fantasy world I believe it is entirely possible for fantasy scientists to discover a fantasy like-DNA-but-not-DNA molecule that holds the code for predetermining highly moral actions that does not have any environmental influences.
If Gan was trying to set the story in our world, I wouldn't believe it - I'd wonder if he really knew anything about genetics. In a fantasy world, if he tells it right - anything can happen.
quote:However, in a fantasy world I believe it is entirely possible for fantasy scientists to discover a fantasy like-DNA-but-not-DNA molecule that holds the code for predetermining highly moral actions that does not have any environmental influences.
If Gan was trying to set the story in our world, I wouldn't believe it - I'd wonder if he really knew anything about genetics. In a fantasy world, if he tells it right - anything can happen.
Agreed, it really depends on what he is going for here. If he is going for science fiction, then the fiction part must be grounded in science. What you describe I think would be termed science fantasy. I can only assume based on the fact that he is looking to make this believable to biologists that he wants it to be more in the science fiction camp.
posted
I'm thinking "nor" and the absent implied "neither" are negatives, and it should be "or" and "either." With the "do not," it gives the sentence a whatchamacallit, a double negative? (I only know grammar from practice, not by proper names. But that's not neither here nor there.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks a bunch guys. Sorry for my incoherence, it's a frustrating affliction of mine. Sometimes I swear I'm a creative genius trapped in the mind of a bumbling moron.
Osiris: I'm going for a more science fantasy approach. I want the science of the story to be realistic, up until the more magical component, which is the 'new DNA'. I won't be starting the story off in a standard science fiction manner, so as to not advertise my story as hard science fiction.
Brendan: Those are all very interesting suggestions. Thanks! I need to sit down and more thoroughly think through the 'magic' gene.
The fallibility of the system is most definitely going to be an issue within the story. Perhaps not the main issue, as I feel that has been done too many times. But an issue, none the less. It will be made clear that while causation works to heavily favor the properties of the magic DNA, there are exceptions. I don't think I could write a story where destiny existed in full. It would just feel pointless. (On a side note, has anyone ever read a story where destiny is in complete existence, and no one ever veers from its path?)
I guess I could reference The Matrix to give you an idea of what I'm trying to accomplish. In the Matrix, technology is prevalent, and indeed one of the major things within the movie. That said, I don't think anyone saw The Matrix and thought "Man, that could happen in our world." Though unlike The Matrix, I do want the science to feel more real. I want all of the technologies, aside from the 'Magic DNA', to be real. The result, I'm hoping, is a world that feels just like our own, with our own same sciences, but with some Fantasy elements thrown in. Science Fantasy describes it well. Thanks for the term, Osiris. I'm terrible with all the genre definitions and whatnot. Probably something I should study a bit more of. Would something like the above work for you as a reader Osiris? Or anyone else grounded in science, for that matter. Providing of course that the story was not advertised as hard science fiction, and started in a way to make that obvious.
I will most certainly need some help regarding the science. Does anyone here have any recommended books (Or reputable websites) regarding DNA and all of those fun unseen mechanics? Again, thanks a bunch for your responses. I'm now more clearly seeing the issues with a story like this.
[This message has been edited by Gan (edited September 13, 2010).]
[This message has been edited by Gan (edited September 13, 2010).]
quote:I'm thinking "nor" and the absent implied "neither" are negatives, and it should be "or" and "either."
The either...or phrase has the exact opposite meaning of the neither...nor phrase.
- Either my wife or I will go check on the baby. - Neither my wife nor I will go chech on the baby. - I will either watch television or work on my story. - I will neither watch television nor work on my story. - I am either happy or insane. - I am neither happy nor insane.
quote:With the "do not," it gives the sentence a whatchamacallit, a double negative? (I only know grammar from practice, not by proper names. But that's not neither here nor there.)
Double negatives occur when two negative words precede the same direct object (in this way, they cancel or negate each other): - I do not have no money. (This means I have money)
"Actions do not always reflect intelligence, nor morality."
In this example the nor does not negate anything. If there were no comma, it would simply be incorrect grammar by today's standards. However, as late as the early 1980's this was still an accepted use of nor in that it emphasized the negative direction of the sentence. I do not know when sentiment regarding this use changed. What makes the sentence incorrect with the comma in place is that the second main clause (everything after the comma) has implied meaning that is not clarified - we do not know if the negation of "morality" refers to actions or intelligence.
quote: Would something like the above work for you as a reader Osiris? Or anyone else grounded in science, for that matter. Providing of course that the story was not advertised as hard science fiction, and started in a way to make that obvious.
I guess the devil will be in the details. Its hard to say if it will work or not until I actually see the manuscript because its going to depend on a lot of factors. If the world is too similar to our own, than I will be more likely to bring in my preconceived notions regarding genetics. If the world is very different, all those notions can be tossed out the window.
Read the review by Shaun Duke. He gives a synopsis of all the sections of the book, and it seems like Part 2 applies to this question.
quote: I will most certainly need some help regarding the science. Does anyone here have any recommended books (Or reputable websites) regarding DNA and all of those fun unseen mechanics?
Yes, the link below is as reputable as it gets. The NIH funded the Human Genome Project and hosts the database in which all publicly available genetic data is stored. This handbook is written at a very accessible level.
In Ben Bova's "Writing Science Fiction That Sells," he says that you should never describe in detail how a science or technology works. It is just important that it be plausible and that you show it in action. Something to keep in mind as you work on your story.
Oh, just to answer a question in your first post (I apologize if it has been answered already), all DNA is composed of a chain of four nucleic acids called guanine, cytosine, thymine & cytosine. These acids compose a variety of patterns and can be thought of as a string of molecules. These strings vary greatly in size depending on the organism and chromosome. The important thing is everything from bacteria to human DNA is composed of these four molecules. You mentioned proteins. When a cell "reads" its DNA, it is reading instructions on how to create a protein. So if the DNA is the blueprint, the proteins are the actual construction materials.
[This message has been edited by Osiris (edited September 13, 2010).]
This makes a huge difference in writing this. If you are going to write from the view point of a scientist, you really need to know what you are talking about. Not only do you need to know about genetics but also the scientific method, tools that are used in research, and how a science lab works.
If you are not using a scientist, then you really only need to explain it at the level that the mc understands it. Like any other magic, you just need to set up the rules and make sure that they are consistent.
And about getting it scientifically believable, trust me, even if you have a Ph.D in biochemistry there will most likely be a little bit of hand-waving involved. Those who are experts in the field will know when you are hand-waving. They will either be interested enough in the actual story to suspend belief or they will not. But that is okay. Remember the point is to tell an interesting story.
Oh and just make sure you get the terminology correct.
posted
Just to be technically precise- the majority of DNA is made up of those 4 bases. There are some very rare exceptions that use alternative bases. Right now, all the examples I can think of are viruses.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked for like 6 years with one of the exceptions (SPO1) so it is pretty ingrained now.
ETA- for testing as a baby, I seem to recall that they can accurately screen embryos using just one cell, which they can take safely from blastocysts (so like 5 days after fertilization though I think that it might be even sooner, like 8 or 16 cells instead of 70, but I would actually have to do a search and confirm before committing to the earlier timing). Right now, I think most doctors limit this testing to known early childhood lethal genes, though I have a vague memory of some debate over whether or not the breast cancer gene should be screened for.
I also seem to recall that there is debate over how efficient those tests actually are- like the embryo may fix itself or be a chimera and while technically the bad gene was there, the cells with the good genes won out. Sorry- I have a headache and am too lazy to go look that up so relying on my currently very bad memory. One of my theories is that babies form their brains by eating their mom's.
[This message has been edited by TamesonYip (edited September 14, 2010).]
quote:One of my theories is that babies form their brains by eating their mom's.
LOL, I have seen some case evidence that supports that theory...
I work in the bioinformatics side of genetics, specifically sequencing genomes. I had the honor of participating in the Human Genome Project. Still, I enjoy writing more
There are all sorts of private companies now offering to sequence part or all of your genome in order to detect susceptibility to genetic disorders. Breast cancer is one of those things where they can nearly unequivocally tell a patient if they will get it. I read some news stories where women who screened positive had preemptive mastectomies based on these results. What a horrible decision to have to make, but I guess its better than getting cancer.
I think the concept of knowing your genome and guiding (or not guiding) your decisions would make a good start for an sff story.
posted
I know as an adult you can test, but at the early stages of development (like under 100 cells) I thought there were still limitations. Though the more I am thinking about it, the more I think Europe had list of what you can test for in embryos and US is not regulated.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tameson has pointed you in a very helpful direction with the reading the blips and the soul angle. If you take the religious notion of the soul and make it the metaphysical seat of morality as opposed to the brain/mind could be the seat of rational thought and/or free will and choice you could include a device in your story that could scan "souls" and provide give a read out on the "moral code" of the person in question. It could function similarly as a predictor of moral determinism as DNA does for physical determinism (though perhaps with the variability and uncertainty that others have pointed out/suggested). Personally I would accept this as a sort of science fiction story.
That would leave you with a solid enough set up and give you room to differentiate yourself from stories like Minority Report. I would also look at OSC's Worthing Saga. It doesn't directly deal with mapping people's moral code, but it does deal with what happens when people lose their memories and whether or not they are still predisposed to similar actions (both good and bad). It has been a long time since I read the book, but I seem to recall one character who had part of her memory taken away (taking care of her parents as the aged, and she became bitter) but could not accept not having those memories because it was fundamentally part of who she was. It was a contradiction of who she was to not take care of her parents; she couldn’t accept not having taking care of her parents no matter the personal sacrifice. I think a story such as this could relate very strongly to the idea of a map-able moral code as you present.
Sorry I couldn't remember the names. I am sure another Hatracker's memory will prove more capable than mine.
posted
If you wanted to be connected to the whole DNA but not really sure what it was and be mostly modern, one potential way to introduce it would be to have say a genetic screen of some sort. Almost everything in science has background that you learn to filter out (lots of rules on what you can and cannot dismiss though). In that screen you could have some background which people don't really know what is, but has been shown to not affect the results and is assumed to just be a random thing, maybe a forcep touching in manufacturing process, a random air bubble- whatever. We know that background doesn't matter. But then, someone realizes, hey ever notice that this background is heavier on average when looking at some forensic test from say accused rapists (keeping in mind that a whole lot of those are going to be innocent and so it needs to be a percentage thing). Dismiss with something about how the crime labs are full of incompetent idiots (search Houston forensic labs for more on incompetent idiots). Then later maybe someone else picks up on that idea and investigates (maybe as a study in competence of forensic labs with the goal of making more accurate). That might give a bit more identity to the people who are being tested, maybe court records, lists of guilt/innocence- maybe Project Innocent double checks on the data and then see, yes, that background does in deed work in all these cases. We still have no idea what the heck this blob is- not DNA but it is somehow showing up on the test. Still don't know what it is, but now start researching all its many properties.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has been stated, nothing is really guaranteed by genetics and determinism. But it sounds like you are actually looking for an absolute determinist cause of crime. This will be hard to make sound plausible with current science. Also, you deal with the problem of different crimes: is there a rape gene and a murder gene and a theft gene and a battery gene and a embezzlement gene and a personal endangerment gene and a grand theft auto gene and a... well, you get the idea. So if you are definitely planning on a biological explanation, you might need to simplify a little bit.
For example, an biological trait which increases hostility would be linked to greater criminal activity. A gene could exist which increases expression of a hormone or whatever that makes someone more likely to act out on animal instincts than those who lack the gene. This could be found to be correlated with criminals, to the point where everyone who has the gene is suspect, or second class citizens or something.
Or, and there already is some biology research on this, though it is still very undetermined, perhaps there is a certain genetic profile which leads some people to lack a conscious. A definite trait of serial killers and other criminals is lack of a conscious. This could be explained biologically as a mutation or missing gene which contributed to kin selection in nature - namely those aspects of our behavior which don't benefit the organism directly, but instead cause an increased fitness of the whole population. Those who lack this gene would be more likely to do things to benefit themselves at the expense of the "herd." And while a lack of a conscious is a trait of master criminals, I don't think the biological basis of such a trait has been determined. So that is an avenue you could explore, though you run into the same problem of influencing vs. causing behavior...
You don't need a new type of DNA, just a new take on what is already there. For instance, a large percentage of the genome is "junk" DNA, so called because it is present but doesn't seem to serve any purpose. It doesn't contain normal codons for gene expression. Mutations there are always useless (unless a start codon is mutated in...) One explanation for what you are looking for could be someone who finds a new explanation for this junk DNA. This is not as farfetched as it sounds, because even though science has no clue what the junk DNA is for (current theory is that it is leftover from evolutionary change), organisms bred to only contain "real" DNA with all the "junk" DNA excised end up dead. So it serves some purpose, even though we don't know what it is. Thus, it isn't too far of a stretch to have a murder gene, or a rape gene, as long as you leave out details - because it wouldn't express the same way other genes do.
Viruses could also do something like this. Viruses can selectively target any cell type in the body, and operate by changing that cell's DNA. So an infection which hits the brain could help lead to insanity (like mad cow disease, though that isn't a virus...) You could use viruses to explain anything DNA can do. Though a personal preference I have is subtlety on such things. A single change is only likely to have a single effect. Those demon things in "Legend" (the movie version, never read the book...) were pretty ridiculous. Actually, let me clarify, a virus can have multiple effects, but usually on one on a certain person or tissue infected. A virus is likely to make you express extra stress hormones or inhibit neural function, not both...
Also don't underestimate the possibility of combined influences. It may not be a certain gene per se, but a certain combination of certain genes which determines the action. And when this certain combination of genes is exposed to a certain virus at a certain time of their life.
Also, it could be human caused: nanobots could be engineered to act like a disease. The criminals are infected, certain changes take place, and then they are apt to commit crimes (or, are able to be programmed to do so by the infectee...)
To avoid the whole nature vs. nurture debate, you could just make it all nurture. You could use the concept of hypnosis. People are suggestible, and can be controlled to do certain things. You may find that someone has cracked the "code" of suggestibility of millions of events and factors in someone's life as children, and figure out that someone will do certain things in the future because of it.
That's it. No more ideas right now. I'll post some more if I thinks of any.
[This message has been edited by Teraen (edited September 14, 2010).]
posted
Well, I'm not a biologist, but hey, I'm married to one!
Regarding DNA, one thing that came to mind is Mitochondrial DNA (aka mtDNA). mtDNA is DNA, but it's funny DNA. It doesn't inherit the same way as other DNA, and it doesn't even have the same genetic code as regular DNA. mtDNA is located in the mitochondria, tiny mini-organs found inside all your cells, but not in their nucleus. It was discovered after regular DNA was.
What made me think of your situation was this. Here's a new kind of DNA, discovered later on, that doesn't follow all the preconceived rules they had about DNA at first. It's found in a funny place, and it does funny things like inherit directly from the female. Mutations in mtDNA typically result in serious metabolic diseases. So here's a way to have something like DNA remain undiscovered at first, and when it's found it doesn't act exactly like other DNA does.
For what it's worth, I'm given to understand that 'mitochondria' were George Lucas's reported inspiration for 'midiclorians'. Make of that what you will.
posted
You guys are awesome, thanks a bunch. I've got some great ideas going now. If I manage to get a readable draft, I'll be sure to post the first thirteen here on Hatrack.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
Not sure if this is applicable anymore.
