Here at The Adjacent Possible, we like our science fiction to lean a little more towards the science. So of course Dan Koboldt is our type of guy. Dan has an invaluable resource with his Science in Sci-Fi series. And he’s got a new book coming out in the new year — Domesticating Dragons. Don’t let the fantasy-sounding title fool you, DD is best described as “Build-A-Bear Workshop meets Jurassic Park.”
The eARC is for sale here, you can preorder the book here or here (though check out your local independent bookstore first) and you can learn more about the book here:
I hope you’ll enjoy my talk with Dan, he was kind enough to weigh in with his expertise and insight on my questions around science in science fiction.
The Adjacent Possible: Science Fiction and genetics are a familiar combination. As someone with a background and expertise in genetics, what’s your take on shows, books, etc. that utilize genetics as a plot device?
Dan Koboldt: It’s a double-edged sword for me. On one side, I love genetics enough to have built a career out of it, so shows and movies in this vein naturally appeal to me. On the other side, I know the subject matter well enough to be bothered when it’s portrayed inaccurately. I suppose that means that I’m drawn to hard sci-fi that either represents genetics accurately or explores other areas of science where I’m not an expert (and thus don’t know any better). I also enjoy soft sci-fi that touches on those themes but where it’s easier to suspend disbelief.
The AP: Can you give examples of stories that have handled the science of genetics well, and examples of where they’ve been poorly handled in popular science fiction?
DK: GATTACA comes immediately to mind because I can certainly envision a future, perhaps in the next decade, where an individual’s health risks can be estimated with some accuracy at birth based on their genome sequence. The film captures that well. Jurassic Park, too, demonstrated that Michael Crichton had excellent knowledge of what was then state-of-the-art molecular biology. There are too many bad examples to name, but one that stands out is the Spider-Man origin story. Venom from a radioactive spider might cause mutations in someone’s DNA, but they would only affect a small number of cells in that person’s body, and they’d also occur randomly (which wouldn’t confer all sorts of sudden advantages). That being said, I still love the Spider-Verse.
The AP: Reading the news about advances in genetics often seems like reading a science fiction novel. What real-world advances have you seen recently that struck you as being particularly science-fiction-like?
DK: Arguably the most significant recent advance that your readers may have heard about -- and one recognized by the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry -- is genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas system. Genome engineering has been possible for a long time, but until recently it was quite laborious. CRISPR-Cas allows for precise “edits” to the DNA of living cells. It’s proven remarkably versatile to manipulate the genomes of many different organisms, which is fantastic for research and also opens many new opportunities for human gene therapy.
The AP: There are of course great ethical questions wrapped up with genetics. What’s your personal viewpoint on cloning animals or gene-editing?
DK: As a scientist, I’m generally pro-science. I tend to support things like genetically modified crops and livestock because I believe they serve the greater good. Quite frankly, cloning is not nearly the worst thing done to animals in the name of research. If someone wanted to clone me, I’d consider it a compliment. But I digress.
The AP: The year is 2065 and my granddaughter is thinking about having a child. What choices will she have when it comes to the genes of her child?
DK: What a truly excellent question! Her first choice, of course, will be whether or not she wants to know anything. We already have the ability to predict a lot about someone’s future health based on their genome sequence. By 2065, that predictive power will have increased substantially. If she and her partner give consent, they’ll have extensive information about the genetic variants they might pass along to a child. If there was a significant risk for a lethal genetic disorder, the parents could opt for prenatal screening. Or, if they chose to be more proactive, pre-implantation screening and in vitro fertilization would be a possibility.
Yet I sense that you’re more interested in the far future answer… the adjacent possible. So yes, by 2065 we will have the technology to correct genetic mistakes before they are passed on to a child. This has already been done, rather infamously, by a researcher in China who corrected an otherwise fatal genetic condition in human embryos. Despite the unfortunate circumstances surrounding that incident, most people are comfortable with the notion of using modern science to prevent devastating disease. Yet from there it’s a worrisome sliding slope. After all, it will be equally straightforward to give a child certain genetic advantages as well.
A variant of a gene called APOE offers a protective effect against Alzheimer’s disease. One simple change might spare your descendants from the devastating condition. Several years ago, researchers studying a gene that’s active in muscle fibers identified a variant that enables more efficient fast-twitch muscle response. Turns out, it tends to be very common among world-class sprinters. Wouldn’t it be tempting to give that advantage to your unborn child?
In summary, I’d say your granddaughter would have lots of choices. I never said they’d be easy ones.
Always a pleasure catching up with Dan. If you enjoy these types of Q&As, be sure to subscribe to The Adjacent Possible:
And please consider sharing this with your friends who might be interested:
Until next time, have a better one.