Why were you motivated to write this kind of paper?

Doc Edge: Brandon and I were at a small scientific meeting in Santa Barbara last spring, and he approached me with the idea to write this piece. I actually hadn’t really seen the movie at the time; I remember my AP Biology teacher putting it on one day after the AP exam, but I don’t think I paid much attention. Brandon might have been disappointed in me for being uncultured, but I went home and watched it, and I knew immediately that I wanted to write about Gattaca. I realized that so many of the things I care most about in my research and teaching show up in this movie in one way or another. In my research, I’m interested in complex trait genetics and in forensic genetics. I also teach research ethics, and in all my classes—even my statistics and genetics classes—I make sure students learn something about the history of eugenics. It’s all there. 

C. Brandon Ogbunu: Oh, this one goes back. I first saw Gattaca during my first year in college, and it had a very large effect on me. It was absolutely my introduction to thinking about issues at the intersection of genetics and society. Since then, I’ve always wanted to engage this topic in a formal, technical way. In some ways, my education over the past few decades has prepared me for this.

I think the meeting at The Foundations Institute in Santa Barbara, called “Reimagining the Central Dogma,” was the perfect place to crystallize these sorts of ideas. The workshop had several leading thinkers speak on issues related to genetics, genomics, and evolution, and we had this rich conversation about many aspects of what we are missing from classical depictions and interpretations of the central dogma. The joke is that Doc and I were stuck having lunch together one day, and I introduced the concept of thinking about the film from this lens. On the long drive to the airport, we really began to flesh out the idea for a paper. 

How would you describe the collaboration? 

Doc Edge: I’ve admired Brandon’s writing from afar for a long time, so it was a privilege to be able to work with him. At the beginning of any collaboration, there is a period when you wonder whether it’s going to work, but in this case that period was short. We had a call where we talked through the points we wanted to hit, and then we really flew—we had most of our first draft within days. Brandon is a really generous collaborator, and I’m grateful he wanted to write this with me.

C. Brandon Ogbunu: Doc is truly one of the best young population geneticists that I know. I’ve seen his work and even taught from his new statistics textbook. What inspires me about Doc is his combination of domain knowledge, technical acumen, and understanding of how the world works. He was someone I could talk to about all aspects of the project. In particular, Doc’s work on molecular forensics piqued my interest. I saw him give a stellar talk on the topic, and I knew then that I wanted to work with him on something having to do with science and society at some point. And we found our calling on this film. It’s been a joy. 

What is your general take on modern genomic technologies like facial reconstruction and polygenic embryo selection? 

Doc Edge: I’d distinguish modern genetic technology in general from the specific examples mentioned. Genetic technology in general is full of amazing achievements, like modern sequencing and CRISPR gene editing. But in any situation where there is a strong desire for a technical fix to a complicated problem, there is a danger of acting too hastily or overselling—even when all actors have the very best intentions. I feel like my role as a geneticist is to try to figure out what is possible now and what might be possible in the future—and importantly, to do my best to think through some of the implications and state them as clearly as possible. The conversations are bigger than me and require expertise beyond what any one person has.

C. Brandon Ogbunu: Correctly, we tend to separate the ethical issues from the technical ones. That is, whether we should embrace a new technology is its own discussion. But what I often say is that sometimes the technical is the ethical. A lot of these technologies, that institutions and people are eager to put into action, are based on false promises with huge technical and scientific challenges. For example, polygenic scores are a powerful new tool to determine risk for certain complex phenotypes. But are they loaded with so many caveats that their general use for embryo selection cannot be justified. 

Are you a fan of science fiction? What are some of your favorite stories? 

Doc Edge: I’m inclined to say something like “as much as the next person,” but that’s probably only true if the next person is a huge nerd. I don’t go to conventions or anything, but I do enjoy sci-fi. Last year I read Le Guin’s The Dispossessed for the first time and really enjoyed it.

C. Brandon Ogbunu: I’d say that I’m somewhere between a fan and a superfan. As in: I don’t quite go to conventions and subscribe to zines, but I read many novels and have watched many films. My love of science fiction is a nontrivial part of my identity.

As far as favorites…there are so many. I’m especially inspired by Black science-fiction writers like Octavia Butler and Samuel Delaney. But I embrace other classics, like the works of Ursula LeGuin, Frank Herbert, and Phillip K. Dick. 

And leaving books, I confess that I’m a fan of the big franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek. But one of my hobbies is to find random weird science-fiction that speaks to me. For example, Fantastic Planet is a relatively obscure French animated science-fiction film that I love. I think different cultures and corners of the world have interesting things to say about society and the future. 

What do you think about the bridge between science and science fiction?

Doc Edge: I’m not sure how to answer in general, particularly given how diverse the approaches to science within sci-fi are. I’ll say that in my favorite sci-fi, the science being fictionalized might be interesting in itself, but the point of it is to expose something about our own world. That’s certainly true of Gattaca.

C. Brandon Ogbunu: The “science” in science-fiction has always been a tricky one. Like we suggest in the paper, science-fiction doesn’t need to be technically accurate to be a very effective piece of work. I find that when scientists criticize science-fiction on technical grounds, they are mostly missing the point. Of course, there are instances when the scientific errors are so egregious that it creates a plothole, but this is usually not the case. And I think scientists should embrace the fictional world as an experimental playpen for ideas that are too risky or bold to test in the real world. I think Gattaca was an example of this done very well. Our new work demonstrates what happens when art decides to explore ideas that society isn’t mature to grapple with yet. My hope is that this interface between science and popular culture is something that grows. 

Already finished the Sunday crossword in the paper and looking for a new challenge?

Try your hand at this genetics and GSA-specific puzzle submitted by one of our members. Any member who sends their correctly competed puzzle to blog@genetics-gsa.org by Monday, March 7 will be eligible to win a snazzy GSA t-shirt.

We also welcome your submissions of other puzzles and games that will be of interest to the community. If we use your puzzle, we’ll also send you a t-shirt. Send your submissions to blog@genetics-gsa.org.

Adult zebrafish of AB strain. Top: female, bottom: male. Photoshop composite of two separate pictures. Canon EOS RT + EF50mm F2.5 Compact Macro. Photographed at School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania. Film processed and scanned by Camera Shop Bryn Mawr. (Credit: Tohru Murakami, CC BY-NC 2.0)

A radio ad for the seafood restaurant chain Legal Sea Foods highlights the importance of zebrafish.

The restaurant’s CEO, Roger Berkowitz, calls the zebrafish his favorite fish because, “unlike the lazy boring perch, you’re important in genetic research.” The ad goes on to highlight the work of zebrafish researcher Dr. Leonard Zon at Boston Children’s Hospital; Zon is one of the keynote speakers at The Allied Genetics Conference this summer.

The Massachusetts Society for Medical Research has an audio recording of the spot.

Additional Information:

• “Legal Sea Foods CEO Gets Poetic About Zebrafish,” National Association for Biomedical Research, December 23, 2015.
• Massachusetts Society for Medical Research

Scientists are known for being critical thinkers, experimental experts, and data enthusiasts. It’s probably no surprise that many of us are also undeniable nerds. Eric Spana, Assistant Professor of the Practice in Biology at Duke University and long-time GSA member, is no exception.

“We all have some type of nerd-ism, whether it’s Harry Potter, Marvel, Shakespeare, or sports,” he says. “Everyone is a fan of something a little more than they should be.”

Eric Spana

For the past two years, Spana has been combining his love of science and his nerdiness by giving presentations in the science track at Dragon Con – a multi-media pop culture convention that happens every Labor Day in Atlanta, GA, and attracts over 60,000 attendees.

During these presentations to packed rooms, he discusses the application of scientific facts to some of our favorite fictions. In 2015, he gave a talk on the genetics of the wizarding trait in the Harry Potter series. In the world of Harry Potter, witches and wizards can perform magic, which Spana defines as “breaking the rules of physics by just thinking about it.” Those who can’t perform magic (so, you and me) are Muggles. Two Muggles can produce a wizarding child, and two wizards can produce a non-wizarding child, known as a Squib, although this is rare. Generally, all members of a wizarding family can do magic. Author J.K. Rowling has stated that the wizarding gene is dominant, which – if true – requires a bit of explaining.

Spana says, “I look at it as engineering problem solving. If a writer creates something, it’s my job to figure out how to make it happen. If J.K. Rowling wants the wizarding gene to be dominant, then okay, I can make that happen.” Wizarding genetics has received quite a bit of attention among scientists and fans, with papers being published and fan theories being sent to Rowling herself.

Spana first read the Harry Potter books a number of years ago after his mother-in-law gave the first book to his daughter. “That was the beginning. We did the whole midnight Deathly Hallows thing. I’ve got Slytherin bag tags on my luggage and a Slytherin polo that I wear for exams, and it scares the students.”

He became interested in the genetic transmission of the wizarding trait while teaching a class on genetics and developmental biology. The beginning of the class covered basic topics like ploidy and recessive versus dominant traits, which Spana admits can be a bit dry.

“One semester, I had an unusually small class, and I could just see their eyes glazing over while we were talking about fruit flies. For some reason I made a Harry Potter joke, and they perked up. So we spent the next hour working through the wizarding gene, is it recessive or dominant, etc. The students piped up and produced answers because they know this stuff like the back of their hands.”

Since then, he’s refined his theory of a dominant wizarding gene through literature review, hallway conversations with colleagues, and discussions with an independent undergraduate researcher in his lab. His current explanation is that the wizarding trait is indeed dominant, with de novo mutations accounting for Muggle-born witches and wizards.

“You can calculate the mutation rate based on the number of live births in the UK and the number of Muggle-borns at Hogwarts. It comes out to be roughly 1 in 750,000, which makes it extremely rare. So, why didn’t you get an owl on your eleventh birthday [as all wizarding children do]? Well…statistics and probability!”

As for explaining Squibs, he’s settled on his colleague’s idea of a second-site transcription factor that inhibits the wizarding gene.

“The nice thing about the second-site transcription factor theory is that there is a little evidence that you could remove the Squib trait in the next generation. There was a character named Mafalda that was written out of Goblet of Fire, and she was the daughter of a Squib and a Muggle.”

Spana’s presentations at Dragon Con have gone very well, with standing-room-only audiences in large rooms of the convention.

The crowd for Spana’s 2015 Genetics of Wizarding talk.

“There were people in line for over an hour to see it, and they still turned people away! I’m just blown away that so many people would come see a college professor talk about genetics. That’s pretty awesome.”

He says that people love science, and as he explains recessive and dominant traits using slides illustrating the famously redheaded Weasleys and Harry’s redheaded mother and daughter, he can see the topics click for his audience.

“It really helps transmit genetics to a lay audience who already know the [fictional] material. What’s great is that this is outreach, but I also get to talk about dorky things I like. I think it’s a better way to do outreach. It’s taking things that people already know inside and out and giving them a framework to think about it a little differently.”

Savvy audience members have asked questions about other interesting members of the wizarding world, including Nymphadora Tonks, a Metamorphmagus (meaning she can change her physical appearance at will) who had a Metamorphmagus son but was born of non-Metamorphmagus parents. There are giants and near-human magical peoples (like Veela) to account for, and the very interesting subject of population genetics is ripe for investigation.

Spana, ever the problem solver, is looking forward to tackling these subjects in future talks. And since Muggles can’t make potions (no magic, no wand, no potion!), Spana is just going to have to use science to explore the magic.