Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:28:41 -0500
From: Steve Smith <sgs at aginc.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Fwd: Writer with a question . . .
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Ted White wrote:

> Go with the simplist and least technical material.  There is no point in
> loading your story with techno-facts, the broad details of which are
> already common public knowledge.   SF (not "sci-fi") stories use present
> science only as a jumping-off point.
>
> --Ted White

Yup.  Even if he gets it right, it will look quaint in a couple of
years.  See George O. Smith's earlier "Venus Equilateral" stories for
the classic examples.

That said, he needs a minimum of technical knowledge.  Some of the
things that drive me crazy in bad cloning stories:

*  Cloning involves using cells from the critter to be cloned.  *Which*
cells are not critical.  Getting "donor" cells is no big deal at all.

*  The cloning process produces a fertilized ovum.  The process from
there on is normal development.  Cloning does not provide a
"duplicator", where you get a donor cell and an hour later you have a
duplicate person, complete with memories.

*  Cloning provides an individidual with the same nuclear DNA as the
donor.  Lotsa characteristics don't depend on nuclear DNA.  For humans,
upbringing would probably be a critical factor.  Not only will the clone
not be completely identical to the donor, it probably wouldn't even be
close psychologically.

Anyway, here's a brief article on Cc:, the cloned kitten:
<http://www.nature.com/nsu/020211/020211-13.html>

--
Steve Smith                                           sgs at aginc.net
Agincourt Computing                            http://www.aginc.net
"Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense."