Obsessive-compulsive disorder is in my DNA

If I think back about it, I seem to remember that the sequencing of the human genome slightly predates the obsession with DNA in pop culture. I’m not thinking about actual scientific work related to DNA that pops up in newspapers every day but more the trend to use DNA as a scapegoat. Statements like: I can’t help that I’m a shopaholic, it’s in my DNA. As someone who actually knows a thing or two about DNA this tends to make my eye twitch. The human genome may be sequenced but not all of our genes have been identified. Even so I can say with fair certainty that there has not been sufficient evolutionary time for a shoe gene to develop.

I can ignore these statements and take them as they’re meant to be: a statement of a trait that the person perceives to be innate and unchangeable. The real problem I find is in movies and TV. Misrepresentation in film is by no means limited to biology but it does pull me out the moment. A second after the shudder runs through my body I wonder who actually learns these mistakes. I mean, I learned the definition of a score from the recitation of the Gettysburg Address in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure so someone could believe that genes can skip generations or disappear completely as claimed in 28 Weeks Later, right? I know what they’re getting at, that gene *expression* might be recessive and not shown in the offspring. Or that the gene may have been mutated or lost in an individual’s somatic cells and not their gametes (sex cells) (much like that which causes a melanoma from too many summers at the beach) and hence hereditable.

I don’t meant to pick on one film, it is, certainly, not the only, or even most blatant, offender. Red Planet, with Val Kilmer and Benjamin Bratt, had several references to nematodes. Unfortunately for them nematodes are a type of worm. The critters in question were not. Clearly a checkable fact. CSI Miami pushes the boundaries of believable at times, all the more dangerous for their otherwise fairly accurate portrayal of the biology of forensics. As an example, in one episode epithelial skin cells were removed from rough upholstery on a car seat and used to identify an assailant. While it is technically possible to get enough DNA from a few cells to identify a person it is difficult. Moreover, the outermost skin cells are dead and do not contain a nucleus. The chances that the cells that remained on the upholstery after the car crashed were from a deeper, nucleated skin layer are, well, the kind of odds Hollywood makes good on.

The fact is that errors are everywhere in movies and the only people who usually care are those who know they’re mistakes. Errors may happen even after fact checking (I think I’d forgive the incorrect phase of the moon during the moon landing in Apollo 13) but films that are not specifically relying on a fantasy element should make sure that their basic facts are sound. Have all the bubbling beakers you want if that’s your aesthetic but gravity doesn’t let up on Tuesday afternoons, Amelia Earhart wasn’t born in 1987 and *individuals* don’t evolve. Just ask Wikipedia.

I suppose I should take the stance of some historians on the movie Troy. While factually inaccurate in many ways the movie was viscerally correct and, more importantly, had inspired many college students to register for history courses. I just don’t think 28 Weeks Later is going to cause a surge in students registered for virology.