Not the best of his novels.
Can anyone help with with some cites for his claims, or do I have to go and read genetics textbooks to verify his claims? And yes I realise ‘Next’ is a work of fiction.
Can you summarize them for me? The claims that is. I’m sort of a genetics researcher (cough grad student cough).
Wikipedia to the rescue:
Oh I see it’s somewhat based on the Henrietta Lacks controversy. I can’t speak to the legal issues so much except that I believe if cells were harvested without consent, you get a cut of the profits. I think Lacks’s ancestors did.
There is no “maturity gene” and never will be. Genetic effects on behavior are generally individually quite weak. Gene therapy is still in its infancy in humans, and so even getting the “maturity gene” to express universally would be quite a quantum leap in biological science.
Just based on a quick read of the wiki.
On the other hand, last I heard once you give consent for any reason, they own those cells and you get zero from anything they develop off them.
Both statements are highly debateable. There may or may not be a single “maturity gene”; there’s probably a “maturity gene complex”, however. The genes that build the portions of the brain responsible for self control would seem to qualify.
And I’ve never seen any evidence beyond the flat assertion that it’s so that the contribution of genes to behavior is small; all I’ve ever seen is the failure of people who try to modify human behavior when they assume that.
Really? Which brain structure(s) is/are responsible for “self control?” The orbitofrontal cortex is probably your best guess, but any neuroscientist is going to cringe when you designate it as such. You might say many structures are responsible, in part, for “self control” and you’d be right. And which genes “build” the OFC?
We’re already, in this extremely simplified example (development of the orbitofrontal cortex), dealing with an incredibly complex system governed by probably a number of genes.
Genes can have strong effects on development, and can have strong effects on behavior. I’m not disputing that. I am disputing that you can take most complex behaviors and nail them down to a single gene. Perhaps I am being a bit glib in saying never. I am skeptical that a maturity gene complex even exists; probably what exists are a number of genes that as part of their function contribute to something we observe as “maturity.” These are probably diverse genes–probably this group includes transcription factors involved in early development of relevant structures, growth factors involved in formation and maintenance of synapses, and receptor proteins involved in signal transduction and modulation.
If memory serves, there’s evidence that the D4 dopamine receptor gene has allelic variations correlated with novelty-seeking behavior. Is that, then, the “novelty” gene? That wouldn’t be fair to say. There’s also evidence that the D4 dopamine receptor gene has polymorphisms correlated with various aspects of sexuality that don’t really have much to do with novelty.
I’m not trying to say that. I’m a biological determinist–I think genes probably ultimately cause all behavior in some way. I’m just saying the network of genes is so complex that to distill that network down to a “maturity” gene is just overly, almost offensively, facile.
I don’t know, not that it matters. If they didn’t exist, we wouldn’t* have* self control.
Probably true, although I wouldn’t be surprised if there are “trigger genes” that activate many others that then produce a behavior. In that case whether a single gene causes that behavior is a matter of how you define the term.
Actually I more-or-less agree; I misunderstood and thought you were yet another culture-is-everything believer.
Well Crighton’s science has generally been of the Frankenstein variety all along, and this attempt just seems to be more of the same just even more so: distort some real science beyond any recognition in the service of the “you just can’t trust those greedy for power scientists and the horrors they’ll unleash” meme. It sells.
Thing is real genetics doesn’t work by way of military surgeons botching the upgrading of brains or Borthwog Torturers eating parts of it or sapience genetically engrafted onto gorillas. Or single genes which can impart “maturity” into the chaotic complexity of the dynamic brain. Although some fans of those genres may really want to believe it does, or at least maybe someday could. 
Although it is true that there are a variety of gene variations associated with complex behavioral traits. That much is true.
what would make anyone think a gene is responsible for maturity?
most mature people are 20+ and its common to assume 25 is the age we really hit what can be called adult maturity. I might be crazy but my guess is maturity is based on hormonal changes and just plain life experience.
that and Chrighton cant string more than 3 words together in a way that doesnt make me wonder how anything of his sells but thats all personal.
So it would be a really, really tiny leap?
The part in the synopsis from wikipedia that I found grating was the plot element where EvilCorp gets legal control over a cell culture derived from the cells of some good guy. Eh, I could see it happening. But how does that give EvilCorp the right to take cell cultures from his children and grandchildren without their consent?
This requires us to imagine that the US courts are now fully owned subsidiaries of EvilCorp. In which case, the problem is not EvilCorp tampering in God’s domain, but rather that the US has turned fascist. Sure, I’ll buy that fascism combined with tampering in God’s domain is a bad idea. How about merely tampering in God’s domain without the fascism? If bad results only happen when EvilCorp is able to do things to people without their consent, hey, simple answer, let’s require them to get consent. Repeal fascism. Problem solved, book over.
Quantum doesn’t mean “really small”, it means “not continuous”. So, a quantum leap is a substantial change, not merely one of minor degree.
Isn’t a quantum an actual unit of energy? So a “quantum leap” would therefore encompass a leap of one quantum, which I’m given to understand is fairly small by most standards of measurement. Technically, a discontinuous change would be a “quantized leap,” wouldn’t it?
This of course excludes the possibility that scientists may one day discover the gene that codes for the phrase “quantum leap,” graft it into a gorilla, and then the evil corporate overlords of NBC use their time machine to project its consciousness into the brain of Donald P. Bellisario circa 1988 in order to create an alternate timestream containing a hit TV show starring Scott Bakula. If that ever happens, we’re all screwed.
Genes have been linked to things like alcoholism. I think in general, what happens is less that there is a specific gene for some attribute, especially things like behavior, and more that if there is a problem with a specific gene, it can cause semi-specific alterations to certain attributes. If you get a flat tire, your car will have trouble driving, but that doesn’t mean that tires are what cause your car to move.
It the case of a “maturity gene” of course there is no such thing as a gene that causes maturity. But it is certainly possible that there could be a single gene that if mutated could have an adverse affect on some aspect of how we define “maturity”. In which case, if we fixed it, it would appear as though the gene were “for” maturity but that would be an oversimplification of the what was really happening. In any complex system, there are many processes necessary in keeping the system functioning, but that doesn’t mean that that system is the “purpose” of any particular process. Usually different biological processes are involved in many different functions and there is no one to one perfect mapping.
Misusing ‘Quantum Leap’ to mean a ‘massive jump’ is to me about as annoying as using ‘Light Year’ to mean a long period of time. But a Quantum Leap, as well as being very very small, can also be considered pretty fundamental, so shouldn’t either be used to mean ‘insignificant’.
Look, dammit, I’m a molecular biologist, not a particle physicist. 
A quantum leap, as I understand it, is a leap from one energy level to another: something that could not have occurred in the normal course of things, or within classical physics at all, and is therefore, no matter how micro, a great and dynamic change.
It means a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary change, and is therefore not horribly misused.
You got particle physics in my molecular biology! Let’s call it chemistry…