Are They Ignorant, or Just Hoping We Are?
Cidu Bill on Apr 14th 2008
Not comic-related, but this ties into my longstanding complaints about comic strip writers constant use of the “If there’s global warming, why is it so cold?” gag.
If you haven’t seen this week’s episode of Bones, and you plan to, then please ignore the rest of this. Otherwise…
The entire plot revolved around the fact that fraternal twins — in this case a brother and sister — have identical DNA. Neither the FBI agent nor the brilliant medical doctor said “Ummm… no…”
So the question here is, were the writers genuinely unaware that this is not so, or were they counting on the audience not knowing any better? Because really, either way, this isn’t anything all that obscure.
Filed in Bill Bickel, Bones, DNA, television | 33 responses so far
Lola Apr 14th 2008 at 11:26 pm 1
xx xy
How the hell could they be identical being different genders?
This is actually funny and speaks volumes about the intelligence and education of every person involved in this project. NOBODY, not even a cameraman, gopher or boom operator, noticed?
hahahah, this is funny.
Maybe the writers were getting a little vengence after the strike.
arik1969 Apr 15th 2008 at 12:56 am 2
I once read that it is possible, though very rare, for males to have two x chromosomes, and females to have an xy combination. A quick search didn’t show anything about the latter, but on the former, I found a few references to xxy and xxxy groupings, though nothing on an xx alone, on a male. The argument for the seeming paradox was that in utero conditions, particularly involving the secretion of hormones from the mother, at certain stages of development can lead to physical changes in the child.
So, if an in utero “gender reassignment” is possible, though rare, I would think that identical twin brother/ sister combinations would also be possible, but rarer still.
I’ve also heard this used as an explanation for the “man trapped in a woman’s body” thing (and vice versa).
Arthur Apr 15th 2008 at 01:04 am 3
It’s gotta be the latter. Even if the writers were clueless, SOMEONE (director, actor, cameraman, gofer) would have pointed out the idiocy. I really don’t want to believe that that many people could be that ignorant. OTOH, I find it easy to believe that they think everyone else is that ignorant.
LostInTarnation Apr 15th 2008 at 01:22 am 4
Most TV shows have technical advisers on their staff to fact check some of the most basic plot elements for accuracy. I can’t believe something like that got past one of them. On the other hand, the level of preposterousness in some shows is pretty high.
Frank Apr 15th 2008 at 02:11 am 5
I seem to recall an episode of L&O SVU in which the parents/doctors transgendered one of a set of male twins into a female.
.
rabrab Apr 15th 2008 at 02:55 am 6
The ‘twins of different genders have identical DNA’ thing came up regarding a Batman comic book plotline, as well. Polite Dissent (a blog about medicine (and other things) in comics. Scott (the blogger) is an MD. One commenter suggested that the DNA tests that law enforcement agencies routinely use don’t look for x and y chromosomes. No one disagreed, but then, no one said “Oh, yeah, that’s right,” either.
The bigger problem, though, is that fraternal twins are the result of two ova being fertilized by two sperm. The odds of getting an identical match in the genetic mix out of that are beyond astronomical against it.
Powers Apr 15th 2008 at 07:05 am 7
arik — nice theory, except that twins develop in the same womb, and thus are exposed to the same in-utero conditions. =)
Anyway, we can rationalize this all we want, but the fact is in the real world, professionals would be astonished to find fraternal twins with identical DNA.
Fun Fact: The Olsen twins are fraternal.
Carl Apr 15th 2008 at 08:26 am 8
CSI: Miami did a story in which the sun was suddenly eclipsed, which nobody had predicted.
And the eclipse lasted 30 seconds and consisted entirely of totality.
And the plot was about a guy who injected himself with wolf hormones to change his DNA.
spiritcatcher Apr 15th 2008 at 09:38 am 9
Carl : i hope you’re kidding. but with the style-before-substance Miami branch, you never know … Tsunami episode, anyone ?
Winter Wallaby Apr 15th 2008 at 09:58 am 10
Years ago, I was told that I should watch CSI, because the science is so carefully done, and really interesting. One of the first episodes I watched started out with the lead investigator (Grissom?) saying that terminal velocity is 32 ft/s^2 (if you know physics, this should really make you wince). He went on to explain that he knew the man was electrocuted, even though his body showed no signs of electrocution or burn marks; when other investigators objected, he answered that “sometimes, in science, you have to start with what you know is the answer, and figure out how to prove it, even if all the evidence is against you.” He finally showed that the man had been electrocuted, and the lack of burn marks was because the man had been eating a lot of iron. And this was on a show touted for its good science. The viewing public has a pretty high tolerance for crappy science.
Bah humbug Apr 15th 2008 at 01:50 pm 11
My 2 favorite science-related TV flubs:
1. On one of the Jerry Bruckheimer 10-pm-mysteries (a very old CSI, maybe?) one of the victims suffered from - among other things - poisoning by silica granules they found traces of in his stomach. Solid silica (silicon dioxide) is the main ingredient in beach sand, is not poisonous, and solid siliconwould probably not break down in stomach acid in a million years. Even silica gel granules (those little packets of dessicant) would cause discomfort but not be fatal. “Silicosis” is a lung disease caused by inhaling crystalline silicone dust, not from ingesting silicon. Ya think someone would’ve done some basic Googling to check that one!
2. On “Northern Exposure”, there was a whole episode that centered on Dr. Fleischman’s alma mater - which he repeatedly referred to as “John Hopkins” each time he mentioned it throughout the entire episode. I assumed everyone on the cast and crew hated his guts and wanted to him to look stupid, because you’d think ONE person would have caught that!
David Apr 15th 2008 at 02:19 pm 12
Going back to #2, if they were identical boy twins, but one did not masculinize due to a Y defect that either was marginal enough to work/not work on a random basis, or that damage to the Y occurred post-fertilization in one twin (possible), they could be genetically identical, but the girl would be XY. Identical twins are not perfectly identical, and there’s a lot of research into differences, particularly why one will have a genetically based disease/disorder (like autism or cancer) and the other will not. It seems that with many cases of identical twins, the egg splits because some of the cells have become damaged and are being cut loose to die, but don’t.
Now, I do not think the Bones writers were thinking along these lines. I am the last person who will ever defend Bones in any regard. It makes MacGyver look feasible. A few weeks ago, I realized that a comment from comics curmudgeon explained it perfectly. Paraphrasing a little, “It’s a stupid person’s idea of what smart people sound like”.
Regarding the Olsen twins, I have heard the claim that they’re fraternal, not identical, but I don’t what that’s based on. Without DNA testing, it can’t be proved one way or the other, but just from looking at them, I’d say identical is much more likely.
Tracy Apr 15th 2008 at 02:51 pm 13
You want bad science? Watch House. That makes the fantasy world that is Bones look positively realistic.
Chipper Apr 15th 2008 at 03:27 pm 14
That’s why I prefer to watch SciFi over today’s ’scientific’ crime/medical dramas; the science makes more sense!
House cracks me up. I’m not a healthcare worker, but even I can pretty easily spot how ridiculous those plots are.
Cidu Bill Apr 15th 2008 at 03:54 pm 15
Tracy, I’m with you on House: Just as on last night’s Bones, that show manages to combine bad science with bad law. I gave up on House about a year ago when the entertainment value no longer balanced out the stupidity factor.
renita Apr 15th 2008 at 05:20 pm 16
the olsen twins ARE fraternal — if you look at them carefully, you can tell them apart, and there are plenty of siblings who look very much alike.
Bah humbug Apr 15th 2008 at 05:55 pm 17
Ewww… who can bear to look at the Olsen twins carefully… … “…one ring to rule them all…”
John Apr 15th 2008 at 06:12 pm 18
Mitochondrial DNA of fraternal twins would be identical, assuming no genetic damage (as would be the mitochondrial DNA of any two siblings). I’ve never watched Bones, but I suspect that the story initially involved mitochondrial DNA, then somebody decided that was just too complicated and made it plain DNA.
Bah humbug: My recollection is that Dr. Fleischman was an alumnus of Columbia. I recall he once mentioned having been turned down by Johns Hopkins. I don’t recall whether he pronounced it correctly or not.
furrykef Apr 15th 2008 at 06:28 pm 19
As for the whole “didn’t SOMEBODY catch this?” thing… somebody probably did. But I bet that once the script gets to a certain point, it doesn’t matter if the entire cast, the camera crew, and the director complain about it… if it can’t be fixed in a few minutes, it’s too late to change it. This sounds like it was an important plot point, which, while it makes it all the less excusable, it also makes it harder to fix at the last minute.
- Kef
Rock Ripsnort Apr 15th 2008 at 09:47 pm 20
Furrykef– not to mention, that producers and other powers-what-am are notoriously hostile to anyone beneath them either coming up with independent ideas or (horrors!) finding fault w/ the producers’ precious pearls.
Pete Apr 15th 2008 at 10:31 pm 21
renita - identical twins generally look very similar, but not perfectly identical. Appearance is governed largely by DNA, but environment plays its part as well.
Being able to tell the Olsen twins apart by looking at them carefully doesn’t mean they are not identical twins. Like David said, a DNA test is the only way to know for sure.
Andrea J Apr 15th 2008 at 10:33 pm 22
Just because you can tell the Olsen twins apart doesn’t mean they’re fraternal. It is possible, even typical, for identical twins to have slight physical differences. I don’t know if the Olsens are fraternal or not, but you can’t go by looks alone. If they looked dramatically different from one another, you’d have a stronger argument, but slight differences are not definitive proof they’re not genetically identical.
Pete Apr 15th 2008 at 10:45 pm 23
Beatcha!
Commonly cited differences between the twins:
- height. Mary-Kate is a little shorter
- birthmark. Ashley has a birthmark under her right eye(?)
- handedness. Mary-Kate’s a lefty, Ashley’s a righty.
- incidentals. Difference in freckles, voices, hairstyle, weight.
None of these are purely genetic, meaning they don’t conclusively indicate a difference in DNA.
pepperjackcandy Apr 15th 2008 at 11:56 pm 24
Did you watch the ep, Bill? Because I’m wondering if this might not have been based on David Reimer’s story.
Cidu Bill Apr 16th 2008 at 12:05 am 25
Pepper, it was more along the lines of the lawyer saying “You can’t prove that the DNA on the weapon belongs to my client because her DNA is identical to that of the victim, her twin brother,” and the crack FBI agent and super-genius forensic doctor saying “Damn it, there goes our case.”
I did see the Law & Order episode referred to in the Wikipedia article, though.
Carl Apr 16th 2008 at 02:33 am 26
Pete @23, In the case of mirror twins, identical twins always have opposite handedness, in fact.
Singapore Bill Apr 16th 2008 at 02:31 pm 27
The facts are never allowed to get in the way of the story. The fact that the story suffers is irrelevant to the producers as long as the show gets viewers. I enjoyed CSI when I first saw it, even allowing for the stretches they made. I gave up when they went back to the “zoom-in-on-the-reflection-in the photograph-and-blow-it-up-48-times-and-enhance-it-to-perfect-clarity-in-five-seconds-with-the-push-of-one=button” well once too often (it took about three times for me to grow sick of it). i hate “zoom-and-enhance” more than any other bull**** science in these shows.
Pinny Apr 16th 2008 at 06:31 pm 28
Re Pete (#21):
There are way to determine twin type that do not involve DNA testing.
20+ years ago when my younger, identical twin brothers were born, there was no DNA testing. Instead, my parents had the hospital do tests to determine if there had been one or two placentas. There was one, hence they are “identical twins,” though they are not perfectly identical physically.
arik1969 Apr 17th 2008 at 02:00 am 29
#7 Powers - Even though the in utero conditions for twins would be the same, the ways their bodies react to them would not necessarily be alike. Different people respond to environmental stimuli in different ways.
David Apr 17th 2008 at 11:45 am 30
Re Pinny #28, after my post (#12) suggesting the DNA test, I thought about the placenta test (which my wife also pointed out to me). However, if you don’t do it at the time of birth, you’re left with the DNA test. If the Olson twin placentas checked out as fraternal, that’s fine, but the claim of fraternal has never been backed up with solid information. Not that they have to, it’s their lives, and if they want to call themselves fraternal, that’s fine (technically, it could be argued as correct, as all siblings are fraternal). But 1″ of height difference, handedness, freckles, and different looking teeth are all within the realm of identical twin variation.
See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/health/05gene.html
Lola Apr 17th 2008 at 12:49 pm 31
So many myths about twins!
Having two placentas does not necessarily mean the twins are fraternal. If the division happens very early (3rd day or before) they can develop completely separate placentas and amniotic sacs, though most of the time they share a placenta but have separate sacs. Very rarely will they share both.
Though some are, most identical twins are not mirrored. When they are, lots of things will be mirrored, including handedness, hair sworls and birth marks.
Though close, womb conditions are not identical for twins. The second the egg splits into two, their life trajectories begin to diverge. Though this would seem counterintuitive, it is most especially true if sharing both placenta and sac, where often one twin will be quite sickly. The minutest of differences in nutrient and toxin uptake at critical moments can result in vastly different outcomes.
Identical twins are not hereditary…fraternal are.
By far the most fascinating twins are fraternal twins that merge into one and are called chimeras. These can be different sexes and different races.
bAT L. Apr 20th 2008 at 03:14 am 32
I didn’t see the show either. In fact, I don’t watch all that much TV that’s not found from a computer anymore. Did one of the twins have a sex-change operation at any time in his / her life? If they looked very similar (heck, with plastic surgery and the like even if they didn’t), then this could very well have been the case, which means they still would have been identical twins.
My sister and I wince at things like this as well. This is quite strange, however, since we both enjoy Japanese animation.
Kevin A Jan 13th 2010 at 05:20 pm 33
All right, since Bill pointed back to this one in 2010, as a lover of the truth about DNA in general (and with a crush on Emily Deschanel’s character), I must finally defend Bones and assume Bill was partly distracted during the critical moment.
This time, I found a transcript:
——
BOOTH: We have DNA evidence that shows that you swung the prybar into Tripp’s head.
SMALLS: According to the forensic report, the sample was very small, and was totally used up during the course of the test.
BRENNAN: It’s an accurate test.
SMALLS: But it can’t be repeated. And my client has a twin brother. Juries hate DNA evidence and twins. What’s that sound? I believe that’s reasonable doubt startin’ its engines.
——
It was an easy mistake for a person to make in a house where robins are head-banging their window.
In the end, the decision was made to prosecute even though they knew that the *jury* wouldn’t convict on the blood evidence (in order to bring the woman’s story out somehow; is that legal?).
So, the writers were completely aware of the facts about DNA and fraternal twins. Whether they knew anything about juries’ responses to expert testimony is the unsettling question for me.
“The Truth is Out There.”
[Oh, people using science from science fiction shows, in a discussion, drive me nuts.]