I've Experiments to Run: Writing Mad Science

As a career scientist, I'm not a huge fan of panicky anti-science speculative fiction (*cough* State of Fear *cough*). At the same time, I think it's hard to work in the sciences and not think that cautionary speculative fiction has a place, particularly as technology often outpaces widespread discourse or careful consideration of the ethical nuances involved. So what is the line between consideration and fear-mongering?

I think, as I have said before, that complexity is a key factor. A sanitised storyline will devolve quickly into a flat good-vs-evil setup. To serve its purpose in questioning and critically examining the ethical implications of the situation, it is important to explore the story in detail and get to the squirmy, uncomfortable heart of the matter. For example, go beyond 'ew, genetic engineering is gross' and perhaps explore what it is that bothers you. Maybe it's the idea that you can patent a life form; maybe it's the idea that organisms could get out into the wild and act like an invasive species (or a lethal pathogen, if it's a bioweapons lab!); maybe it's a more existential problem of man playing god and creating new life forms when we can't get cloned cats to look alike.

That said, speculative fiction allows us to explore situations that are currently just outside our reach, but might be real-life headlines in the imminent future. Climate change (or attempts to curtail it), bioweapons, radically bioengineered life forms, teleportation through quantum entanglement, a human-animal chimera... all these and more are possible developments which would be fascinating to examine in a fictional context. Just do a lot of research, and write from a place of curiosity and criticism, not a place of fear.