Guest guest Posted September 3, 2004 Report Share Posted September 3, 2004 > 3 Sep 2004 14:58:56 -0000 > Death of the Central Dogma > press-release > > > The Institute of Science in Society Science Society > Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk > > General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing > List > press-release ISIS Director > m.w.ho > ======================================================== > > > ISIS Press Release 03/09/04 > > Life after the Central Dogma > > The biotech industry was launched on the scientific > myth > that organisms are hardwired in their genes, a myth > thoroughly exploded by scientific findings > accumulating > since the mid 1970s and especially so since genome > sequences > have been accumulating (see Living with the Fluid > Genome, by > Mae-Wan Ho http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluidGenome.php > ). We > bring you the latest surprises that tell you why our > health > and environmental policies based on genetic > engineering and > genomics are completely misguided; and more > importantly, why > the new genetics demands a thoroughly ecological > approach. > The series will not be circulated all at once; so do > look > out for the articles. > > Death of the Central Dogma > ******************** > > It is amazing how much scientific and religious > fundamentalism have in common. The late Francis > Crick won > the Nobel Prize jointly with James Watson and > Maurice > Wilkins for working out the structure of DNA; and > rather > like the new 'Potentate' of biology, issued the > " Central > Dogma " to the faithful, which decreed that genetic > information flows linearly from DNA to RNA to > protein, and > never in reverse. That was just another way of > saying that > organisms are hardwired in their genetic makeup, and > that > the environment has little if any influence on the > structure > and function of the genes. > > The Central Dogma goes hand in glove with the other > dogma of > biology, the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution by > natural > selection, which says that the genetic material > mutate at > random, and individuals which happen to have good > genes > leave more offspring, just as individuals with bad > genes are > weeded out. The neo-Darwinian theory is beloved of > the > status quo, because it endows the rich and powerful > with a > certain mystique, as those who have won the race in > the > struggle for survival of the fittest, of being in > possession > of good genes (= good breeding); while the poor and > dispossessed have only their bad genes to blame. > > Since the mid-1970s, if not before, molecular > geneticists > studying the genetic material have been turning up > evidence > that increasingly contradicts the Central Dogma. > There is an > immense amount of necessary cross talk between genes > and the > environment in the life of the organism, which not > only > changes the function of the genes but also the > structure of > the genes and genomes. By the early 1980s, the new > genetics > of the " fluid genome " has emerged. But apart from a > few > heretics like Barry Commoner and myself, no one > dared to say > a word against the Central Dogma or the > neo-Darwinian theory > of evolution. > > Things may have changed within the past two years, > thanks to > the good sense and good management of the public > gene > sequencing consortium to insist on depositing gene > sequences > in a single public database, freely available to all > > researchers. This database is not much use for > business and > drug discovery; that much is clear, as one after > another > 'bioinformatics' company that tried to horde the > data has > gone out of business. But, collected in one freely > accessible central database, it is very good for > research > that exposes the poverty of the genetic determinism > ideology > that has led to the creation of the database in the > first > place. > > The evidence against the Central Dogma has piled up > to such > an extent that rumblings of " challenging the dogma " > and " a > new theory is needed to replace the central dogma " > can even > be heard in the mainstream scientific journals. > Though Dr. > Ewan Birney, who gave the Royal Society's inaugural > Francis > Crick Lecture in December 2003, still paid elaborate > homage > to the Central Dogma, with arrows pointing strictly > one-way > from DNA to RNA to protein, leaving out all the many > more > arrows that point in reverse. > > What are the latest surprises that the fluid and > flexible > genome has in store? One area is the importance and > pervasiveness of epigenetics, specifically, chemical > > markings on the DNA and proteins binding to the DNA > in the > chromosomes that determine patterns of gene > expression, or > which bits of the genetic text is actually read. > That is > overwhelmingly determined by experience. In an > earlier issue > (SiS 20 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis20.php), > we > showed the mother's diet and stress can affect > patterns of > gene expression in the embryo and foetus, which > determines > the individuals' health prospects much later in > life. > > Now, researchers are finding genes that are marked > for life > in rat pups, strictly by how their mothers care for > them > during their first week of life after birth (see > " Caring > mothers reduce response to stress for life " , this > series). > It leaves one in no doubt that the environment is > giving the > instruction of which genes to turn on. > > Only a few years ago, people were referring to the > 98% or > more of the genome that doesn't code for proteins as > " junk > DNA " . Not any more. The genome has a definite > 'architecture' > that holds up beneath the fluidity. There is a high > degree > of non-randomness in the parts of the genome that > undergo > change. While some parts are hypermutable, certain > families > of sequences are 'homogenized' to be nearly > identical (see > " Keeping in concert " , this series), while still > others are > 'ultraconservative' in that they have remained > absolutely > unchanged in hundreds of millions of years of > evolution > ( " Are ultraconserved elements indispensable? " this > series). > And when cells get into a tight corner metabolically > > speaking, there may even be genes that mutate to get > them > out of it ( " To mutate or not to mutate " , this > series). > > Most of all, there is a big treasure trove within > the > apparent junkyard of the genome. Many sequences that > don't > code for proteins are involved in regulating > development and > gene expression. Many of the surprises are > associated with > findings that indicate most of the action is not in > proteins, but in the numerous species of RNA > 'interfering' > at all levels of the 'readout' of genetic > information: with > the DNA, with other RNA species, and with proteins > (see " RNA > subverting the genetic text " , this series). > > All of this goes against the very grain of the > Central Dogma > that posits linear, mechanistic control. Instead, > layers > upon layers of chaotic complexity are coordinated, > it seems, > by mutual agreement, in an incredibly elaborate, > exquisite > dance of life that dances itself freely and > spontaneously > into being. It is not so much that we need a new > theory to > replace the central dogma; it is more important than > that. > We need a new way of knowing and being organisms > that will > prevent us from mistaking organisms for instruments > and > machines. That's the real challenge. > > > ======================================================== > > This article can be found on the I-SIS website at > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DCD.php > > If you like this original article from the Institute > of > Science in Society, and would like to continue > receiving > articles of this calibre, please consider making a > donation > or purchase on our website > > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations. > > ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation > dedicated to providing critical public information > on > cutting edge science, and to promoting social > accountability > and ecological sustainability in science. > > If you would prefer to receive future mailings as > HTML > please let us know. If you would like to be removed > from our > mailing list at > > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/.php > ======================================================== > > CONTACT DETAILS > > The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, > London > NW1 OXR > > telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] > [44 20 > 7272 5636] > > General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing > List > press-release ISIS Director > m.w.ho > > MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM > WITHOUT > PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED > ACCORDINGLY > AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.