On the diamond jubilee of the double helix, we should admit that we don't fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, suggests Philip Ball <\/p>\n
By Philip Ball and Nature magazine <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Image: Wikimedia Commons\/Yikrazuul <\/p>\n
This week's diamond jubilee of the discovery of DNA's molecular structure rightly celebrates how Francis Crick, James Watson and their collaborators launched the 'genomic age' by revealing how hereditary information is encoded in the double helix. Yet the conventional narrative in which their 1953 Nature paper led inexorably to the Human Genome Project and the dawn of personalized medicine is as misleading as the popular narrative of gene function itself, in which the DNA sequence is translated into proteins and ultimately into an organism's observable characteristics, or phenotype. <\/p>\n
Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level. <\/p>\n
That sounds to me like an extraordinarily exciting state of affairs, comparable perhaps to the disruptive discovery in cosmology in 1998 that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating rather than decelerating, as astronomers had believed since the late 1920s. Yet, while specialists debate what the latest findings mean, the rhetoric of popular discussions of DNA, genomics and evolution remains largely unchanged, and the public continues to be fed assurances that DNA is as solipsistic a blueprint as ever. <\/p>\n
The more complex picture now emerging raises difficult questions that this outsider knows he can barely discern. But I can tell that the usual tidy tale of how 'DNA makes RNA makes protein' is sanitized to the point of distortion. Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission indeed a celebration of the known unknowns. <\/p>\n
DNA dispute A student referring to textbook discussions of genetics and evolution could be forgiven for thinking that the 'central dogma' devised by Crick and others in the 1960s in which information flows in a linear, traceable fashion from DNA sequence to messenger RNA to protein, to manifest finally as phenotype remains the solid foundation of the genomic revolution. In fact, it is beginning to look more like a casualty of it. <\/p>\n
Although it remains beyond serious doubt that Darwinian natural selection drives much, perhaps most, evolutionary change, it is often unclear at which phenotypic level selection operates, and particularly how it plays out at the molecular level. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original: On the diamond jubilee of the double helix, we should admit that we don't fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, suggests Philip Ball By Philip Ball and Nature magazine Image: Wikimedia Commons\/Yikrazuul This week's diamond jubilee of the discovery of DNA's molecular structure rightly celebrates how Francis Crick, James Watson and their collaborators launched the 'genomic age' by revealing how hereditary information is encoded in the double helix. Yet the conventional narrative in which their 1953 Nature paper led inexorably to the Human Genome Project and the dawn of personalized medicine is as misleading as the popular narrative of gene function itself, in which the DNA sequence is translated into proteins and ultimately into an organism's observable characteristics, or phenotype Continue reading
\nDNA at 60: Still Much to Learn<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"