Nearly 20 years ago, I attended a reception for Francis
Crick, after he had given a lecture at UCL on consciousness in animals. There
was no opportunity for a conversation, but, like everyone else in the room, I
was aware that this was Crick of Watson and Crick, who, with Wilkins and
Franklin, were responsible one of the most important discoveries in Biology –
the structure of DNA. There was a feeling of awe that here was someone whose
name would go down in history, alongside Darwin, Newton and a few others.
Since the discovery of DNA, we have found ways of cutting
DNA strands, so that we can not only identify what each gene codes, but also
manipulate the genetic material of an individual to change gene expression. The
recent development of CRISPR brings a cheap and readily available technique for
changing the genetics of organisms, something that excites both scientists and
the media [1].
As we find out more and more about which genes code which
chemicals, we also discover how these affect biological processes within the
body. The eventual aim is to be able to understand how life functions as an
immensely complicated series of chemical reactions. Computers provide a means
of storing all the information that we acquire about each gene, and computing
power enables us to model the possible interactions of chemicals. Many studies are required
to gain information and these form the basis of research projects that are
routine and, dare I say it, dull.
Recently, I received an e-mail from someone advertising a
talk at a leading University in the UK. It said:
X is a very exciting speaker with
a very refreshing perspective on cell biology. It goes well beyond the standard
approach of spending 4 years studying one modification on one variant of one
protein in one type of tissue culture cell.
That, surely, is almost a definition of something dull and
it is clear that the purpose of all these investigations is to train students
in the use of techniques to gain information that forms a tiny part of a giant
jigsaw. There is no knowing whether we will ever be able to complete the jigsaw
and it will certainly not answer questions about thought processes, aesthetics
and what drives emotions. We might discover the components of individuals, but
will we have any clue as to how those individuals live, especially as only a
small proportion of the total DNA appears to be "used" [2]? There are those that think that it will, and
the media also build expectancy, and show little restraint, in reporting each
discovery that may lead to eradicating a disease, or transformation of a farm animal,
or food crop. Scientists go along with this because they like the publicity and
it aids recognition of their work, perhaps enhancing the chance of success in the next round
of grant awards.
Taking a step back, what is happening to Biology as a result
of the revolution in genetics? Certainly there have been great discoveries,
with more to come, but there is also a large amount of humdrum recording for
the jigsaw puzzle. The Biology that so entranced me, based on Natural History
and the environment, is becoming lost in the worlds of chemistry, physics and mathematics.
Perhaps I should just move with the times?
During my research career I looked largely at populations of
insects and the way that they transformed organic matter. It could loosely be categorised
as Ecology but that subject, too, has become dominated by deterministic
approaches and models. For example, one set of models that has been developed over
many years explains the interaction of predators and prey, and the way they affect
each other's population density. Having conducted some experiments, I found
that some predators killed more prey than others and only ate some, and this
wasn't the result of a difference in life stage or in anything else I could
measure. Now, where do these killers fit into a model that treats all predators
as being equal? Clearly there is a need to allow some variable, or stochastic, component
that makes the solution of the models much more complex, but brings them closer
to the real situation.
I think Biology has passed a crossroads. I don't join in all
the excitement over determinism and can even see that it might lead to a new Dark
Ages where we cease to question. In an earlier Dark Age in Christian Europe, we
were constrained by a belief system, while Islamic scholars were encouraged to
acquire knowledge and use it in advancing ideas. During the time of Al-Mamun,
there was great respect for knowledge of all types [3] and it was accorded high
status: blue-sky research was a means of advancing human achievement, quite
unlike the way it is currently regarded as the poor relation of technology and
applied science. Of course, the deterministic approach of Biomedicine is
invaluable in proving us with novel treatments that are beneficial, but we must
recognise that most biomedical research programmes only produce small pieces of
jigsaw and they might not even be doing that. How much better to have a
balance, with a return to the excitement of Natural History that so marked the
Nineteenth Century, with the discoveries of Charles Darwin and others? These
Natural Historians knew that we are dealing with a great deal of complexity and
were filled with awe at just how complex the World seems. They probably knew
that we would never get as many answers as we would questions.
In supporting a return to Natural History, I am not
advocating only the study of plants and animals, but also of the extraordinary
world of single-celled organisms. We have the tools to make many new
discoveries across a wide range of environments; from hostile regions of land masses
through to the deep oceans. Discoveries that enhance our knowledge of the World
we live in and not just those that are perceived as being potentially useful,
or threatening, to humans. Natural History, like the Arts, brings pleasure and
purpose to life and that is as important as all the advances in Biomedicine.
[3] Jim Al-Khalili (2012) Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science. London, Penguin
Books.
No comments:
Post a Comment