|
Basic InformationLatest NewsCould Taking a Swing at Golf Help Parkinson's Patients?Autopsy Study May Explain Why Some COVID Survivors Have 'Brain Fog'Gene Study Probes Origins of Addison's DiseaseCould a Common Prostate Drug Help Prevent Parkinson's?AHA News: Hormones Are Key in Brain Health Differences Between Men and WomenNerve Drug Might Curb Spinal Cord Damage, Mouse Study SuggestsIs There a 'Risk-Taking' Center in the Brain?AHA News: Dr. Dre Recovering From a Brain Aneurysm. What Is That?Can 2 Nutrients Lower Your Risk for Parkinson's?New Clues to How Cancers Originate in the BrainBrain May Age Faster After Spinal Cord InjuryScans Reveal How COVID-19 Can Harm the BrainWhat Loneliness Looks Like in the BrainNeurologists Much Tougher to Find in Rural AmericaCOVID-19 Survival Declines When Brain Affected: StudyAs Testing Costs Rise, Neurology Patients May Skip ScreeningGene Therapy Shows No Long-Term Harm in Animals: StudyCould Gene Therapy Cure Sickle Cell Disease? Two New Studies Raise HopesCocoa Might Give Your Brain a Boost: StudyLockdown Loneliness Could Worsen Parkinson's SymptomsChildhood Lead Exposure Tied to Brain Changes in Middle AgeStaying Social Can Boost Healthy 'Gray Matter' in Aging BrainsDNA Analysis Might Reveal Melanoma RiskGenetics Might Explain Some Cases of Cerebral PalsyDiabetes Drug Metformin May Protect the Aging BrainNew Research Links Another Gene to Alzheimer's RiskYour Sex Affects Your Genes for Body Fat, Cancer, Birth WeightExperimental Drug Shows Promise Against ALSCould Gene Therapy Stem the Damage of Parkinson's?Genetic Research May Help Identify Causes of StillbirthBlood Test Heralds New Era in Alzheimer's DiagnosisMore Clues to the Genes Behind Hearing LossScientists Move Closer to Mapping Entire Human GenomeBlood Test May Reveal Concussion Severity With Accuracy of Spinal TapDeep Brain Stimulation May Slow Parkinson's, Study FindsStroke, Confusion: COVID-19 Often Impacts the Brain, Study ShowsYour Genes May Affect How You'll Heal If WoundedEven Without Concussion, Athletes' Brains Can Change After Head Jolts: StudyHealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: For Patients, Promise and Challenges Ahead">HealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: For Patients, Promise and Challenges AheadHealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: Giving Docs a Diagnostic Assist">HealthDay In-Depth The AI Revolution: Giving Docs a Diagnostic AssistBlood Test Might Predict Worsening MSKeto Diet Might Change Your Gut in More Ways Than OneParkinson's Patient Improving After First-Ever Stem Cell TherapyKey Areas of the Brain Triggered in Recent Heart Attack SurvivorsFirst Good Evidence That Brain Hits 'Replay' While You SleepSome NFL Players May Be Misdiagnosed With Brain Disease: StudyGreenhouse Gases Bad for Your BrainTransplanted Skin Stem Cells Help Blind Mice See LightBrain Plaques Signal Alzheimer's Even Before Other Symptoms Emerge: StudyDeep Brain Stimulation May Hold Promise in Alzheimer's Questions and AnswersLinksBook Reviews |
| |
by Evelyn Fox Keller Harvard University Press, 2000 Review by John Collier, Ph.D. on May 15th 2002 
As the title
suggests, Keller argues in this short book that the gene has had its century,
and it is time for biology to focus on broader issues. This is not to say that
genes are not important; Keller is very clear that they are. However, the very
research that has tried to establish exactly what genes do has uncovered
complications, conceptual ambiguities, and non-genetic factors that violate the
simplifying assumptions that came to guide gene research from the middle of the
20th Century. Contrary to some critical reviews of this book, Keller
is not critical of genetic research in itself; more often, she praises it. She
argues very strongly, however, that genetic research has shown conclusively
that the gene is not what it used to be. Her main point is that the very
success of genetics has (or should) teach us humility. A subsidiary point is
that the rapid changes in genetics have left us with a heritage of inadequate
concepts, specialised practices with little theoretical integration, and a
residue of inadequate but widely accepted ideas of what genes are. Scientists
working in each of these specialised fields know what they are doing, and how
they understand and apply the concepts of genetics, but there is no genetic lingua franca. Unfortunately, given the
social importance of genetics, past and current discourse about genes leaves
the public with the opposite impression. If nothing else, this book is an antidote
to that (possibly dangerous) impression.
The exposition of the
book is historical. The history is a brief synopsis of highlights, and the
triumphs of genetic research are perhaps given less space than many would like,
whereas the problems with the gene concept and with simple views of genetic
determination are emphasised. Given the large number of histories that put the
triumphs of genetic research front and centre, Kellers emphasis is both
warranted and rather refreshing. The book contains a short introduction and
conclusion, and four longer chapters that are arranged both historically and
thematically.
The first chapter
deals with the regulation of genetic stability. This is the basis for the
functionality of the gene as a unit of heredity. It turns out that the gene is
not stable enough on its own, and needs help. Part of this help comes from
genetically controlled processes, but not all. Still, this leaves the gene as
the central actor in the determination of traits, though it needs its dressers and
perhaps even its directors.
The second chapter
deals with the issue of what genes do. If the gene is a functional unit that
that is responsible for heredity, then it determines heritable traits in the
cell and the whole organism, and can replicate and transmit this capacity for
determination from cell to cell and from organism to organism. Or at least that
was the first version. The discovery of the structure of DNA and the genetic
code confirmed earlier observations that DNA was the locus of inheritance, and
that one gene coded for one enzyme (functional protein). Keller quotes Francis
Crick, DNA makes RNA, RNA makes proteins, and proteins make us. Subsequent
discoveries in genetics have shown this to be a bit of an exaggeration. Keller
describes several major modifications in this Central Dogma. First, some DNA
regulates other DNA. Second, the RNA transcribed is edited, and many sections
of DNA have multiple mappings onto proteins. If segments of DNA are the units
of heredity, then the units of heredity are not the genes in terms of
developmental function, and vice versa. Sometimes the two coincide, and these
cases are important, but they are far from being the rule. Nonetheless, much
popular opinion, and even much science, works as if the Central Dogma were
Natures own Truth.
The next chapter
deals with the concept of a genetic program. This chapter shows how this
somewhat more sophisticated notion of gene activity is supposed to work, and
some of the problems it encounters. The most obvious one is that the way a
program works depends on the type of machine it runs on. It turns out that
there are both surprising similarities across diverse kinds of organism, and
surprising divergences in similar organisms. The idea that the genes are a
blueprint for making an organism is both disarmingly accurate where certain
genes that govern eye development in flies lead to mouse eyes when transplanted
to mice, and dismayingly inaccurate when we look at the genetic details of an
organism as simple as the roundworm, C.
elegans.
Turning to
development, and developmental stability, Keller points to the role of
organisation and redundancy. Both imply no simple relation between genes and
traits. Unlike current computer programs, small variations (and even some large
ones) have little effect on the end result. It is interesting that IBM has
recently started a program to develop systems that have the sort of autonomy
that we see in organisms. Perhaps the program metaphor will become accurate
eventually.
The conclusion is a
rumination on why we still talk of genes, given the problems. Keller suggests
that gene talk is more of a hindrance to the understanding of lay people than
of scientists, since the latter typically know what they are talking about, and
by and large can compensate for inadequacies in gene discourse. Unfortunately,
the land rush engendered by genomics has, if anything, led to an even more
unwarranted focus on genes, whatever they are. The advantages of laying claim
to a segment of DNA are too great to allow time to contemplate complicating
details, such as underdetermination or overdetermination of physiological
function. Economic decisions are considerably less corrigible than scientific
ones.
In any case, the
Central Dogma encourages the idea, often reported in the news, of the gene for
X. The problems with the Central Dogma are the problems with the notion of a
gene for X. Science reporters should read Kellers book carefully, and digest
its message fully. Failing this (and given that with few exceptions reporters
report what they think scientists have said, rather than the science itself, it
will fail), one can hope that people of influence who read those reports will
have read Kellers book, so they are not so easily swayed by the heroic
archetype of the gene.
© 2002 John Collier
John Collier is a Visiting
Scientist at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research. His work is in foundations of information
theory, autonomy, evolutionary theory and theory change, as well as various
papers in metaphysics and the philosophy of physics. He is currently working on
a book on reduction in complex systems with C.A. Hooker.
|