Banner
Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth

From Melville's under-appreciated Mardi: On a quest for his missing love Yillah, an AWOL sailor...

Non-coding DNA Function... Surprising?

The existence of functional, non-protein-coding DNA is all too frequently portrayed as a great...

Yep, This Should Get You Fired

An Ohio 8th-grade creationist science teacher with a habit of branding crosses on his students'...

No, There Are No Alien Bar Codes In Our Genomes

Even for a physicist, this is bad: Larry Moran, in preparation for the appropriate dose of ridicule...

User picture.
picture for Hank Campbellpicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Wes Sturdevantpicture for Ian Ramjohnpicture for Patrick Lockerby
Michael WhiteRSS Feed of this column.

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist

... Read More »

Blogroll

Molecular biologists have long operated on the principle that knowing the structure of a biological entity is critical for understanding how it works. Most famously, this was the premise behind one of biology's most iconic discoveries, Watson and Crick's model of the structure of DNA. Structure-function studies have been the foundation of much of molecular biology ever since.

Although the structure of DNA yielded almost immediate insight into an important biological problem, solving structures hasn't always resulted in a eureka moment. The same year Watson and Crick received their Nobel Prize, two other scientists, John Kendrew and Max Perutz, were also awarded the Nobel for determining the structure of a biological molecule. Unfortunatly for Kendrew and Perutz, instead of a flash of insight the result was incomprehension. They had determined the structure of two related proteins, myoglobin and hemoglobin, and these structures at first glance looked like just an irregular mass of thousands of atoms.

Happily, the befuddlement didn't last long. Scientists quickly learned how protein structures explain their function, and today we have amazing structural snapshots of proteins in action. These studies of structure have helped biologists understand the gritty details of key biological processes, such as how membrane-embedded ion pumps enable our nerves to conduct electrical signals. Using a protein's structure to understand its function has now become routine.

But today biologists are facing another moment of incomprehension. We're staring at structures of a different type of biological entity: a network, not an irregular mass of atoms, but one of connections. We know that biological networks give cells their ability to make sense of the world, to process information, to sense the environment or the cells' own internal state, and to take appropriate action. Scientists have been mapping these networks in great detail for years now, but the result is frequently just a giant, molecular hairball (or 'ridiculogram', as a friend calls it).

In other words, scientists are facing yet another giant structure-function problem. How do the strucures of biological networks result in something functional?



The latest Tangled Bank is up. Go visit Candid World to find some great, recent biology blogging.
Actually, today it's tea because I need to go easy on the caffeine. Here's what's interesting in science around the web this week:

Where did hobbits come from? Not the hobbits in the Shire, but Homo floresiensis, a diminutive hominid that lived on an Indonesian island 20,000 years ago. PBS has an essay on evolution and why island creatures sometimes get very big or very small.
Craig Venter and James Watson have won this year's Cold Spring Harbor 'Double Helix Medal For Scientific Research'. Venter deserves it, but what's the deal with Watson? He hasn't done much for science research recently except tarnish its image by insulting black people and calling everyone else boring.

Hasn't the guy won enough medals for a career that stalled scientifically decades ago? What's even stranger is that this award is completely incestuous, coming from the lab that Watson directed for years. It's like the Catholic Church giving the Pope an award for community service.

OK, so you all know that Spore isn't based on how evolution actually works. There has been some concern that playing the game would cause players to develop a faulty understanding of evolution.

So I was pleasantly surprised tonight at my 8 year-old's response (completely unprompted, honest!) when I read her the following:

How does life change over time, and how did all those different forms of life come to be?... [Evolution] is the result of tiny changes adding up to bigger changes. These changes happen deep inside the cells of every living thing - in the genes, the instructions that make that living thing what it is. Genes are passed along from a parent to its offspring, and every living thing has its own unique combinations. Every individual is different. Just like you are different from your parents, every generation of living thing is different, in small ways, from the last.

Over time, these small differences add up. With enough time, they can add up to whole new forms of life.
What I would have been reading over coffee in the lab, if I actually drank coffee in the lab (and of course I scrupulously follow the university Environmental Health&Safety rules and never drink coffee in the lab):

At spiked, a review of Quantum: Einstein, Bohr, and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality:

The Nobel Prize-winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann believes that ‘Bohr brainwashed a whole generation of physicists...