A Changing Portrait Of DNA
This idea—that cancer is a necessary problem, an unavoidable consequence of our genes' need to switch on and off—is troubling, but it does make intuitive sense. The more we learn about the genome, the more complicated it turns out to be, and the more complicated a system is, the more potential there is for error. Cancer and other common diseases of regulation may thus be intrinsically built into our bodies—the price we pay for being such intricately built beings. "We cannot look at common diseases such as cancer as accidents of evolution," says Kari Stefansson, president of the Icelandic genetic firm DeCode. "We may have been designed by evolution in a very complex manner for the sole purpose of making sure we eventually die."
Life, death and human nature are complex questions, and we've always known the answers would be equally complex. For the first 50 years of modern DNA-driven genetics, it wasn't clear if we'd ever solve the mysteries. But with our emerging understanding of the machinery that directs development and disease, scientists at least have some new places to look for clues. Let's hope the switches that turn on the genes also turn on the lights.
© 2007
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: randor @ 12/12/2007 12:07:01 AM
Comment: Sorry, I was having browser and password difficulties when I posted this 3 times.
Posted By: randor @ 12/12/2007 12:05:19 AM
Comment: I posted the following letter to the editor:
If as the headline for Mary Carmichael's article says "Every day... scientists learn something new about how our genes work", then her article should be Exhibit A in the case for why Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are a terrible idea. The biologists who perform this truly voodoo science are shooting genes into the genome essentially at random. They have no clear idea what the short term consequences are and certainly no idea what the long term consequences are. As Jeffrey Smith wrote in his excellant book Seeds of Deception these scientists are operating under the assumptions of genetic theory that is 40 yrs old. As only a single example, 40 years ago they assumed that one gene produced one protein. Now they know that the ratio is more like 4 or 5 proteins to one gene. Our planet's genetics are an infinitely intricate and precious dance that should not be disrupted forever by the ignorant practitioners of the present day.
Posted By: randor @ 12/12/2007 12:03:59 AM
Comment: I posted the following letter to the editor:
If as the headline for Mary Carmichael's article says "Every day... scientists learn something new about how our genes work", then her article should be Exhibit A in the case for why Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are a terrible idea. The biologists who perform this truly voodoo science are shooting genes into the genome essentially at random. They have no clear idea what the short term consequences are and certainly no idea what the long term consequences are. As Jeffrey Smith wrote in his excellant book Seeds of Deception these scientists are operating under the assumptions of genetic theory that is 40 yrs old. As only a single example, 40 years ago they assumed that one gene produced one protein. Now they know that the ratio is more like 4 or 5 proteins to one gene. Our planet's genetics are an infinitely intricate and precious dance that should not be disrupted forever by the ignorant practitioners of the present day.