Evelyn F. Keller, The Century of the Gene, 2000.
The life of a powerful word
GENE
1900 de Vries
Correns
Tschermak
Independently, all of them
ÔrediscoveredÕ MendelÕs work on the inheritance of peas
1906 ÔgeneticsÕ was coined as a term as Òa
new and well developed branch of physiologyÓ
1909 Òthe term gene came along three years later, introduced by Wilhelm
Johannsen.Ó
p.1
Òfree of the taint of
preformationism" – such as DarwinÕs gemmules
WeismannÕs (chromosome
discoverer) determinants
Òmany
characteristics of the organism are specified in the gametes by means of
special conditions, foundations, and determiners which are all present in
unique, separate, and thereby independent ways–is short, precisely what
we wish to call genes.Ó
Keller. P. 2.
Òuseful as an expression of
Ôunit factors.Õ ÔelementsÕ or allelomorphsÕ in the gametes, demonstrated by the
modern Mendelian researchesÉas to the nature of the Ôgenes,Õ it is of yet no
value to propose any hypothesis; but that the notion of the gene covers a
reality is evident in Mendelism.Ó
1933 T.
H. Morgan (fruit flies)
Òas to what genes are–whether they are real
or purely fictitious.Ó
Ògenes had become
incontrovertibly real.Ó
Òthe biological analogue of
the molecules and atoms of physical science, endowed with the properties that
would make it possible Ôto explain by their combinations the phenomena of the
living world.ÕÓ
pp. 2-3
H. J. Muller
They were Òthe fundamental
unit of heredityÓ and Òthe basis of life.Ó
The
key to the textÕs purpose and schematice approach
is page 3.
ÒJust what sort of entity is
a gene?
Perhaps it was some sort of
chemical molecule, but of what sort?
ÒWhat is it made of, how big is it, and above all, from what comes its miraculous power to determine the properties of a developing organism and, at the same time, ensure the stability of those properties from one generation to another.Ó
p. 3
1943
Avery, Macleod, and McCartyÕs
identification of DNA – nucleic acid Òas the carrier of biological
specificity in bacteria.Ó
Beadle and Tatum
"The one gene-to one enzyme
hypothesisÓ of Beadle and Tatum
1953 Watson and Crick (Franklin and
Wilkins) Òwhich convinced biologists not only that genes are real molecules but
that they consisted of nothing more mysterious than deoxyÉÓ
Òbecame the foundational
concept capable of unifying all of biology.Ó
Ònew era of analysis.Ó
p. 3.
The most dramatic advances in
a century
p. 4
1970s recombinant DNA
technology
1990s Human genome project
Òpromised to reveal the
genetic blueprint that tells us who we are.Ó
Sequencing of bacteria, yeast
and roundworm genomes preceded the HGP
p. 4
Ò2000 the genome of
DrosphilaÓ sequenced
p. 5
Òmisguided and misleadingÓ?
Òthe ways in which t has
transformed.Ó Our expectations.
ÒContrary to all
expectations, instead of lending support to the familiar notions of genetic
determinism that have acquired so powerful grip on the popular imagination,
these successes pose critical challenges to such notions.Ó
Òin this new science of
genomic, twentieth-century genetics has achieved its apotheosis. Yet its very
successes that have so stirred our imaginations have also radically undermined
their core driving concept, the concept of the gene.Ó
p. 5.
Òthe multitude of encoding
regions in even a simple genome.Ó
p. 6.
ÒSpoke as if sequence
information would, by itself. Provide all that was necessary for an
understanding of biological function.Ó
p. 6
ÒInstead f a Rosetta Stone,Õ
molecular geneticist—suggests that Ôit might be more appropriate to liken
the human genome sequence to the Phaestos palaceÉby in large we are functional
illiterates.Ó
p.6
Òfunctional genomics rather than structural genomics—is
heard with growing frequency.
p.7
Òthe sequence isÓ rather as a
tool
p. 7
ÒFor almost fifty years, we
lulled ourselves into believing that that, in discovering the molecular basis
of genetic information, we had found the Ôsecret of lifeÕ; we were confident
that if we could only decode the message in DNAÕs sequence of nucleotides, we
could understand the ÔprogramÕ that makes an organism what it is.Ó
p. 7.
Òhow large the gap between
genetic ÔinformationÕ and biological meaning really is.Ó
p. 8
Òmarveling not at the
simplicity of lifeÕs secrets but
at their complexity.Ó
ÒThese tools are themselves
the direct product of the most recent advances in molecular genetics and
genomics; yet at the same time, and in the most eloquent testimony to the
prowess of science I can imagine, they have worked to erode many of the core
assumptions on which these efforts were first premised.Ó
pp. 8-9.
ÒÓthe limitations of the most
extreme forms of reductionismÓ
p. 9.
Òthe primacy of the gene as
the core explanatory concept of biological structure and function isÓ eclipsed.
p. 9.
Shift in focus from the gene
ÒTo genetic, epigenetic, and Ôpost-genomicÕ metabolic networks, and even to
multiple systems of inheritance.Ó
p. 9.
Including Ònumerous elements
defying classification in the traditional categories of animate and inanimate.Ó
p. 10.
Òdespite all its ambiguity,
it has not yet outlived its usefulness.Ó
p. 10.
Exists as an Òoperational;
shorthandÓ for identifying specific Òlevers or handlesÓ for effecting
fundamental biological changes.
Òin marketing the products of
a rapidly expanding biotech industry.Ó
p. 10.
Evelyn Fox Keller, The Century of the Gene, 2000.
.
The architecture of Phaistos is more
simplified compared with Knossos, and it is built in an orderly arrangement
that refers to a single architect. The building outlines and the ground plan is
easily deciphered by the visitor at first glance, however further examination
reveals the complexity built into the site over hundreds of years of
destruction and rebuilding cycles. The complex of architectural elements is a
delightful amalgam of the old and new palace structures. During the rebuilding
of the palace in 1700 BC several of the rooms from the old palace were retained
in the new building, and archaeologists today have excavated several areas of
the new palace to reveal the older structures below. The pavement of the west
courtyard along with the few bottom steps of the converging staircases have
been exposed during modern excavations, for they were buried one meter deep
when the new palace was built.
More on Phaistos Palace, in Crete.