In April 1953 , Francis Crick and James Watson publishedan unassuming one - pageboy research paperwith a finding many claim would “ revolutionize biologic research ” : the twofold helical anatomical structure of DNA . But how revolutionary has the uncovering been , really ?
In a retrospective published over atProject Syndicate , Emeritus Professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities at the University of LondonDonna Dickensonasks a persuasion - provoking – if disputative – question : After 60 twelvemonth , have Watson and Crick ’s findings “ really had the transformative wallop that the world expected ? ”
She writes :
The medium cross off the issue ’s sixtieth day of remembrance with much fanfare , acclaim the breakthrough that “ ushered in the age of genetic science , ” and calling it “ one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time . ” The British newspaper The Guardian featured the newspaper headline , “ Happy Birthday , DNA ! The gilded bit that changed us all . ”
To some extent , they are right . The finding forms the basis of genetics and has opened up prognosticate young enquiry areas , such as synthetic biology , in which biological systems are create or modified to perform specific functions . similarly , it has facilitated important innovation , such as pharmacogenetic malignant neoplastic disease discussion , in which drugs target specific genetic blemish within cancer cell .
Moreover , DNA has acquire a certain mystique in popular cultivation . fit in to Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee , it has become asacred entity – the modern equivalent weight of the Christian soul , an individual ’s essence . While some course of biological determinism , such as the feeling that race or gender dictates a person ’s fate , have been widely rejected , the idea that a person can be genetically predispose , say , to get into debt , become a ruthless dictator , or vote regularly in elections remains socially satisfactory .
But , almost from the beginning – and most intensely since 1971 , when Time cartridge holder publish a exceptional section entitled “ The New Genetics : Man into Superman ” – scientific discipline and society alike have tended to overvalue the encroachment of genetic science . When theHuman Genome Projectpublished the first draught of the full sequence human genome in 2000 , Henry Gee , an editor program of the journal Nature , predicted that scientists would be able-bodied “ to castrate entire organisms out of all credit to suit our needs and tastes ” by 2099 . “ We will have supernumerary limbs , if we need them,”he aver , “ maybe even backstage to take flight . ”
Thirteen years afterward , Gee ’s anticipation look more and more improbable , with the Human Genome Project so far having failed to meet expectations . Indeed , in 2010 , the scientific discipline writer Nicholas Wadelamented that , a decade after the project was establish , geneticists were “ almost back to foursquare one in know where to appear for the roots of vulgar disease . ”
Read the repose of Dickinson ’s piece over atProject Syndicate .
FranklinGeneticsScienceWatson
Daily Newsletter
Get the best tech , science , and acculturation news in your inbox daily .
tidings from the future tense , delivered to your present tense .
You May Also Like
