CP Snow and such

What a to do recently in the science mags about the 50th anniversary of CP Snow's lecture on the "Two Cultures" in 1957 at the University of Cambridge in the UK. With the the advantage of hindsight we can critique his brave stance while agreeing or not with his contention that the failure of art and science to communicate was disastrous for society. I like to think his lecture pointed more to a lack of appreciation of the connection between the two, rather than the explicit lack of shared understanding of the complexities of each. In Nature (vol 459, 7th May 09) there are a couple of essays celebrating the anniversary and offering up the equivalent challenges of the current day. Martin Kemp believes specialization in all disciplines to be the primary hinderance to undestanding between the humanities and science (I happen to agree with him-strongly), while Georgina Ferry asserts it is the push and pull between the optimists and the pessimists that stands in the way of some common ground. My view is that true pessimism is relatively rare where either science or literature is concerned, and that science and literature are inescapably joined at the hip on account of the arguable absence of absolute truth in either. At best, all we have are beliefs at a moment in time. If we kid ourselves for one moment that we have the answers, then science has failed. The true division in this day and age, in my opinion, is the one between those that believe they know it, and those who recognize that they don't. The pessimists may be re-christened skeptics in this scenario. In our information-heavy environment it is easy to think scientists have all the answers; there is so much out there to be found. However, what we lack is a clear consensus on what the real questions should be these days. As we become more specialized we can find more solutions to those may parts that make up the whole. But is the whole any better off? How would we ever know? Our specialized systems don't allow us to easily address the question about the health of the whole. We look to the skeptics to force us to reconsider our assumptions and re-shape the terrain of scientific inquiry.

According to Ferry's article, the literary giant (and one of my favorite authors), Ian McKewan says you can't be curious and depressed. It's hard to argue with that, but the exptrapolation of optimism to hope in the essay is troubling to me. I don't see hope having much of a place is science. In the arts, yes. At the bedside, for sure. But in science, isn't hope the one aspect we systematically try to keep out of the picture? Hope is passive, surely. Science requires that we move beyond hope, and beyond current belief, to a future where something is different. Science suggest forward motion, that replaces hope with meaurable outcomes that we can believe in. At least for a while...

At the heart of CP Snow's teachings is the notion of keeping an open mind and being relevant and responsible in scienc. With the Internet, global warming, corporate greed, and the tremendous gulf between the rich and the poor, I wonder what he would think of our world today?

The relevance of genomic information

I don't know about you but I am overwhelmed and energized by the recent explosion in interest in the relevance of gene knowledge to human difference. For several years we have been sequencing and profiling genes looking for aberrant genes and SNPs in the hope of identifying critical variants that explain disease risk, behavior, physical looks and so on. Only recently have we reached the point of understanding where can begin to realize the enormity of the task ahead in personalized meedicine. Recent papers in Nature have told us that the one-gene one-product hypothesis is only true for about 6% of our 20,000 or so genes. This is comforting given that our absolute gene number seems to equate with a mere nematode worm. The worm's genes can't seem to multi-task as well as ours do so it seems we are more evolved after all. Phew. This multi-tasking nature of most of our genes arises because a particular gene is separated along the DNA by areas of non-relevant DNA (to that gene at least) which means the gene can be read in a number of ways depending on the physical configuration of the DNA and possibly according to the influence of regulatory genes. This leads to 'alternative splicing' which results in different proteins being produced by a given gene. This finding is fascinating. No wonder SNP research has yielded so little in terms of identifying disease causing genes. The SNP is such a minoscule part of the altnertive splicing universe. Every issue of Science and Nature lately seems to have a plethora of articles and editorials on gene findings and their relevance to humans. I sense we are on the verge of a tipping point that will lead to novel hypotheses about the degree of determinisim we can reasonably expect from our genes. I'm excited about what we will come up with but hesitant because I know how long it can take to shift a paradigm. I hope we do not continue with more of the same and hope for some different conclusions. The alternative splicing effect should give us pause for thought; a reason to step back and question our assumptions about the role of genes and what we can expect from personalized medicine research in the future. What a fortunate time to be a biologist after all those years of sequencing and collecting the data--we can now begin to really look for the story our genes seem ready to tell.

Google Genes

"Analysts said they did not believe that the news about Mr. Brin would have a negative impact on Google’s shares", from the New York Time this morning after the co-founder of Google revealed he has a gene that may predispose him to Parkinson's Disease. This in itself, is not particularly alarming, since most people who have the gene do not develop the disease, as far as we know. Phenotypic expression of most genes require other factors such as other genes, or environmental triggers to ever see the light of day. What is rather alarming, in my opinion, is that last sentence in the NYT piece about even a hint of effect of this revelation on the company's shares. Why should it affect shares of the company? He is very young, and even if he is to get the disease eventually, it won't be for 20 years or more. The larger question is this- if the CEO or any other highly influentional person in a business decides to get his genes profiled for disease risk, should it be public knowledge? And if it does become public knowledge, how should the public think about it in terms of their investments? It's one thing to consider company value when the CEO is actually sick, as has been the case with the media and Steve Jobs of Apple, but to even speculate that the stock would respond to the news of a company's co-founder having a gene that may or may not result in a disease in 20-30 years time, is a bit over the top in my opinion. I say, leave genes out of it, at least until we know more about the real risks that they confer. If we have to consider the genetypes of CEOs with all that's going on in the Market at the moment, then our heads will all implode and we may well all end up being swallowed by the resulting black hole.

So cancer in complex

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080904/full/455148a.html
This was posted in Nature today and there was also a piece in the Wall Street Journal on the topic, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122058186705402585.html?mod=googlenews_wsj . I am curious why this is a surprise to anyone. That it is tells me that our penchant for scientific reductionism is more extreme than I imagined. We know very few diseases are caused by single gene aberrations so why should cancer be any different? Biology is always complex and full of errors, compensations and balancing acts. The big question for me with cancer is whether a given cell is destined to avoid the normal check and balances that keep its growth in check, or whether the environment can 'turn' a cell no matter how well protected it is with compensatory mechanisms. We know that both scenarios exist for cancer, but which one happens when is the question to address. It's a bit like the nature-nurture argument that continues to rage in psychology and sociology circles. Is there a predisposition to going crazy or, under the right circumstances, could it happen to anyone?

The value of science?

I was watching a Discovery Channel program this evening and listening to some guy pontificating about the need to bring science to the public, and even better, to school kids. I found myself nodding in agreement but at the same time felt a little unease. I was surprised at myself because I have always been an advocate for more science education for the general public. What did I find upsetting in what this guy was saying? I realized with a kind of small epiphany that my own interest in science is not in science per se, but rather in the human relationship with science. I think the two are different. I can completely get behind the notion of teaching anyone who will listen the value of applying scientific principles to everyday life, and in the process shedding some light on certain facets of the way things work. However, I'm not so sure about teaching science as an absolute methodology, or an absolute set of facts, that represent 'the way things are'. Science is useful or not depending on our relationship with it. Religion is the same way although Richard Dawkins would likely say religion is never useful. Science is one way to look at the world that has offered up incredible insights to the way our world works and the way we as humans interact with it. However, there is much that science cannot shine a light on. Yet. The science that is accepted as 'real' is that which is agreed upon by the majority, or by the key figures in a particular discipline. The science that is not accepted as real, ie quack science, is accepted by only a few and cannot as yet be properly explained by the scientific tools we have at our disposal. Rather than teach this as being bad science, it should be highlighted as an example of unrealistic expectations of science and an overzealous faith in the power of one particular way of looking at the world being unable to explain certain observations. I say, teach the public about science, but keep it in perspective. The answers science offers us are the best we can come up with at a given moment in time. We should develop expectations of science as a way to understand our place in the world in a temporary and context dependent fashion. To teach our kids to be open-minded and to think for themselves rather than jump from one dogmatic view to another, would be progress indeed.