Data in Biology
Ernest
Rutherford, the famous scientist, once declared:
“All science is either physics or stamp
collecting.”
James Watson,
(co)discoverer of the famous double helix structure of the DNA molecule, felt
that the knowledge of how information is stored in DNA as something that would
change the way biology was done. As Siddhartha Mukherjee wrote in his awesome
book, The Gene:
“Watson called the old biologists “stamp
collectors” – mocking their preoccupation with the collection and
classification of biological specimens.”
Take this
instance: a recent study declared that an animal that we considered as a single
species, the giraffe, was actually 4
separate species. How did they come to the conclusion? Based on the genetic
differences amongst them. Plus, the point that the 4 groups don’t breed with
each other. Further, as this article
says:
“That analysis confirmed it’s been one to
two million years since giraffe species diverged—showing how distinct the
animals are from one another.”
Huh? But why
wasn’t that obvious until now? Because they look the same to the human eye. To
us humans, polar and brown bears seems like obviously different species. And
yet, the genetic difference between those bears is less than that between the 4 species of giraffes! Don’t believe
everything you see!
This was an
outstanding example of the clumsiness of old biology and its ways of
classifying species, I thought. But not all biologists agree. Like Michelle
Trautwein who said:
“Speciation is a process and a spectrum.”
And so that
article points out:
“Just like taxonomists have debated over
which physical characteristics warrant a new species designation, they’re
conflicted over how much genetic variation you need to prove differentiation.”
And so the name
calling continues, says Mukherjee:
“It old biologists were “stamp
collectors”, then the new molecular biologists were “mutant hunters”.”
This classification
battle reminds me of these lines from the terrific book, Big Data:
“(Our) more precise systems… try to
impose a false sterility upon the hurly-burly of reality, pretending that
everything under the sun fits into neat rows and columns. There are more things
in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in that philosophy.”
And so the
article’s conclusion may be perfectly correct:
“DNA analysis is a tool—not an
oracle.”
Sure DNA analysis is a tool - not an oracle. The earlier classifications too were tools - not oracles. With advances in sciences and technologies, new ways do emerge. Looking down upon older ways is due to ego, the happiness of one feeling superior to someone else for any reason (or the absence of it too)! We can be more gracious to the earlier scientists in every domain, like we generally don't look down upon Galileo.
ReplyDeleteAnd, while I respect Rutherford for his physics, his statement, "All other sciences are stamp collecting" (while being catchy) is silly arrogance. Fortunately he meant it as humor and humor it is, I admit. Nevertheless, we know knowledge breeds arrogance in human beings. It requires the raising of the Buddha nature in us to overcome our puffed up ego. Ego is not just a worthless mind-stuff but is often an irritant to the person dealing with the egotist. This I know for sure because I did find egoists commonly known within the group were disliked by most of my friends.