I was watching Science Saturday, over at bloggingheads.tv, where Horgan & Johnson were talking about the origin of life and RNA (among other things). Also mentioned was Robert Shapiro's article in Scientific American. Shapiro is an advocate of the cell first theory, which I have to say that I don't really get. How would that work? How would this entity self-perpetuate and evolve.
Another item at Science Saturday was a link to this article in the Economist on how RNA research is where all the action is ... from the article:
It is probably no exaggeration to say that biology is now undergoing its "neutron moment". For more than half a century the fundamental story of living things has been a tale of the interplay between genes, in the form of DNA, and proteins, which the genes encode and which do the donkey work of keeping living organisms living. The past couple of years, however, have seen the rise and rise of a third type of molecule, called RNA.The analogy is not perfect. Unlike the neutron, RNA has been known about for a long time. Until the past couple of years, however, its role had seemed restricted to fetching and carrying for DNA and proteins. Now RNA looks every bit as important as those two masters. It may, indeed, be the main regulator of what goes on in a cell--the cell's operating system, to draw a computing analogy--as well as the author of many other activities (see article). As important, molecular biologists have gone from thinking that they know roughly what is going on in their subject to suddenly realising that they have barely a clue.
Yes RNA is hot, but just like the stock market should you jump ship when the shoe shine kid gives you a stock tip?
- Log in to post comments
Ni Hao!Warning well put.This fascination with RNA due to more sensitive analytical and stabilization technology is mostly junk, the RNA that is. Except for what makes protein.And the apparent biological effects random artifactual perturbation.What is being touted as a paradigm shift is better described as rediscovery of wheel.As Mr. Twain said: There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.MOTYR
I've just finished reading Robert Hazen's 'Genesis' which details a number of abiogenesis scenarios from a minerolagists point of view where he includes the RNA world hypothesis. Its an interesting read for us RNA-ists as it makes it clear how the RNA world, while a likely step along the way to our current situation, is probably not a beginning but can only come about after several other, probably mineral based (clay world, iron-sulphur world etc) steps. In other words while we may have evolved from primordial soup, the evolution of that soup itself should not be taken for granted.