Over the past year or so I’ve been engaging in a bit of science-writing masochism. I’ve been asking a few short questions and trying to get some answers from people who’ve spent years grappling with them. For example:
What is life? (in Seed)
What is a species? (in Scientific American)
What is intelligence? (also in Scientific American)
In tomorrow’s New York Times, I tackle my next question: What is a gene?
This article emerged out of a lot of conversations with my editor over the past few months. We marveled over the steady stream of intriguing studies on genetics that were being published–studies that were pushing us to expand our ideas about things we took for granted, like the very nature of genes. So I started talking to scientists who are looking closely at the human genome. Some are studying how the same stretch of DNA can spew out many different proteins. Some are looking at the previously underappreciated army of RNA molecules that create a shadow network in our cells. Some are studying heredity beyond DNA–the molecules that cling to DNA and control which parts get used to build proteins and RNA, and which are silenced (as wonderfully illustrated by the toadflax flowers shown here–identical genes, but different flowers). We talked about undead genes and carcasses of viruses that have been dead for millions of years. It’s a very long article for a newspaper, but trust me–I could have kept writing for a lot longer.
In fact, my piece is actually just the lead article to a package of stories exploring similar terrain, from Andrew Pollack on the search for RNA-based medicines to Natalie Angier on the philosophy of genes. Check them all out.
As I cryptically mentioned earlier, I’ll be talking about my article tomorrow morning on the Takeaway, a morning news show on NPR. Check here for schedule information; you can also to the site for the podcast.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:14 am
Few years ago, our professor asked us ‘What is a gene’? I did a lot of web surfing. One of the interesting and unique definitions I have come across which throws a entirely different light on the argument is the one given by Dawkins in ‘The Selfish Gene’:
” The gene is defined as a piece of chromosome which is sufficiently short for it to last, potentially, for long enough for it to function as a significant unit of natural selection.”
November 11th, 2008 at 11:43 am
[…] Blogs / The Loom « The New Genome […]
November 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
[…] I wrote in my story in the New York Times today, much of your DNA is shut down by molecules collectively […]
November 11th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
You lost me here Carl! Not as great as usual your paper
Maybe some things have to be straightened-up in a new one.
November 14th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
“A gene is a DNA sequence that is transcribed to produce a functional product.” [What Is a Gene?]
Glad I could help. Send the check to my home address.
November 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
See Carl? Even Denyse O’Leary found it interesting