////////////////MADRID VS BARCELONA
//////////////////WIKI=Elliteration enforces each expression emenating "e". Ensuring every essayist's edits errorless effectiveness. Encyclopedia evidence establishes e's elevation exceeding extra elements. Engineering enigmatic expositions entails extravagant effort. Elliteration entices etymological echoes. Etruscans emerged early exercising elliteration. Enlightened enchiridions estimate ending elliterative exhibitions.
//////////////////////I first learned the concepts of non-violence in my marriage. -- Gandhi
///////////////////Evolutionarily Preserved Signature Found In The Primate Brain (June 24, 2008) -- Researchers have determined that there are hundreds of biological differences between the sexes when it comes to gene expression in the cerebral cortex of humans and other primates. These findings indicate that some of these differences arose a very long time ago and have been preserved through evolution. These conserved differences constitute a signature of sex differences in the brain. ... > full story
///////////////////sd=Infant Play Drives Chimpanzee Respiratory Disease Cycles (June 23, 2008) -- The signature boom-bust cycling of childhood respiratory diseases was long attributed to environmental cycling. However, the effect of school holidays on rates of social contact amongst children is increasingly seen as another major driver. New research on chimpanzees suggests that this effect of social connectivity on disease cycling may long predate attendance of children at schools, with chimpanzee infant mortality rates cycling in phase with rates of social play amongst infants. ... > full story
/////////////////Identification Of A Tumor Suppressor Gene Associated With Patient Outcome In Neuroblastoma (June 27, 2008) -- Expression of the CHD5 gene is frequently down-regulated in neuroblastomas, and patients whose tumors lacked CHD5 expression were more likely to have shorter event-free and overall survival compared with patients whose tumors expressed CHD5, according to a study in the June 24 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. ... > full story
//////////////////It's Email, But At A Snail's Pace (June 26, 2008) -- Bournemouth University researchers are using live snails to send emails as part of a 'slow art' project aimed at encouraging people to explore notions of time. ... > full story
///////////////////////////FIFA remembers Argentina 1978 as ‘a great World Cup’
Posted: 26 Jun 2008 10:23 PM CDT
By Sebastian Fest Madrid, June 27 (DPA) It has been 30 years, but FIFA stands by its interpretation of the 1978 World Cup in Argentina: It was “a great World Cup”. And any country on the planet, even a bloody dictatorship, has the right to host a World Cup. “It seems that the way fans and the [...]
Posted: 26 Jun 2008 10:23 PM CDT
By Sebastian Fest Madrid, June 27 (DPA) It has been 30 years, but FIFA stands by its interpretation of the 1978 World Cup in Argentina: It was “a great World Cup”. And any country on the planet, even a bloody dictatorship, has the right to host a World Cup. “It seems that the way fans and the [...]
MARIO KEMPES-ANANDAMELA-NANDY SIR
////////////////////Daman and Diu has worst sex ratio in India
Posted: 26 Jun 2008 12:34 PM CDT
New Delhi, June 26 (IANS) The union territory of Daman and Diu has the lowest sex ratio in the country - 710 women for every 1,000 men, an association of gynecologists said Thursday. The Associations of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Delhi (AOGD) found that Kerala has the best ratio (1,058 women for 1,000 men). The association [...]
Posted: 26 Jun 2008 12:34 PM CDT
New Delhi, June 26 (IANS) The union territory of Daman and Diu has the lowest sex ratio in the country - 710 women for every 1,000 men, an association of gynecologists said Thursday. The Associations of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Delhi (AOGD) found that Kerala has the best ratio (1,058 women for 1,000 men). The association [...]
/////////////////SW=BUDDHA=
“He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me”
for those who brood on this, hostility isn’t stilled.
“He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me”
for those who don’t brood on this, hostility is stilled.
Hostilities aren’t stilled through hostility, regardless.
Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth.
“He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me”
for those who brood on this, hostility isn’t stilled.
“He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me”
for those who don’t brood on this, hostility is stilled.
Hostilities aren’t stilled through hostility, regardless.
Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth.
//////////////////Grief Linked To Brain Pleasure Centersby Kate Melville
Everyone experiences grief at some point in their lives, but for a substantial number of people it's impossible to ever move on, and even years later, any reminder of their loss brings on a fresh wave of grief and yearning. Now, scientists at the University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) have been using brain-imaging techniques to try and understand why some people grieve and ultimately adapt, while others can't get over the loss. Their findings, reported in the journal NeuroImage, suggest that long-term (complicated) grief activates neurons in the reward centers of the brain, possibly giving these memories addiction-like properties.
The new study is the first to compare complicated and noncomplicated grief, and the findings may help psychologists do a better job of treating those with complicated grief, according to UCLA's Mary-Frances O'Connor, lead author of the study. "The idea is that when our loved ones are alive, we get a rewarding cue from seeing them or things that remind us of them," O'Connor explained. "After the loved one dies, those who adapt to the loss stop getting this neural reward. But those who don't adapt continue to crave it, because each time they do see a cue, they still get that neural reward. Of course, all of this is outside of conscious thought, so there isn't an intention about it."
The study analyzed whether those with complicated grief had greater activity occurring in either the brain's reward network or pain network than those with noncomplicated grief. The 23 women in the study had all lost a mother or a sister to breast cancer and 11 had complicated grief, while 12 had the more normal, noncomplicated grief. Each of the participants brought a photograph of their deceased loved one and were shown this picture while undergoing fMRI brain scanning.
Specifically, the researchers looked for activity in the nucleus accumbens, a region of the brain usually associated with reward (and interestingly, one that has also been shown to play a role in social attachment, such as sibling and maternal affiliation). They also examined activity in the pain network of the brain, including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the insula, which has been implicated in both physical and social pain. They found that while both groups had activation in the pain network of the brain after viewing a picture of their loved one, only individuals with complicated grief showed significant nucleus accumbens activations.
O'Connor notes that such activations are not emotionally satisfying for the griever, but rather that they may serve in some people as a type of craving for the reward response that may make adapting to the reality of the loss more difficult.
Everyone experiences grief at some point in their lives, but for a substantial number of people it's impossible to ever move on, and even years later, any reminder of their loss brings on a fresh wave of grief and yearning. Now, scientists at the University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) have been using brain-imaging techniques to try and understand why some people grieve and ultimately adapt, while others can't get over the loss. Their findings, reported in the journal NeuroImage, suggest that long-term (complicated) grief activates neurons in the reward centers of the brain, possibly giving these memories addiction-like properties.
The new study is the first to compare complicated and noncomplicated grief, and the findings may help psychologists do a better job of treating those with complicated grief, according to UCLA's Mary-Frances O'Connor, lead author of the study. "The idea is that when our loved ones are alive, we get a rewarding cue from seeing them or things that remind us of them," O'Connor explained. "After the loved one dies, those who adapt to the loss stop getting this neural reward. But those who don't adapt continue to crave it, because each time they do see a cue, they still get that neural reward. Of course, all of this is outside of conscious thought, so there isn't an intention about it."
The study analyzed whether those with complicated grief had greater activity occurring in either the brain's reward network or pain network than those with noncomplicated grief. The 23 women in the study had all lost a mother or a sister to breast cancer and 11 had complicated grief, while 12 had the more normal, noncomplicated grief. Each of the participants brought a photograph of their deceased loved one and were shown this picture while undergoing fMRI brain scanning.
Specifically, the researchers looked for activity in the nucleus accumbens, a region of the brain usually associated with reward (and interestingly, one that has also been shown to play a role in social attachment, such as sibling and maternal affiliation). They also examined activity in the pain network of the brain, including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the insula, which has been implicated in both physical and social pain. They found that while both groups had activation in the pain network of the brain after viewing a picture of their loved one, only individuals with complicated grief showed significant nucleus accumbens activations.
O'Connor notes that such activations are not emotionally satisfying for the griever, but rather that they may serve in some people as a type of craving for the reward response that may make adapting to the reality of the loss more difficult.
////////////////////A Spicy Meal Before Bed Can Disrupt Sleep: An old wives' tale has it that a little kick to the palate before bed can lead to fitful sleep, if not nightmares. It's the sort of wisdom that often turns out to be based on no evidence at all - or, worse, flat wrong. But in this case, as NYTimes.com/Health reports, it is good advice.
///////////////qp=Leaving Academia: Cry or Celebrate?
Posted: 25 Jun 2008 12:25 PM CDT
No, no, I'm not leaving academia (yet :) Pfffffft! That's the sound of me thumbing my nose at the world.) But recently I was thinking about about people who get a Ph.D. in, say, physics, or are a new postdoc, and then are faced with what to do next. As Peter Rhode, writes in a post today (or whatever day it is in the upside down part of the world) entitled "Farewell physics":
The academic system has some serious problems. Most notably in my opinion, there is very limited scope for promotion. For every permanent position there are countless postdocs competing for that position. It simply isn't possible for all of us post-docs to progress right up through the ladder. Many of us will be stuck as postdocs for the indefinite future. Realistically, I could expect to spend the next 5 or even 10 years as a post-doc before a permanent position would come along, and even then I would have very little control over where I would end up. I've seen many outstanding colleagues in exactly this position....
There is a huge salary discrepancy between academia and the private sector. With the same qualifications one can earn twice as much in the private sector than as a post-doc.Peter, like others before him, has decided that the academic rat race is not the path he wants to take, and is therefore heading out for greener pastures. Of course my first reaction, I'll admit, is one of sadness: I've read some papers by Dr. (err DJ) Rhode, and enjoyed them. By contributing to quantum information science, he's become part of a community I consider myself a (annoying, loud, insert random invective here) member of. But, in thinking about this, I realized, that I've got it all wrong. Read the rest of this post... Read the comments on this post...
Posted: 25 Jun 2008 12:25 PM CDT
No, no, I'm not leaving academia (yet :) Pfffffft! That's the sound of me thumbing my nose at the world.) But recently I was thinking about about people who get a Ph.D. in, say, physics, or are a new postdoc, and then are faced with what to do next. As Peter Rhode, writes in a post today (or whatever day it is in the upside down part of the world) entitled "Farewell physics":
The academic system has some serious problems. Most notably in my opinion, there is very limited scope for promotion. For every permanent position there are countless postdocs competing for that position. It simply isn't possible for all of us post-docs to progress right up through the ladder. Many of us will be stuck as postdocs for the indefinite future. Realistically, I could expect to spend the next 5 or even 10 years as a post-doc before a permanent position would come along, and even then I would have very little control over where I would end up. I've seen many outstanding colleagues in exactly this position....
There is a huge salary discrepancy between academia and the private sector. With the same qualifications one can earn twice as much in the private sector than as a post-doc.Peter, like others before him, has decided that the academic rat race is not the path he wants to take, and is therefore heading out for greener pastures. Of course my first reaction, I'll admit, is one of sadness: I've read some papers by Dr. (err DJ) Rhode, and enjoyed them. By contributing to quantum information science, he's become part of a community I consider myself a (annoying, loud, insert random invective here) member of. But, in thinking about this, I realized, that I've got it all wrong. Read the rest of this post... Read the comments on this post...
//////////////Online Service Lets Blind Surf The Internet From Any Computer, Anywhere (June 27, 2008) -- New software lets blind and visually impaired people surf the Internet on the go. The computer science student who created the software, called WebAnywhere, says more accessibility tools must move from desktop machines to the Web. ... > full story
////////////////////// Can Weeds Help Solve the Climate Crisis? By TOM CHRISTOPHERWeedy ancestors of our food crops, some scientists predict, will cope far better with coming climatic changes than their domesticated descendants.
//////////////////Binge Drinking Due To 'Copying' Behavior (June 28, 2008) -- The rise in binge drinking in the young is a "fashion phenomenon" where drinkers are copying their associates' behavior, new research carried out in the UK has shown. Researchers say the findings have major implications for Government policy makers charged with tackling the problem, which has longer-term and costly health implications. ... > full story
///////////////////GLUTEN=WHEAT MEAT
//////////////////////natr=Planetary science: The burger bar that saved the world p1164Fewer people are searching for near-Earth asteroids, astronomer David Morrison said in the 1990s, than work a shift in a small McDonalds. But that group — a little larger now — has over the past two decades discovered a host of happily harmless rocks, and in doing so reduced the risk of an unknown asteroid blighting civilization (see page 1178). David Chandler puts together the story in the words of those who watched, and those who watched the watchers.doi:10.1038/4531164a
//////////////////Making genetic history
Jerry A. Coyne1
BOOK REVIEWED-In Pursuit of the Gene: From Darwin to DNA
by James Schwartz
Harvard University Press: 2008. 384 pp. $29.95, £19.95, 22.50
BETTMANN/CORBIS
Fruitful collaborations were formed in Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly genetics lab.
When I was a student, 'doing genetics' meant crossing two different strains or species. Now it means sequencing DNA, preferably human. Between these two poles lies the history of genetics, a pathway fraught with sharp turns, steep gradients and dead ends — and engagingly recounted in James Schwartz's new book.
Despite its subtitle, In Pursuit of the Gene is not a comprehensive history of genetics, but focuses solely on classical genetics. Schwartz, a science writer, begins with Charles Darwin's ill-fated 'pangenesis' theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and runs through the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work on inherited traits. The story continues with the consolidation of Mendelism and chromosomal inheritance by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his students in the 'Fly Room' lab at New York's Columbia University, where modern genetics began, and concludes in 1946 with Hermann Joseph Muller's Nobel Prize in Medicine for inducing mutations with X-rays. Later history, from the discovery by Oswald Avery and colleagues that DNA was the 'transforming principle', to the Human Genome Project, is squeezed into a 12-page epilogue. Those seeking a history of molecular genetics should read Horace Freeland Judson's magisterial The Eighth Day of Creation (Simon & Schuster, 1979).
Many histories of genetics cover the same ground. What distinguishes Schwartz's account is his impeccable scholarship, based on many primary sources, and his ability to keep the narrative moving, interweaving discoveries with the strong and eccentric personalities who made them. He does not slight the science, describing experiments in detail so dense that the reader is advised to keep a pencil and paper handy. The effort required to understand the book may, sadly, remove it from the ambit of popular science.
The book's apogee is its tale of the "Mendel Wars" around the beginning of the twentieth century, the struggle to bring together Mendel's ideas on heredity and Darwin's theory of evolution. On one side were the Mendelians, including Francis Galton, William Bateson and Charles Hurst, who accepted Mendelism but considered natural selection as ineffective, seeing evolution as occurring by 'macromutations', or single genetic changes of very large effect. On the other side stood the biometricians, most notably Karl Pearson and Raphael Weldon, who accepted the ubiquity of Darwinian selection but rejected Mendelian genetics. Given the strong egos involved and the fundamental nature of the science at stake, the battles Schwartz recounts were fierce. Friendships were destroyed, careers threatened. After a particularly contentious meeting about the genetics of horse coat colour at the Royal Society in London, Pearson hissed at Hurst, "You shall never be Fellow here as long as I live".
Other high spots in the book include the early and now largely forgotten work on cytological genetics by Walter Sutton and Edmund B. Wilson, involving years of eye-strain from squinting at confusing chromosomal preparations of sea urchins, aphids and grasshoppers. These studies established that different chromosomes carry different hereditary factors, yet occur in pairs that become separated during the formation of gametes in meiosis, giving essential physical support for Mendel's laws.
The book's longest section details the immense contributions of research on the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster to our understanding of heredity. Schwartz explains how, from 1912 to around 1930, Morgan and his 'boys', Alfred Sturtevant and Calvin Bridges, along with Muller, were "responsible for the integration of Mendelism and the chromosome theory that is the basis of genetics". Within a few years, this conjunction of remarkable intellects in a tiny laboratory led to methods for mapping chromosomes both genetically and cytologically, and to the discovery of sex linkage, chromosome inversions, nondisjunction and many other phenomena that now form the dogma of transmission genetics.
Alas, here we find a major flaw. Schwartz notes that he was inspired to write his history by reading Elof Carlson's worshipful biography of Muller, Genes, Radiation, and Society (Cornell University Press, 1981). But this only generates further hagiography: the discussion of Muller's work occupies a quarter of In Pursuit of the Gene, a disproportionate chunk. Schwartz gives the impression that Muller, or ideas purloined from him by others, was behind nearly every advance in fly genetics. Sturtevant's contributions are given short shrift, Morgan is portrayed as a conniver who acquired his Nobel status on the backs of his students, and Bridges — perhaps the finest pair of eyes ever to peer at a magnified fly — is dismissed as being "famous for stealing other men's wives as well as their ideas". Schwartz does not mention the work of Lewis Stadler, who independently discovered X-ray induction of mutations in barley at the same time as Muller's work on Drosophila. Like many plant geneticists, Stadler was marginalized as a glorified crop breeder.
It is easy to sympathize with Muller, who had a tumultuous life and was the perennial underdog: Jewish, short, bald and with a high voice. Fractious, and possessed of unpopular socialist views, he floated from university to university, winding up in the Soviet Union until he fled to escape Trofim Lysenko's destruction of Russian genetics. Yet during all these peregrinations he maintained an uninterrupted programme of research. It is a scandal that Muller did not secure a tenured academic job until he was 55 — he won the Nobel prize a year later.
Muller was one of the best geneticists of the twentieth century, a visionary who predicted the rise of molecular genetics and the use of association mapping to identify genes for human behaviours. He was also difficult to work with, obsessed with credit and depressive to the point of once attempting suicide. Schwartz repeatedly states that Sturtevant, Bridges and Morgan tried to ruin Muller's reputation by stealing his ideas and slandering him, but the evidence is unconvincing. Working together in the Fly Room, talking science as they worked on flies in what was a continuous lab meeting, it is not surprising that they shared ideas and information. After all, it was Sturtevant who gave Muller the idea of using lethal alleles to measure mutation rates.
The other 'boys' were not slouches. Bridges discovered nondisjunction, thereby proving the chromosomal theory of heredity, and published it as the first paper in the first issue of the journal Genetics. He constructed the first map of genes on autosomes, did fundamental work on sex determination and produced maps of Drosophila salivary-gland chromosomes that have never been bettered. Sturtevant was the first to establish, while still an undergraduate, that genes are arrayed linearly on chromosomes. He devised the chromosomal fate mapping later used so effectively by the geneticist Seymour Benzer, founded Drosophila taxonomy and, by studying the action of eye-colour mutations in the fly, became the father of biochemical genetics. But neither Sturtevant nor Bridges was obsessed with priority: Sturtevant was the most modest of men, whereas Bridges, a great womanizer, had more pressing interests.
In Pursuit of the Gene should be required reading for all biologists unfamiliar with the history of genetics. Schwartz shows how quickly science can advance when a group of first-class minds encounters a fertile but unploughed field. Progress in genetics, as in all modern science, was truly a collaborative affair. There was no Darwin of genetics — not even Muller. There was, and is, plenty of credit to go around.
Jerry A. Coyne1
BOOK REVIEWED-In Pursuit of the Gene: From Darwin to DNA
by James Schwartz
Harvard University Press: 2008. 384 pp. $29.95, £19.95, 22.50
BETTMANN/CORBIS
Fruitful collaborations were formed in Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly genetics lab.
When I was a student, 'doing genetics' meant crossing two different strains or species. Now it means sequencing DNA, preferably human. Between these two poles lies the history of genetics, a pathway fraught with sharp turns, steep gradients and dead ends — and engagingly recounted in James Schwartz's new book.
Despite its subtitle, In Pursuit of the Gene is not a comprehensive history of genetics, but focuses solely on classical genetics. Schwartz, a science writer, begins with Charles Darwin's ill-fated 'pangenesis' theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and runs through the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work on inherited traits. The story continues with the consolidation of Mendelism and chromosomal inheritance by Thomas Hunt Morgan and his students in the 'Fly Room' lab at New York's Columbia University, where modern genetics began, and concludes in 1946 with Hermann Joseph Muller's Nobel Prize in Medicine for inducing mutations with X-rays. Later history, from the discovery by Oswald Avery and colleagues that DNA was the 'transforming principle', to the Human Genome Project, is squeezed into a 12-page epilogue. Those seeking a history of molecular genetics should read Horace Freeland Judson's magisterial The Eighth Day of Creation (Simon & Schuster, 1979).
Many histories of genetics cover the same ground. What distinguishes Schwartz's account is his impeccable scholarship, based on many primary sources, and his ability to keep the narrative moving, interweaving discoveries with the strong and eccentric personalities who made them. He does not slight the science, describing experiments in detail so dense that the reader is advised to keep a pencil and paper handy. The effort required to understand the book may, sadly, remove it from the ambit of popular science.
The book's apogee is its tale of the "Mendel Wars" around the beginning of the twentieth century, the struggle to bring together Mendel's ideas on heredity and Darwin's theory of evolution. On one side were the Mendelians, including Francis Galton, William Bateson and Charles Hurst, who accepted Mendelism but considered natural selection as ineffective, seeing evolution as occurring by 'macromutations', or single genetic changes of very large effect. On the other side stood the biometricians, most notably Karl Pearson and Raphael Weldon, who accepted the ubiquity of Darwinian selection but rejected Mendelian genetics. Given the strong egos involved and the fundamental nature of the science at stake, the battles Schwartz recounts were fierce. Friendships were destroyed, careers threatened. After a particularly contentious meeting about the genetics of horse coat colour at the Royal Society in London, Pearson hissed at Hurst, "You shall never be Fellow here as long as I live".
Other high spots in the book include the early and now largely forgotten work on cytological genetics by Walter Sutton and Edmund B. Wilson, involving years of eye-strain from squinting at confusing chromosomal preparations of sea urchins, aphids and grasshoppers. These studies established that different chromosomes carry different hereditary factors, yet occur in pairs that become separated during the formation of gametes in meiosis, giving essential physical support for Mendel's laws.
The book's longest section details the immense contributions of research on the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster to our understanding of heredity. Schwartz explains how, from 1912 to around 1930, Morgan and his 'boys', Alfred Sturtevant and Calvin Bridges, along with Muller, were "responsible for the integration of Mendelism and the chromosome theory that is the basis of genetics". Within a few years, this conjunction of remarkable intellects in a tiny laboratory led to methods for mapping chromosomes both genetically and cytologically, and to the discovery of sex linkage, chromosome inversions, nondisjunction and many other phenomena that now form the dogma of transmission genetics.
Alas, here we find a major flaw. Schwartz notes that he was inspired to write his history by reading Elof Carlson's worshipful biography of Muller, Genes, Radiation, and Society (Cornell University Press, 1981). But this only generates further hagiography: the discussion of Muller's work occupies a quarter of In Pursuit of the Gene, a disproportionate chunk. Schwartz gives the impression that Muller, or ideas purloined from him by others, was behind nearly every advance in fly genetics. Sturtevant's contributions are given short shrift, Morgan is portrayed as a conniver who acquired his Nobel status on the backs of his students, and Bridges — perhaps the finest pair of eyes ever to peer at a magnified fly — is dismissed as being "famous for stealing other men's wives as well as their ideas". Schwartz does not mention the work of Lewis Stadler, who independently discovered X-ray induction of mutations in barley at the same time as Muller's work on Drosophila. Like many plant geneticists, Stadler was marginalized as a glorified crop breeder.
It is easy to sympathize with Muller, who had a tumultuous life and was the perennial underdog: Jewish, short, bald and with a high voice. Fractious, and possessed of unpopular socialist views, he floated from university to university, winding up in the Soviet Union until he fled to escape Trofim Lysenko's destruction of Russian genetics. Yet during all these peregrinations he maintained an uninterrupted programme of research. It is a scandal that Muller did not secure a tenured academic job until he was 55 — he won the Nobel prize a year later.
Muller was one of the best geneticists of the twentieth century, a visionary who predicted the rise of molecular genetics and the use of association mapping to identify genes for human behaviours. He was also difficult to work with, obsessed with credit and depressive to the point of once attempting suicide. Schwartz repeatedly states that Sturtevant, Bridges and Morgan tried to ruin Muller's reputation by stealing his ideas and slandering him, but the evidence is unconvincing. Working together in the Fly Room, talking science as they worked on flies in what was a continuous lab meeting, it is not surprising that they shared ideas and information. After all, it was Sturtevant who gave Muller the idea of using lethal alleles to measure mutation rates.
The other 'boys' were not slouches. Bridges discovered nondisjunction, thereby proving the chromosomal theory of heredity, and published it as the first paper in the first issue of the journal Genetics. He constructed the first map of genes on autosomes, did fundamental work on sex determination and produced maps of Drosophila salivary-gland chromosomes that have never been bettered. Sturtevant was the first to establish, while still an undergraduate, that genes are arrayed linearly on chromosomes. He devised the chromosomal fate mapping later used so effectively by the geneticist Seymour Benzer, founded Drosophila taxonomy and, by studying the action of eye-colour mutations in the fly, became the father of biochemical genetics. But neither Sturtevant nor Bridges was obsessed with priority: Sturtevant was the most modest of men, whereas Bridges, a great womanizer, had more pressing interests.
In Pursuit of the Gene should be required reading for all biologists unfamiliar with the history of genetics. Schwartz shows how quickly science can advance when a group of first-class minds encounters a fertile but unploughed field. Progress in genetics, as in all modern science, was truly a collaborative affair. There was no Darwin of genetics — not even Muller. There was, and is, plenty of credit to go around.
/////////////////////////
No comments:
Post a Comment