DOCSLIB.ORG

The Great Ideas of Biology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Great Ideas of Biology n COLLEGELECTURES Thegreatideasofbiology SirPaulNurse ABSTRACT–Fourofthegreatideasofbiologyare matter.Biology’satomisthecell,whichisnotonly discussed:thecellasthebasicstructuralandfunc- thebasicstructuralunitofalllivingorganismsbutis tionalunitoflife,thegeneasthemechanismof alsothebasicfunctionalunitoflife.Thecelltheory heredity,evolutionbynaturalselection,andlifeas canbesummarisedasfollows:alllifeiscomposed chemistry.Afifthideaisexploredwherebybio- ofcells,andthecellisthesimplestunitexhibiting logicalorganisationisexplainedintermsoflogical thecharacteristicsoflife.Giventheimportanceof andinformationalprocessesandstructures. thisideaforunderstandingbiology,itisperhapssur- prisingthatithasnotcaughtthepublicimagination TheHarveian KEYWORDS:biochemistry,cell,evolution, morethanithas.Thismightbebecausetheideawas Orationisgiven fermentation,gene,history,hybridisation, annuallyatthe alongtimeindevelopment,takingnearly200years RoyalCollegeof information,organisation tobecomeproperlyformulated,andalsobecause Physiciansof thetheoryultimatelyrequiredtheeffortsofmany Londonunderan WilliamHarveywasnotonlyaneminentphysician, scientistsratherthanafewdominatingpersonalities, indentureof butalsoadistinguishedbiologist.Hewasoneofthe somaylackhumaninterest.Thehistoryofthisidea WilliamHarveyin firstexperimentalscientists,workingsomeyears isexcellentlyreviewedinHarris.1 1656.Thisarticle beforeGalileowhoisthescientistusuallycredited Thestoryofthecellbeginsin1665withRobert isbasedonthe withthisdistinction.SowithHarvey’sexampleas Hooke(1635–1703),experimentalisttothenewly 2003Oration encouragement,IhavedecidedtousethisOrationto formedRoyalSociety.Asisoftenthecaseinscience, givenon16 discussthehistoryandsignificanceoffourofthe itwastechnologythatbegatdiscovery,andforthe October2003by greatideasofbiology,finishingwithdiscussionofa discoveryofcellsitwastheinventionofthemicro- SirPaulNurse fifthideawhichhasyettobeproperlydeveloped. FRSHonFRCP,Nobel scopebasedonimprovementsinlensesduringthe Laureate;Headof Generallybiologyisratherbereftofgreatideasand seventeenthcentury.Hooketurnedhismicroscope theCellCycle grandtheories.Biologistsprefertodealinparticulars onathinsliceofcorkandobservedwalledcavities, Laboratory,Cancer anddetails;theylikecataloguesanddescriptions, illustrationsofwhichcanbefoundinhisbook, ResearchUK suchaslistsofspeciesinparticularhabitats,the Micrographia (Fig 1).Thesehetermedcellsafterthe numberofhairsonabeetleleg,ordeterminingthe Latincella,meaningsmallroomorcubicle.Withina ClinMedJRCPL sequencesofgenes.Buttherearesomegreatideas, fewyears,NehemiahGrew(1641–1711)andMarcello 2003;3:560–8 andthefourIhavechosenarecoretobiologyandare Malpighi(1628–1694)hadcomprehensivelydes- alsoofrelevancetomedicine,soIhopetheywillbe cribedandbeautifullyillustratedplantcells,andtheir ofinteresttomembersoftheCollege. observationshadledtotheviewthatplantsarecom- posedofaggregatesofcells(Fig2).Towardstheend Thecell ofthatcenturyMalpighi,AntonvanLeeuwenhoek andJanSwammerdamhadalsodescribedcellsin Scientistsarealwaysinterestedinidentifyingfunda- animals,observingcorpusclesinblood.Butthediffi- mentalunitsofstructure,thearchetypalexample cultiesinfixingandmicroscopicallyobservingsolid beingthediscoveryoftheatomasthebasicunitof animaltissuesmeantthatitwasoveracenturybefore itwasfullyrecognisedthatanimalswerealsoaggre- gatesofcells.Animalcellsalsopresentedamore KeyPoints fibrousappearanceandlackedthewell-defined geometryofplantcellswhichmeantthatinterpreta- Thecellisthebasicstructuralandfunctionalunitoflife tionofthemicroscopicimageswasmoredifficult. Leeuwenhoek(1632–1723)wasalsothefirsttodes- Thegeneisthebasisofheredity cribesingle-celledorganismsor‘animalcules’which Evolutionbynaturalselectionisacharacteristicoflife hefoundgrowingintheextractsofplants.Leeuwen- hoekisanappealingcharacter,notagentleman Lifeisbasedonchemistry scientistlikemostFellowsoftheRoyalSocietyatthat time,butaDelftspectacle-makerwithinsatiable Biologicalorganisationisbasedonlogicalandinformationalprocesses andstructures curiosity.Ashewasthefriendandtrusteeofthe painterJohannesVermeer,Iliketoimaginethatthe 560 ClinicalMedicine Vol3 No6November/December2003 Thegreatideasofbiology VermeerportraitsofapparentlythesamemaninThe geographer pioneerpathologist,RudolfVirchow(1821–1902),wroteinhis andThe astronomer,bothtobefoundintheLouvre,mightbe 1858book,Cellularpathologie,‘thateveryanimalappearsasa baseduponthespectacle-makerscientist. sumofvitalunits,eachofwhichbearsinitselfthecomplete Duringtheeighteenthcenturyandintothebeginningofthe characteristicsoflife’.Thisdiscoverywasamajorlandmarkin nineteenthcentury,fixationandmicroscopictechniques thehistoryofbiology. improved,allowingtheidentificationofmorecellsinanimaltis- SchleidenandSchwanndidnotunderstandhowcellswere sues.Therewasalsoanincreasinginterestinfundamentalunits formed.Theythoughtcellsarosebyaprocessrelatedtoprecip- ofstructure,particularlyofmatter.Theideathatmattercon- itationofcrystallisationwhichoccurredinpartofapre-existing sistedofindivisibleunitsoratomshaditsoriginsinAncient cell.Infact,alreadyinthepreviouscenturyAbrahamTrembley Greece,butexperimentalsupportfortheideaemergedfrom haddescribedtheprotozoanSynhedrareproducing,andhis researchworkersinchemistryonlytowardstheendoftheeigh- illustrationsclearlydemonstratethebinaryfissionofcells. teenthcentury.Giventhisincreasinginterestinfundamental Others,likeBarthelemyDumortierworkingwithplantscells unitsofmatter,itwasnaturalforbiologiststobeginthinking andRobertRemakwithanimalcells,clearlyrecognisedthatcells aboutthefundamentalunitsoflife.Animportantspeculation arosebybinaryfissionofpre-existingcells.Thisviewwas wasmadebyLorenzOkenin1805whoarguedthatplantsand furtherchampionedbyVirchowwhopopularisedthephrase animalsareassemblagesoftheanimalculesor‘infusoria’suchas ‘Omniscellulaecellula’,thatis,allcellscomefromcells. protozoathatgrewinanimalandplantextracts,2 andthisspec- Oncecelldivisionwasunderstood,itcouldbeseentobethe ulationsetthestageforthecelltheorytobeformulated. basisofthegrowthanddevelopmentofalllivingorganisms. Afterthislonggestationthecelltheorywasbornduringthe RudolfKollikerinthe1860sobservedthatcleavageofearly firsthalfofthenineteenthcentury.Itwaspopularisedbytwo embryoswastheconsequenceofcelldivision.4 Itbecameclear Germans,thebotanistMatthiasSchleidenandthezoologist thatembryogenesiswasbasedonrepeatedroundsofcelldivision TheodoreSchwann,whoin1839wrote‘wehaveseenthatall followedbythedifferentiationofcellsintomorespecialised organismsarecomposedofessentiallylikeparts,namelyofcells’. tissuesandorgans(Fig3).Bythe1880sitwasacceptedthatall Overthenexttwodecadesthisideawasfurtherdeveloped,with livingorganisms,regardlessoftheircomplexity,emergedfroma cellsbeingrecognisednotonlyasthebasicstructuralunit singlecell(Fig4).Weshouldallrespectcellsalittlemorewhen butalsoasthebasicfunctionalunitofalllivingorganisms.3 The werecognisethateveryoneofuswasonceasinglecell! Figl. RobertHooke’smicroscopeandanillustrationofcork Fig2.NehemiahGrew’ssectionofavinestemillustrating cellsfromhisbook,Micrographia.ReproducedfromRef 1. plantcells. ReproducedfromRef1. ClinicalMedicine Vol3 No6November/December2003 561 SirPaulNurse Thegene otheroftheoriginatingparents.Anotherimportantprecursor ofMendelwasCarlFriedrichvonGaertner(1786–1833)who Auniversalcharacteristicofalllivingorganismsistheirability workedwithbothpeasandmaizeduringthefirstpartofthe toreproduce,generatingoffspringwhichresembletheirparents. nineteenthcentury.Hereportedthedominanceofcertainchar- Thesimilaritiesbetweenparentsandoffspringwererecognised actersintheF1hybridsandtheirsubsequentreappearanceor inclassicaltimesandthisledtospeculationsfromthetimeof segregationintheF2hybrids.Bothoftheseobservationswere theGreeksonwardsaboutissueslikehowmuchwascontributed importantforMendel’ssubsequentwork. fromeachsexualpartnerduringreproduction,didthedifferent TheseobservationssetthestageforMendel’sfamouspea sexualpartnersdeterminedifferentpartsoftheoffspring,and hybridisationexperimentswhichhestartedinBrnoin1856. howmuchdidcharacteristicsliketheheatofthewomborthe Probablybecauseofhistrainingasaphysicalscientistandhis qualityofthetestesinfluencetheoutcome.Ittookthediscovery meteorologicalstudies,heemployedaquantitativeapproach, andcharacterisationofgenestoprovidethefoundationfor countingthedifferentphenotypesproducedintheF1andF2 understandingheredity,andthisisthesecondgreatideaof hybrids.Thisrevealedthefamoussimpleratioswhichled biologythatIwanttodiscuss. Mendeltoproposeanelegantparticulatetheoryforheredity, Asiswellknown,itwasGregorMendel(1822–1884),Abbot withphenotypicattributesdeterminedbytheactionofpairsof ofBrnoMonasterynowintheCzechRepublic,whofirstpostu- factorspassedonasunchangingdiscreteentitiesorparticles, latedtheexistenceofgenes.Itwashiscarefulcrosseswithplants onefromeachparenttothehybridoffspring.Hisexperiments andincisiveanalysisoftheoutcomescarriedoutinthe wereverycarefulandtheresultsimpressive;infact,toomuchso Monasterygardenduringthe1860sthatledhimtobecomethe forthestatisticalgeneticistRonaldFisherwhothoughtthey fatherofgenetics.Itisperhapslesswellknownthatother weretoogoodtobetrue.OfcourseMendel’sgardenerwas researchershadalsoexperimentedwithplanthybridisation blamed,toleavethegreatman’sreputationintact!Mendel’s beforehim,andhadmadeimportantdiscoveriesrelevantto analysisandsubsequentabstractreasoningwerebrilliantand 5 Mendel’ssubsequenttheories. Inparticular,theGermanJoseph awesome.However,hisworkremainedunrecognisedforover30 Kolreuter(1733–1806),workinginthemid-eighteenthcentury, years,untilthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturywhenitwas
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RANDY SCHEKMAN Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA
    GENES AND PROTEINS THAT CONTROL THE SECRETORY PATHWAY Nobel Lecture, 7 December 2013 by RANDY SCHEKMAN Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Berkeley, USA. Introduction George Palade shared the 1974 Nobel Prize with Albert Claude and Christian de Duve for their pioneering work in the characterization of organelles interrelated by the process of secretion in mammalian cells and tissues. These three scholars established the modern field of cell biology and the tools of cell fractionation and thin section transmission electron microscopy. It was Palade’s genius in particular that revealed the organization of the secretory pathway. He discovered the ribosome and showed that it was poised on the surface of the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) where it engaged in the vectorial translocation of newly synthesized secretory polypeptides (1). And in a most elegant and technically challenging investigation, his group employed radioactive amino acids in a pulse-chase regimen to show by autoradiograpic exposure of thin sections on a photographic emulsion that secretory proteins progress in sequence from the ER through the Golgi apparatus into secretory granules, which then discharge their cargo by membrane fusion at the cell surface (1). He documented the role of vesicles as carriers of cargo between compartments and he formulated the hypothesis that membranes template their own production rather than form by a process of de novo biogenesis (1). As a university student I was ignorant of the important developments in cell biology; however, I learned of Palade’s work during my first year of graduate school in the Stanford biochemistry department.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Great Ideas of Biology
    GREATGREAT IDEASIDEAS OFOF BIOLOGYBIOLOGY Paul Nurse KITP Public Lecture, Feb 24, 2010 THETHE CELLCELL The basic unit of life ROBERTROBERT HOOKEHOOKE’’SS MICROSCOPEMICROSCOPE Cork Image: Past Present STEMSTEM IMAGES:IMAGES: PASTPAST ANDAND PRESENTPRESENT Nehemiah Grew (1682) ANTONIANTONI VANVAN LEEUWENHOEKLEEUWENHOEK MICROORGANISMSMICROORGANISMS VANVAN LEEUWENHOEK?LEEUWENHOEK? THEODORTHEODOR SCHWANNSCHWANN “We have seen that all organisms are composed of essentially like parts, namely, of cells.” (1839) RUDOLFRUDOLF VIRCHOWVIRCHOW “Every animal appears as a sum of vital units, each of which bears in itself the complete characteristics of life.” (1858) CELLCELL Rockefeller Nobel Prize Winners in Cell Biology George E. Palade (1974) Christian de Duve (1974) Albert Claude (1974) Günter Blobel (1999) MAMMALIANMAMMALIAN EMBRYOEMBRYO SPERMSPERM ANDAND EGGEGG THETHE CELLCELL The basic unit of life Underpins all reproduction and development Stem cells THETHE GENEGENE Basis of heredity GREGORGREGOR MENDELMENDEL MENDELMENDEL’’SS GARDENGARDEN PEASPEAS PEASPEAS 1919TH CENTURYCENTURY CHROMOSOMESCHROMOSOMES EDOUARDEDOUARD VANVAN BENEDENBENEDEN’’SS NEMATODENEMATODE CHROMOSOMESCHROMOSOMES PNEUMOCOCCUSPNEUMOCOCCUS Avery, MacLeod and McCarty, Rockefeller University (1944) DNADNA MOLECULEMOLECULE CENTRALCENTRAL DOGMADOGMA THETHE GENEGENE Basis of heredity Genotype to phenotype Implications for what we are EVOLUTIONEVOLUTION BYBY NATURALNATURAL SELECTIONSELECTION Life evolves Mechanism of natural selection ERASMUSERASMUS ANDAND CHARLESCHARLES DARWINDARWIN
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity, Information and Biological Organisation
    Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems 3(2), 59-71, 2005 COMPLEXITY, INFORMATION AND BIOLOGICAL ORGANISATION Attila Grandpierre Konkoly Observatory of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Budapest, Hungary Conference paper Received: 15 September, 2005. Accepted: 15 October, 2005. SUMMARY Regarding the widespread confusion about the concept and nature of complexity, information and biological organization, we look for some coordinated conceptual considerations corresponding to quantitative measures suitable to grasp the main characteristics of biological complexity. Quantitative measures of algorithmic complexity of supercomputers like Blue Gene/L are compared with the complexity of the brain. We show that both the computer and the brain have a more fundamental, dynamic complexity measure corresponding to the number of operations per second. Recent insights suggest that the origin of complexity may go back to simplicity at a deeper level, corresponding to algorithmic complexity. We point out that for physical systems Ashby’s Law, Kahre’s Law and causal closure of the physical exclude the generation of information, and since genetic information corresponds to instructions, we are faced with a controversy telling that the algorithmic complexity of physics is 3 much lower than the instructions’ complexity of the human DNA: Ialgorithmic(physics) ~ 10 bit << 9 Iinstructions(DNA) ~ 10 bit. Analyzing the genetic complexity we obtain that actually the genetic information corresponds to a deeper than algorithmic level of complexity, putting an even greater emphasis to the information paradox. We show that the resolution of the fundamental information paradox may lie either in the chemical evolution of inheritance in abiogenesis, or in the existence of an autonomous biological principle allowing the production of information beyond physics.
    [Show full text]
  • Computing Genomic Science: Bioinformatics and Standardisation in Proteomics
    Computing Genomic Science: Bioinformatics and Standardisation in Proteomics by Jamie Lewis Cardiff University This thesis is submitted to the University of Wales in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR IN PHILOSOPHY UMI Number: U585242 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U585242 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Declaration This work has not previously been accepted in substance for any degree and is not concurrently submitted in candidature for any degree. Signed:.. (candidate) Date:....................................................... STATEMENT 1 This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. Signed ...................... (candidate) Date:....... ................................................ STATEMENT 2 This thesis is the result of my own independent work/investigation, except where otherwise stated. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. A bibliography is appended. Signed.. A . Q w y l (candidate) Date:....... ................................................ STATEMENT 3 I hereby give my consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available for photocopying and for the inter-library loan, and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Collection of Working Definitions 2012
    APPENDIX I COLLECTION OF WORKING DEFINITIONS 2012 1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Aims 3. Glossary 4. Identification of Missing Definitions 5. Conclusion 6. References 2 1. INTRODUCTION Over the past half decade, a variety of approaches have been proposed to incorporate mechanistic information into toxicity predictions. These initiatives have resulted in an assortment of terms coming into common use. Moreover, the increased usage of 21st Century toxicity testing, with a focus on advanced biological methods, has brought forward further terms. The resulting diverse set of terms and definitions has led to confusion among scientists and organisations. As a result, one of the conclusions and recommendations from the OECD Workshop on Using Mechanistic Information in Forming Chemical Categories was the development of a standardised set of terminology [1]. It was recognised that such a glossary would assist in the understanding of the Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) concept as well as its recording, completion of the template and ultimate acceptance. Moreover, the use of a common ontology will also help to apply AOP concepts in developing (Q)SARs and chemical categories to advance the use of predictive techniques in assessments. 2. AIMS The purpose of this document is to collect definitions relevant to the AOP and general toxicity pathway concepts. To do this, the literature has been searched to find multiple definitions of terms relevant to AOPs. The ultimate goal would be to provide a harmonised set of definitions. It is appreciated, however, that such definitions may not be agreed in a formal sense, but would provide an illustration of the various terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Innate Immunity and Dendritic Cells in Kidney Disease and the Nobel Prize
    EDITORIALS www.jasn.org Innate Immunity and Dendritic nately, Janeway died in 2003 and was no longer eligible to receive the prize. Cells in Kidney Disease and the The discoveries of Hoffmann and Janeway alerted immu- nologists all over the world to the possibility of a new signal- Nobel Prize ing pathway, and in 1998, Bruce Beutler and colleagues at the † Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Dallas first identified Hans-Joachim Anders* and Christian Kurts TLR4 as recognizing bacterial endotoxin.5 Beutler’s approach *Medizinische Poliklinik, Klinikum der Universita¨t Mu¨ nchen-LMU, Campus Innenstadt, Munich, Germany; and †Institutes of Molecu- was as clever as simple. He took advantage of two well-known lar Medicine and Experimental Immunology (IMMEI), University lipopolysaccharide-resistant mouse strains to map the newly Clinic of Bonn, Bonn, Germany discovered loci of the Toll genes. In doing so, he realized that J Am Soc Nephrol 22: ●●●–●●●, 2011. endotoxin resistance was linked to loss-of-function muta- doi: 10.1681/ASN.2011100975 tions in the Tlr4 gene. Two more circumstances encouraged researchers from many disciplines to rush into this new area of science, pro- On December 10, 2011, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or ducing more than 18,000 related publications within the last Medicine will honor the work of Jules Hoffmann, Bruce 15 years: first, Tlr4 mutant mice as well as suitable immuno- Beutler, and Ralph Steinman for their landmark discoveries stimulatory compounds, now discovered as agonists for dis- in the field of immunology. This recognition brings wide at- tinct TLRs, became available at relatively low costs to every- tention to a paradigm shift in understanding how multicel- one, and second, Shizou Akira, in Osaka, produced null mice lular organisms sense and interpret their external and inter- for most TLRs and many other related genes, and did not nal environments in maintaining homeostasis or initiating hesitate to share them with collaborators and competitors.
    [Show full text]
  • Organisational Closure in Biological Organisms Matteo Mossio, Alvaro Moreno
    Organisational closure in biological organisms Matteo Mossio, Alvaro Moreno To cite this version: Matteo Mossio, Alvaro Moreno. Organisational closure in biological organisms. History and philoso- phy of Life Sciences, 2010, 32 (2-3), pp.269-288. halshs-00792436 HAL Id: halshs-00792436 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00792436 Submitted on 19 Sep 2018 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Organisational closure in biological organisms Matteo Mossio & Alvaro Moreno Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science University of the Basque Country Avenida de Tolosa 70, 20080, San Sebastian, Spain Tel: +34-943018249 /Fax: +34-943015470 E.mail: [email protected] The central aim of this paper consists in arguing that biological organisms realize a specific kind of causal regime that we call “organisational closure”, i.e. a distinct level of causation, operating in addition to physical laws, generated by the action of material structures acting as constraints. We argue that organisational closure constitutes a fundamental property of biological systems since even its minimal instances are likely to possess at least some of the typical features of biological organisation, as exhibited by more complex organisms.
    [Show full text]
  • April 28 Sir Paul Nurse
    MONDAY, APRIL 26th 8 pm We look forward to welcoming to Kenton SIR PAUL NURSE RATHER THAN GIVE A TALK, WE ARE VERY FORTUNATE IN THAT SIR PAUL IS HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON HIS EXTENSIVE CAREER AND HOBBIES PLEASE HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS READY OR SEND THEM IN BEFORE THE MEETING Paul Nurse is a geneticist and cell biologist who has worked on how the eukaryotic cell cycle is controlled. His major work has been on the cyclin dependent protein kinases and how they regulate cell reproduction. He is Director of the Francis Crick Institute in London, and has served as President of the Royal Society, Chief Executive of Cancer Research UK and President of Rockefeller University. He shared the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and has received the Albert Lasker Award, the Gairdner Award, the Louis Jeantet Prize and the Royal Society's Royal and Copley Medals. He was knighted by The Queen in 1999, received the Legion d'honneur in 2003 from France, and the Order of the Rising Sun in 2018 from Japan. He served for 15 years on the Council of Science and Technology, advising the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and is presently a Chief Scientific Advisor for the European Union. As well as his many medical accomplishments, amazingly Paul also has time to fly planes and engage in varied hobbies Paul flies gliders and vintage aeroplanes and has been a qualified bush pilot. He also likes the theatre, hill-walking, going to museums and art galleries, and running very slowly. All our Zoom sessions are available on the Kenton https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3531782577? YouTube channel: pwd=N0tlSWxxUGZmOEUrM1ZzclJFN1pzdz09 Kenton Shul In The Park Goes Live.
    [Show full text]
  • Nobel Laureates
    The Rockefeller University » Nobel Laureates Sunday, December 15, 2013 Calendar Directory Employment DONATE AWARDS & HONORS University Overview & Nobel Laureates Quick Facts History Since the institution's founding in 1901, 24 Nobel Prize winners have been associated with the university. Of these, two Faculty Awards are Rockefeller graduates (Edelman and Baltimore) and six laureates are current members of the Rockefeller faculty (Günter Blobel, Christian de Duve, Paul Greengard, Roderick MacKinnon, Paul Nurse and Torsten Wiesel). Nobel Prize Albert Lasker Awards Ralph M. Roderick Paul Nurse National Medal of Science Steinman MacKinnon 2001 Institute of Medicine 2011 2003 Physiology or National Academy of Physiology or Chemistry Medicine Sciences Medicine Gairdner Foundation International Award Campus Map & Views Travel Directions Paul Günter R. Bruce NYC Resources Greengard Blobel Merrifield Office of the President 2000 1999 1984 Physiology or Physiology or Chemistry Chief of Staff Medicine Medicine Board of Trustees and Corporate Officers Sustainability Torsten N. David Albert Contact Wiesel Baltimore Claude 1981 1975 1974 Physiology or Physiology or Physiology or Medicine Medicine Medicine Christian George E. Stanford de Duve Palade Moore 1974 1974 1972 Physiology or Physiology or Chemistry Medicine Medicine William H. Gerald M. H. Keffer Stein Edelman Hartline 1972 1972 1967 Chemistry Physiology or Physiology or Medicine Medicine Peyton Joshua Edward L. Rous Lederberg Tatum 1966 1958 1958 http://www.rockefeller.edu/about/awards/nobel/[2013/12/16 7:42:49] The Rockefeller University » Nobel Laureates Physiology or Physiology or Physiology or Medicine Medicine Medicine Fritz A. John H. Wendell Lipmann Northrop M. Stanley 1953 1946 1946 Physiology or Chemistry Chemistry Medicine Herbert S.
    [Show full text]
  • All Living Organisms Are Organised Into Large Groups Called Kingdoms. Fungi Were Orig
    What are fungi and how important are they? All living organisms are organised into large groups called Kingdoms. Fungi were originally placed in the Plant Kingdom then, scientists learned that fungi were more closely related to animals than to plants. Then scientists decided that fungi were not sufficiently similar to animals to be placed in the animal kingdom and so today fungi have their own Kingdom – the Fungal Kingdom. There are thought to be around up to 3.8 million species of fungi, of which only 120,000 have been named. The fungal kingdom is largely hidden from our view and we usually only see the “fruit” of a fungus. The living body of a fungus is called a mycelium and is made up of a branching network of filaments known as hyphae. Fungal mycelia are usually hidden in a food source like wood and we only know they are there when they develop mushrooms or other fruiting bodies. Some fungi only produce microscopic fruiting bodies and we never notice them. Fungi feed by absorbing nutrients from the organic material that they live in. They digest their food before they absorb it by secreting acids and enzymes. Different fungi have evolved to live on various types of organic matter, some live on plants (Magneportha grisea – the rice blast fungus), some on animals (Trichophyton rubrum - the athlete’s foot fungus) and some even live on insects (Cordyceps australis). Helpful fungi Most of us use fungi every day without even knowing it. We eat mushrooms and Quorn, but we also prepare many other foods using fungi.
    [Show full text]
  • Redalyc.REFLECTIONS on the ORIGIN of LIFE MORE THAN AN
    Mètode Science Studies Journal ISSN: 2174-3487 [email protected] Universitat de València España Ruiz-Mirazo, Kepa; Moreno, Álvaro REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE MORE THAN AN ‘EVOLUTIONARY’ PROBLEM Mètode Science Studies Journal, núm. 6, 2016, pp. 151-159 Universitat de València Valencia, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=511754471022 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative MONOGRAPH MÈTODE Science Studies Journal, 6 (2016): 151–159. University of Valencia. DOI: 10.7203/metode.6.4997 ISSN: 2174-3487. Article received: 19/03/2015, accepted: 30/06/2015. REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE MORE THAN AN ‘EVOLUTIONARY’ PROBLEM KEPA RUIZ-MIRAZO AND ÁLVARO MORENO This paper argues that the question of the origin of life cannot be explained by appealing exclusively to Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms, as many experts tend to assume, but requires a profound change in perspective. Accordingly, we highlight the fact that, in order to operate as a diversification force (and indirectly, a force for a potential increase in complexity), natural selection requires a number of conditions to be met in order for it to be possible: specifically, self-sustained and self-(re-)productive chemical organisation within a sufficiently large phenotypic space (that is, a wide range of functions). Therefore, we suggest an extension of the «self-organising» paradigm towards a «self-(re-)productive» one as an alternative to the main proposals regarding the origin of life, based on molecular populations (typically RNA) subject to Darwinian evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • ILAE Historical Wall02.Indd 10 6/12/09 12:04:44 PM
    2000–2009 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 Tim Hunt Robert Horvitz Sir Peter Mansfi eld Barry Marshall Craig Mello Oliver Smithies Luc Montagnier 2000 2000 2001 2002 2004 2005 2007 2008 Arvid Carlsson Eric Kandel Sir Paul Nurse John Sulston Richard Axel Robin Warren Mario Capecchi Harald zur Hauser Nobel Prizes 2000000 2001001 2002002 2003003 200404 2006006 2007007 2008008 Paul Greengard Leland Hartwell Sydney Brenner Paul Lauterbur Linda Buck Andrew Fire Sir Martin Evans Françoise Barré-Sinoussi in Medicine and Physiology 2000 1st Congress of the Latin American Region – in Santiago 2005 ILAE archives moved to Zurich to become publicly available 2000 Zonismide licensed for epilepsy in the US and indexed 2001 Epilepsia changes publishers – to Blackwell 2005 26th International Epilepsy Congress – 2001 Epilepsia introduces on–line submission and reviewing in Paris with 5060 delegates 2001 24th International Epilepsy Congress – in Buenos Aires 2005 Bangladesh, China, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua, Pakistan, 2001 Launch of phase 2 of the Global Campaign Against Epilepsy Singapore and the United Arab Emirates join the ILAE in Geneva 2005 Epilepsy Atlas published under the auspices of the Global 2001 Albania, Armenia, Arzerbaijan, Estonia, Honduras, Jamaica, Campaign Against Epilepsy Kyrgyzstan, Iraq, Lebanon, Malta, Malaysia, Nepal , Paraguay, Philippines, Qatar, Senegal, Syria, South Korea and Zimbabwe 2006 1st regional vice–president is elected – from the Asian and join the ILAE, making a total of 81 chapters Oceanian Region
    [Show full text]