FM Brenner 1..26
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
CRISPR-Cas9 a New Tool for Genome Editing.Pdf
CRICRICRISSPSPEPERERRCCCaasas9s99 AA ANe Ne Neww wT To Toool olf olf orf orGe rGe Gennonomomem eE eEd Editdiitinitngingg ByB JyBen Jyen Jneninferinfer iDofer Do uDodunduand,a nK, aeK,v eKivnei nvDi noD xoDzxoezxnez,n ea,n a,d na dMn dMa rMatirnati rnJti nJie nJkienkek A AK eAKy eK yEe xEyp xEepxrepimreimenriment enpt rpto rpdorudocudecudec dbe ydb Tyb hTye hT eEh xeEp xElpoxlrpoelrore’srre ’Gsr ’uGs iuGdieud ietdo et oB t ioBo ilBooilgooylgoygy 2 The Explorer’s Guide to Biology https://explorebiology.org/ CRISPR-Cas9 A New Tool for Genome Editing Jennifer Doudna, Kevin Doxzen, and Martin Jinek Jennifer Doudna Jennifer Doudna is a professor in the Departments of Molecular and Cell Biology and the Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. For her studies on CRISPR-Cas9, Dr. Doudna has received several awards including the Breakthrough Prize in the Life Sciences, the Japan Prize, and the Canada Gairdner Award. She has been leading efforts to discuss ethical uses of genome editing technologies. Doudna teaches in Bio 1A, an introductory biology class at UC Berkeley. Kevin Doxzen Kevin Doxzen, a former graduate student with Jennifer Doudna, is a sci- ence communications specialist at the Innovative Genomics Institute, which is advancing genome engineering using CRISPR technologies. 3 Martin Jinek Martin Jinek, born in Czechoslovakia and a former postdoctoral fellow with Jennifer Doudna, is now an associate professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Zurich. Jinek received the EMBL John Kendrew Young Scientist Award and the Friedrich Miescher Award of the Swiss Society for Molecular and Cellular Biosciences. -
Insight from the Sociology of Science
CHAPTER 7 INSIGHT FROM THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE Science is What Scientists Do It has been argued a number of times in previous chapters that empirical adequacy is insufficient, in itself, to establish the validity of a theory: consistency with the observable ‘facts’ does not mean that a theory is true,1 only that it might be true, along with other theories that may also correspond with the observational data. Moreover, empirical inadequacy (theories unable to account for all the ‘facts’ in their domain) is frequently ignored by individual scientists in their fight to establish a new theory or retain an existing one. It has also been argued that because experi- ments are conceived and conducted within a particular theoretical, procedural and instrumental framework, they cannot furnish the theory-free data needed to make empirically-based judgements about the superiority of one theory over another. What counts as relevant evidence is, in part, determined by the theoretical framework the evidence is intended to test. It follows that the rationality of science is rather different from the account we usually provide for students in school. Experiment and observation are not as decisive as we claim. Additional factors that may play a part in theory acceptance include the following: intuition, aesthetic considerations, similarity and consistency among theories, intellectual fashion, social and economic influences, status of the proposer(s), personal motives and opportunism. Although the evidence may be inconclusive, scientists’ intuitive feelings about the plausibility or aptness of particular ideas will make it appear convincing. The history of science includes many accounts of scientists ‘sticking to their guns’ concerning a well-loved theory in the teeth of evidence to the contrary, and some- times in the absence of any evidence at all. -
Download This Issue As A
MICHAEL GERRARD ‘72 COLLEGE HONORS FIVE IS THE GURU OF DISTINGUISHED ALUMNI CLIMATE CHANGE LAW WITH JOHN JAY AWARDS Page 26 Page 18 Columbia College May/June 2011 TODAY Nobel Prize-winner Martin Chalfie works with College students in his laboratory. APassion for Science Members of the College’s science community discuss their groundbreaking research ’ll meet you for a I drink at the club...” Meet. Dine. Play. Take a seat at the newly renovated bar grill or fine dining room. See how membership in the Columbia Club could fit into your life. For more information or to apply, visit www.columbiaclub.org or call (212) 719-0380. The Columbia University Club of New York 15 West 43 St. New York, N Y 10036 Columbia’s SocialIntellectualCulturalRecreationalProfessional Resource in Midtown. Columbia College Today Contents 26 20 30 18 73 16 COVER STORY ALUMNI NEWS DEPARTMENTS 2 20 A PA SSION FOR SCIENCE 38 B OOKSHELF LETTERS TO THE Members of the College’s scientific community share Featured: N.C. Christopher EDITOR Couch ’76 takes a serious look their groundbreaking work; also, a look at “Frontiers at The Joker and his creator in 3 WITHIN THE FA MILY of Science,” the Core’s newest component. Jerry Robinson: Ambassador of By Ethan Rouen ’04J, ’11 Business Comics. 4 AROUND THE QU A DS 4 Reunion, Dean’s FEATURES 40 O BITU A RIES Day 2011 6 Class Day, 43 C L A SS NOTES JOHN JA Y AW A RDS DINNER FETES FIVE Commencement 2011 18 The College honored five alumni for their distinguished A LUMNI PROFILES 8 Senate Votes on ROTC professional achievements at a gala dinner in March. -
Braking the Genetic Code by Nierenberg
1 REVIEW The Invention of Proteomic Code and mRNA Assisted Protein Folding. by Jan C. Biro Homulus Foundation, 612 S Flower St. #1220, 90017 CA, USA. [email protected] Keywords: Gene, code, codon, translation, wobble-base, Abbreviations (excluding standard abbreviations: 2 Abstract Background The theoretical requirements for a genetic code were well defined and modeled by George Gamow and Francis Crick in the 50-es. Their models failed. However the valid Genetic Code, provided by Nirenberg and Matthaei in 1961, ignores many theoretical requirements for a perfect Code. Something is simply missing from the canonical Code. Results The 3x redundancy of the Genetic code is usually explained as a necessity to increase the resistance of the mutation resistance of the genetic information. However it has many additional roles. 1.) It has a periodical structure which corresponds to the physico-chemical and structural properties of amino acids. 2.) It provides physico-chemical definition of codon boundaries. 3.) It defines a code for amino acid co-locations (interactions) in the coded proteins. 4.) It regulates, through wobble bases the free folding energy (and structure) of mRNAs. I shortly review the history of the Genetic Code as well as my own published observations to provide a novel, original explanation of its redundancy. Conclusions The redundant Genetic Code contains biological information which is additional to the 64/20 definition of amino acids. This additional information is used to define the 3D structure of coding nucleic acids as well as the coded proteins and it is called the Proteomic Code and mRNA Assisted Protein Folding. -
The Joys and Burdens of Our Heroes 12/05/2021
More Fun Than Fun: The Joys and Burdens of Our Heroes 12/05/2021 An iconic photo of Konrad Lorenz with his favourite geese. Photo: Willamette Biology, CC BY-SA 2.0 This article is part of the ‘More Fun Than Fun‘ column by Prof Raghavendra Gadagkar. He will explore interesting research papers or books and, while placing them in context, make them accessible to a wide readership. RAGHAVENDRA GADAGKAR Among the books I read as a teenager, two completely changed my life. One was The Double Helix by Nobel laureate James D. Watson. This book was inspiring at many levels and instantly got me addicted to molecular biology. The other was King Solomon’s Ring by Konrad Lorenz, soon to be a Nobel laureate. The study of animal behaviour so charmingly and unforgettably described by Lorenz kindled in me an eternal love for the subject. The circumstances in which I read these two books are etched in my mind and may have partly contributed to my enthusiasm for them and their subjects. The Double Helix was first published in London in 1968 when I was a pre-university student (equivalent to 11th grade) at St Joseph’s college in Bangalore and was planning to apply for the prestigious National Science Talent Search Scholarship. By then, I had heard of the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA and its profound implications. I was also tickled that this momentous discovery was made in 1953, the year of my birth. I saw the announcement of Watson’s book on the notice board in the British Council Library, one of my frequent haunts. -
Cambridge's 92 Nobel Prize Winners Part 2 - 1951 to 1974: from Crick and Watson to Dorothy Hodgkin
Cambridge's 92 Nobel Prize winners part 2 - 1951 to 1974: from Crick and Watson to Dorothy Hodgkin By Cambridge News | Posted: January 18, 2016 By Adam Care The News has been rounding up all of Cambridge's 92 Nobel Laureates, celebrating over 100 years of scientific and social innovation. ADVERTISING In this installment we move from 1951 to 1974, a period which saw a host of dramatic breakthroughs, in biology, atomic science, the discovery of pulsars and theories of global trade. It's also a period which saw The Eagle pub come to national prominence and the appearance of the first female name in Cambridge University's long Nobel history. The Gender Pay Gap Sale! Shop Online to get 13.9% off From 8 - 11 March, get 13.9% off 1,000s of items, it highlights the pay gap between men & women in the UK. Shop the Gender Pay Gap Sale – now. Promoted by Oxfam 1. 1951 Ernest Walton, Trinity College: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei 2. 1951 John Cockcroft, St John's / Churchill Colleges: Nobel Prize in Physics, for using accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei Walton and Cockcroft shared the 1951 physics prize after they famously 'split the atom' in Cambridge 1932, ushering in the nuclear age with their particle accelerator, the Cockcroft-Walton generator. In later years Walton returned to his native Ireland, as a fellow of Trinity College Dublin, while in 1951 Cockcroft became the first master of Churchill College, where he died 16 years later. 3. 1952 Archer Martin, Peterhouse: Nobel Prize in Chemistry, for developing partition chromatography 4. -
Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology Through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense Or Nonsense?
Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense or Nonsense? Koen B. Tanghe Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Lieven Pauwels Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Alexis De Tiège Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Johan Braeckman Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Traditionally, Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) is largely identified with his analysis of the structure of scientific revo- lutions. Here, we contribute to a minority tradition in the Kuhn literature by interpreting the history of evolutionary biology through the prism of the entire historical developmental model of sciences that he elaborates in The Structure. This research not only reveals a certain match between this model and the history of evolutionary biology but, more importantly, also sheds new light on several episodes in that history, and particularly on the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), the construction of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the chronic discontent with it, and the latest expression of that discon- tent, called the extended evolutionary synthesis. Lastly, we also explain why this kind of analysis hasn’t been done before. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive review, as well as the editor Alex Levine. Perspectives on Science 2021, vol. 29, no. 1 © 2021 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00359 1 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc_a_00359 by guest on 30 September 2021 2 Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism 1. -
Introduction and Historical Perspective
Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful -
Quiet Debut'' of the Double Helix: a Bibliometric and Methodological
Journal of the History of Biology Ó Springer 2009 DOI 10.1007/s10739-009-9183-2 Revisiting the ‘‘Quiet Debut’’ of the Double Helix: A Bibliometric and Methodological note on the ‘‘Impact’’ of Scientific Publications YVES GINGRAS De´partement d’histoire Universite´ du Que´bec a` Montre´al C.P. 8888, Suc. Centre-Ville Montreal, QC H3C-3P8 Canada E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. The object of this paper is two-fold: first, to show that contrary to what seem to have become a widely accepted view among historians of biology, the famous 1953 first Nature paper of Watson and Crick on the structure of DNA was widely cited – as compared to the average paper of the time – on a continuous basis from the very year of its publication and over the period 1953–1970 and that the citations came from a wide array of scientific journals. A systematic analysis of the bibliometric data thus shows that Watson’s and Crick’s paper did in fact have immediate and long term impact if we define ‘‘impact’’ in terms of comparative citations with other papers of the time. In this precise sense it did not fall into ‘‘relative oblivion’’ in the scientific community. The second aim of this paper is to show, using the case of the reception of the Watson–Crick and Jacob–Monod papers as concrete examples, how large scale bibliometric data can be used in a sophisticated manner to provide information about the dynamic of the scientific field as a whole instead of limiting the analysis to a few major actors and generalizing the result to the whole community without further ado. -
DNA: the Timeline and Evidence of Discovery
1/19/2017 DNA: The Timeline and Evidence of Discovery Interactive Click and Learn (Ann Brokaw Rocky River High School) Introduction For almost a century, many scientists paved the way to the ultimate discovery of DNA and its double helix structure. Without the work of these pioneering scientists, Watson and Crick may never have made their ground-breaking double helix model, published in 1953. The knowledge of how genetic material is stored and copied in this molecule gave rise to a new way of looking at and manipulating biological processes, called molecular biology. The breakthrough changed the face of biology and our lives forever. Watch The Double Helix short film (approximately 15 minutes) – hyperlinked here. 1 1/19/2017 1865 The Garden Pea 1865 The Garden Pea In 1865, Gregor Mendel established the foundation of genetics by unraveling the basic principles of heredity, though his work would not be recognized as “revolutionary” until after his death. By studying the common garden pea plant, Mendel demonstrated the inheritance of “discrete units” and introduced the idea that the inheritance of these units from generation to generation follows particular patterns. These patterns are now referred to as the “Laws of Mendelian Inheritance.” 2 1/19/2017 1869 The Isolation of “Nuclein” 1869 Isolated Nuclein Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss researcher, noticed an unknown precipitate in his work with white blood cells. Upon isolating the material, he noted that it resisted protein-digesting enzymes. Why is it important that the material was not digested by the enzymes? Further work led him to the discovery that the substance contained carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and large amounts of phosphorus with no sulfur. -
Watson's Way with Words
books and arts My teeth were set on edge by reference to “the stable form of uranium”,a violation of Kepler’s second law in a description of how the Earth’s orbit would change under various circumstances, and by “the rest mass of the neutrino is 4 eV”. Collins has been well served by his editor and publisher, but not perfectly. There are un-sort-out-able mismatches between text and index, references and figures; acronyms D.WRITING LIFE OF JAMES THE WATSON in the second half of the alphabet go un- decoded; several well-known names are misspelled. And readers are informed that Weber’s death occurred “on September 31, E. C. FRIEDBERG, 2000”. Well, Joe always said he could do things that other people couldn’t, but there are limits. Incidentally, my adviser was partly right: I should not have agreed to review this book. It is very much harder to hear harsh, some- times false, things said about one’s spouse after he can no longer defend himself. I am not alone in this feeling. Carvel Gold, widow of Thomas Gold, whose work was also far from universally accepted (see Nature 430, 415;2004),says the same thing. ■ Virginia Trimble is at the University of California, Irvine, California 92697-4575, USA. She and Joe The write idea? In The Double Helix,James Watson gave Weber were married from 16 March 1972 until his a personal account of the quest for the structure of DNA. death on 30 September 2000. Watson set out to produce a good story that the public would enjoy as much as The Great Gatsby.He started writing in 1962 with the working title “Honest Jim”,which is illumi- Watson’s way nating in itself. -
Clinical Molecular Genetics in the Uk C.1975–C.2000
CLINICAL MOLECULAR GENETICS IN THE UK c.1975–c.2000 The transcript of a Witness Seminar held by the History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group, Queen Mary, University of London, on 5 February 2013 Edited by E M Jones and E M Tansey Volume 48 2014 ©The Trustee of the Wellcome Trust, London, 2014 First published by Queen Mary, University of London, 2014 The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group is funded by the Wellcome Trust, which is a registered charity, no. 210183. ISBN 978 0 90223 888 6 All volumes are freely available online at www.history.qmul.ac.uk/research/modbiomed/ wellcome_witnesses/ Please cite as: Jones E M, Tansey E M. (eds) (2014) Clinical Molecular Genetics in the UK c.1975–c.2000. Wellcome Witnesses to Contemporary Medicine, vol. 48. London: Queen Mary, University of London. CONTENTS What is a Witness Seminar? v Acknowledgements E M Tansey and E M Jones vii Illustrations and credits ix Abbreviations xi Ancillary guides xiii Introduction Professor Bob Williamson xv Transcript Edited by E M Jones and E M Tansey 1 Appendix 1 Photograph, with key, of delegates attending The Molecular Biology of Thalassaemia conference in Kolimbari, Crete, 1978 88 Appendix 2 Extracts from the University of Leiden postgraduate course Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms and Human Genetics, 1982 91 Appendix 3 Archival material of the Clinical Molecular Genetics Society 95 Biographical notes 101 References 113 Index 131 Witness Seminars: Meetings and Publications 143 WHAT IS A WITNESS SEMINAR? The Witness Seminar is a specialized form of oral history, where several individuals associated with a particular set of circumstances or events are invited to meet together to discuss, debate, and agree or disagree about their memories.