tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5154552174479677471..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: SEED and the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology - I Take Back My PraiseLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-75239610267552723302008-03-07T21:06:00.000-05:002008-03-07T21:06:00.000-05:00Two serious knocks on this crappy article. One, m...Two serious knocks on this crappy article. One, microRNAs are just switches. A switch does very little to overturn the Central Dogma.<BR/><BR/>Two, the Pruitt/Purdue/Arabidopsis story is much, much better explained as <A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5795/1864" REL="nofollow">pollen contamination</A> rather than Dogma-defying magic.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10117563014025169638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13493850312778617082007-12-11T15:57:00.000-05:002007-12-11T15:57:00.000-05:00asutosh- I think they all suck. There hasn't been ...asutosh- I think they all suck. There hasn't been a good one since the palmy days of Scientific American- the likes of which we'll probably never see again.<BR/><BR/>The best general-audience science writing is in books, and (with rare exceptions like Carl Zimmer), specifically in books written by practicing scientists.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47231306957775174832007-12-11T11:53:00.000-05:002007-12-11T11:53:00.000-05:00I remember I was taught it incorrectly in undergra...I remember I was taught it incorrectly in undergrad and in graduate school. I misquoted it myself and a commenter pointed me to your explanation, so I finally have it right - shortly before receiving a PhD in molecular physiology.<BR/><BR/>It's a problem in science. We tend to get taught a narrow window of science, and the correct history is underemphasized in the rush to teach you to hold a pipette.MarkHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04784893552435194749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67650152860176867482007-12-11T11:15:00.000-05:002007-12-11T11:15:00.000-05:00So what would you say is the best and most readabl...So what would you say is the best and most readable science magazine out there?Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91479429259350197512007-12-11T09:03:00.000-05:002007-12-11T09:03:00.000-05:00Steve Labonne says,Eh, I'm still impressed that SE...Steve Labonne says,<BR/><BR/><I>Eh, I'm still impressed that SEED got it right even once. That virtually never happens in popular science writing of any kind.</I><BR/><BR/>Pretty sad, isn't it, when we have to be "impressed" with a "science" magazine that gets something right about one time out of ten?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4915442855822216692007-12-11T09:01:00.000-05:002007-12-11T09:01:00.000-05:00Post-Diluvian Diaspora said...At U of T, I haven't...Post-Diluvian Diaspora said...<BR/><BR/><I>At U of T, I haven't taken a single course that presented the Central Dogma correctly. Everybody (except you, obviously) seems to think it's DNA-->RNA-->protein.</I><BR/><BR/>That's pretty sad, isn't it? What it shows you is that your Professors are just copying from the textbooks without doing any checking on their own.<BR/><BR/>It's especially sad when they go on to say that the "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" is wrong! That's totally illogical. Either it really is a correct central dogma, in which case their definition must be wrong, or it's an incorrect central dogma, in which case molecular biologists must be idiots.<BR/><BR/>Normally when faced with such a paradox you'd expect scientists to do a bit of research on the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. It's not that hard—if you Google "Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" you find that the top three results are wrong but the fourth leads you to Crick's original paper. (The fifth brings you here.)Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82499345837101932632007-12-11T08:51:00.000-05:002007-12-11T08:51:00.000-05:00It looks like Wikipedia gets it right:I was the on...<I>It looks like Wikipedia gets it right:</I><BR/><BR/>I was the one who edited the original incorrect Wikipedia entry. Note that while Wikipedia gets it right in the first paragraph the article becomes confused later on.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67912255319652076452007-12-11T08:26:00.000-05:002007-12-11T08:26:00.000-05:00Eh, I'm still impressed that SEED got it right eve...Eh, I'm still impressed that SEED got it right even once. That virtually never happens in popular science writing of any kind.Steve LaBonnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05315820864846104986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24318102030883219992007-12-10T23:29:00.000-05:002007-12-10T23:29:00.000-05:00It looks like Wikipedia gets it right:The central ...It looks like Wikipedia gets it right:<BR/><BR/><I>The central dogma of molecular biology was first enunciated by Francis Crick in 1958[1] and re-stated in a Nature paper published in 1970:[2]<BR/><BR/> The central dogma of molecular biology deals with the detailed residue-by-residue transfer of sequential information. It states that such information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.<BR/><BR/>In other words, 'once information gets into protein, it can't flow back to nucleic acid.'</I><BR/><BR/>Interestingly, answers.com have the above definition listed under 'central dogma (molecular biology)', but the following definition listed under 'central dogma (genetics)':<BR/><BR/><I>The concept, subject to several exceptions, that genetic information is coded in self-replicating deoxyribonucleic acid and undergoes unidirectional transfer to messenger ribonucleic acids in transcription that act as templates for protein synthesis in translation.</I>Ian B Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10590305560230035432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18743016680796896532007-12-10T17:44:00.000-05:002007-12-10T17:44:00.000-05:00At U of T, I haven't taken a single course that pr...At U of T, I haven't taken a single course that presented the Central Dogma correctly. Everybody (except you, obviously) seems to think it's DNA-->RNA-->protein.<BR/><BR/>For example, Malcolm Campbell got it wrong in BIO250. The course website is http://bio250y.chass.utoronto.ca; go to Lectures (on left hand side); Part 2; and look at lecture 1, slides 2 and 3. He is of the opinion that the "central dogma" is wrong and needs to be "elaborated" upon.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10131817444483544280noreply@blogger.com