That's the title of a press release published on Biology News Net, and several other science news sites. Here's the opening sentence ...
How 'molecular machines' inside cells swing into action to activate genes at different times in a cell's life is revealed today (6 November) in new research published in Molecular Cell.How could you not want to find out more? This sounds like a real breakthrough.
Try and guess what the new discovery is all about before reading on ...
From the website Biology News Net and Imperial College London ...
Genes are made of double stranded DNA molecules containing the coded information an organism's cells need to produce proteins. The DNA double strands need to be 'melted out' and separated in order for the code to be accessed. Once accessed, the genetic codes are converted to messenger RNAs (mRNA) which are used to make proteins. Cells need to produce particular proteins at different times in their lives, to help them respond and adapt to changes in their environment.I'm underwhelmed. How is science journalism ever going to be taken seriously if this is the sort of thing that university press offices publish?
The new study outlines exactly how a molecular machine called RNA polymerase, which reads the DNA code and synthesizes mRNA, is kickstarted by specialised activator proteins. The scientists have discovered that RNA polymerase uses a tightly regulated internal blocking system that prevents genes from being activated when they are not needed.
We've known and understood the basics of transcription initiation by RNA polymerase and its activators for thirty years. This study concerns a minor variation of that process involving σ54 in bacteria.
4 comments :
Gosh, even as a non-expert I was vaguely aware of something of the sort -- reading SciAm will do that.
IDiot quote-mine of press release coming in 3...2...1...
It was actually quite hard for me to understand what they're talking about...
I can think of two reasons why this kind of things regularly appear in press releases (and yes, this is not an isolated example):
1. That's the level of understanding of the science of the science journalists who wrote it
2. There is this notion among people who have to communicate science to the public that the public isn't ready for real science so some dumbed down version that is comprehensible for them should be presented. While it is absolutely true that the public isn't able to understand most published research, it is also true that it will never be able to do so if never exposed to it...
Has the story actually appeared in a news outlet? I've no idea what the ratio of press releases to stories is, but I'll warrant at least a bit of filtering goes on, and that this one will not get too much mileage. Not because it is so well known, but because it is too "difficult".
Post a Comment