Here's a video from Oxford Press where you can hear John Parrington describe some of the ideas in his book: The Deeper Genome: Why there is more to the human genome than meets the eye.
So, "it's complicated and 3D" again, but this time made more colourful by a nice Yorkshire accent.
Larry, are you aware of any published reviews of the book? Nathaniel Comfort wrote one in Nature 520 (30 April), but he covers Parrington's book, Nessa Carey's Junk DNA, and Biocode by Field and Davies in just a few paragraphs. He seems to like Thee deeper genome more than the other two books, but devotes less than 200 words to it. Can one call it a review? "A brief mention" would be more appropriate. And here you are with a whole series of blog posts dissecting the book quite thoroughly. Is the blogosphere making journal reviews obsolete?
I just finished reading it. The worst thing is that is actually reads a lot like many review papers one sees these days, not to mention press releases, i.e. it's not really entirely his fault for basically putting together all the hyped up genomic science of the day much of which actually has no relevance to the question of how much junk DNA there is, and is thus a complete non sequitur to argue against junk DNA based on it) and (calling it a book.
There is so much talk about small RNAs, 3D organization of the genome, Lamarckian inheritance, GWAS, epigenetics, and none of those things really have anything to do with junk DNA...
There is so much talk about small RNAs, 3D organization of the genome, Lamarckian inheritance, GWAS, epigenetics, and none of those things really have anything to do with junk DNA...
I disagree. I think there is a fundamental parallel: at least 90% of each is junk.
4 comments :
So, "it's complicated and 3D" again, but this time made more colourful by a nice Yorkshire accent.
Larry, are you aware of any published reviews of the book? Nathaniel Comfort wrote one in Nature 520 (30 April), but he covers Parrington's book, Nessa Carey's Junk DNA, and Biocode by Field and Davies in just a few paragraphs. He seems to like Thee deeper genome more than the other two books, but devotes less than 200 words to it. Can one call it a review? "A brief mention" would be more appropriate. And here you are with a whole series of blog posts dissecting the book quite thoroughly. Is the blogosphere making journal reviews obsolete?
Thank your for those succinct statements of belief Joe, well done.
I just finished reading it. The worst thing is that is actually reads a lot like many review papers one sees these days, not to mention press releases, i.e. it's not really entirely his fault for basically putting together all the hyped up genomic science of the day much of which actually has no relevance to the question of how much junk DNA there is, and is thus a complete non sequitur to argue against junk DNA based on it) and (calling it a book.
There is so much talk about small RNAs, 3D organization of the genome, Lamarckian inheritance, GWAS, epigenetics, and none of those things really have anything to do with junk DNA...
There is so much talk about small RNAs, 3D organization of the genome, Lamarckian inheritance, GWAS, epigenetics, and none of those things really have anything to do with junk DNA...
I disagree. I think there is a fundamental parallel: at least 90% of each is junk.
Post a Comment