Two different views of the history of molecular biology

How can different molecular biologists have such opposite views of the history of their field?

I'm posting links to two papers without comment. One of them is from my friend and colleague Alex Palazzo and the other is from James Shapiro who is not my friend or colleague. Both papers have been published in reputable peer-review journals.

The remarkable thing about these two papers is that they have extremely different views of the history of molecular biology and molecular evolution. It's not uncommon for scientists to have different perspectives but these differences are so far apart that one of them just has to be mostly wrong. You decide.

Palazzo, A.F. and Kejiou, N.S. (2022) Non-Darwinian Molecular Biology. Frontiers in genetics 13:1-13. [doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.831068]

With the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA, a shift occurred in how biologists investigated questions surrounding cellular processes, such as protein synthesis. Instead of viewing biological activity through the lens of chemical reactions, this new field used biological information to gain a new profound view of how biological systems work. Molecular biologists asked new types of questions that would have been inconceivable to the older generation of researchers, such as how cellular machineries convert inherited biological information into functional molecules like proteins. This new focus on biological information also gave molecular biologists a way to link their findings to concepts developed by genetics and the modern synthesis. However, by the late 1960s this all changed. Elevated rates of mutation, unsustainable genetic loads, and high levels of variation in populations, challenged Darwinian evolution, a central tenant of the modern synthesis, where adaptation was the main driver of evolutionary change. Building on these findings, Motoo Kimura advanced the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which advocates that selection in multicellular eukaryotes is weak and that most genomic changes are neutral and due to random drift. This was further elaborated by Jack King and Thomas Jukes, in their paper “Non-Darwinian Evolution”, where they pointed out that the observed changes seen in proteins and the types of polymorphisms observed in populations only become understandable when we take into account biochemistry and Kimura’s new theory. Fifty years later, most molecular biologists remain unaware of these fundamental advances. Their adaptionist viewpoint fails to explain data collected from new powerful technologies which can detect exceedingly rare biochemical events. For example, high throughput sequencing routinely detects RNA transcripts being produced from almost the entire genome yet are present less than one copy per thousand cells and appear to lack any function. Molecular biologists must now reincorporate ideas from classical biochemistry and absorb modern concepts from molecular evolution, to craft a new lens through which they can evaluate the functionality of transcriptional units, and make sense of our messy, intricate, and complicated genome.

---

Shapiro, J.A. (2022) What we have learned about evolutionary genome change in the past 7 decades. Biosystems 115-116:104669. [doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2022.104669]

Cytogenetics and genomics have completely transformed our understanding of evolutionary genome change since the early 1950s. The point of this paper is to outline some of the empirical findings responsible for that transformation. The discovery of transposable elements (TEs) in maize by McClintock, and their subsequent rediscovery in all forms of life, tell us that organisms have the inherent capacity to evolve dispersed genomic networks encoding complex cellular and multicellular adaptations. Genomic analysis confirms the role of TEs in wiring novel networks at major evolutionary transitions. TEs and other forms of repetitive DNA are also important contributors to genome regions that serve as transcriptional templates for regulatory and other biologically functional noncoding ncRNAs. The many functions documented for ncRNAs shows the concept of abundant “selfish” or “junk” DNA in complex genomes is mistaken. Natural and artificial speciation by interspecific hybridization demonstrates that TEs and other biochemical systems of genome restructuring are subject to rapid activation and can generate changes throughout the genomes of the novel species that emerge. In addition to TEs and hybrid species, cancer cells have taught us important lessons about chromothripsis, chromoplexy and other forms of non-random multisite genome restructuring. In many of these restructured genomes, alternative end-joining processes display the capacities of eukaryotes to generate novel combinations of templated and untemplated DNA sequences at the sites of break repair. Sequence innovation by alternative end-joining is widespread among eukaryotes from single cells to advanced plants and animals. In sum, the cellular and genomic capacities of eukaryotic cells have proven to be capable of executing rapid macroevolutionary change under a variety of conditions.

---