|
Vol.
XXVII No.
March
|
Fifty
Years
Of
The
Double
Helix
Prabir
Purkayastha
THE
picture
of
the
double
helix,
the
structure
of
the
DNA,
has
today
become
the
icon
of
science,
replacing
the
earlier
one
of
the
atom,
tainted
now
by
its
association
with
nuclear
weapons.
And
this
week,
the
discovery
of
the
chemical
structure
of
life,
the
DNA
structure
of
the
Double
Helix
is
50
years
old.
Watson
and
Crick
first
hit
upon
this
structure
on
February
28,
1953.
The
paper
that
James
Watson
and
Francis
Crick
published
subsequently
in
Nature,
April
25
titled
Molecular
Structure
of
Nucleic
Acids
will
remain
as
one
of
the
definitive
moments
in
the
history
of
science.
The
future
of
genetics
and
its
benefits
are
mired
in
deep
controversy.
Genetically
modified
foods
have
come
up
against
stiff
resistance
as
also
the
fear
of
unintentionally
letting
loose
a
new
and
deadly
disease.
There
are
also
ethical
concerns
regarding
human
cloning
and
bioengineering
the
human
genome
itself.
Alongside,
we
also
have
the
continuation
of
the
earlier
debate
of
Nature
vs.
Nurture,
with
genetic
fundamentalists
using
genes
to
explain
all
traits
–
from
intelligence
to
disease.
Watson,
the
co-discoverer
of
DNA
structure
has
recently
even
suggested
genetic
engineering
should
be
used
to
remove
stupidity
and
make
all
girls
pretty,
drawing
sharp
criticism
both
from
an
ethical
standpoint
as
well
as
Watsons
understanding
(or
lack
of
it)
of
how
genes
work.
CONTROVERSIAL
PAST
OF
GENETICS
Not
only
the
future
of
genetics
is
open
to
controversy,
even
its
past
is
not
free
from
it.
Central
to
the
discovery
of
DNA
structure
was
a
key
X-ray
photograph
of
a
DNA
molecule
that
Rosalind
Franklin
had
taken.
Maurice
Wilkins,
her
colleague
in
Kings
College,
who
did
not
get
along
with
her,
showed
this
to
Watson
without
either
her
permission
or
knowledge.
Neither
Watson
nor
Crick
acknowledged
Franklins
role
in
their
discovery,
though
Watson
was
to
write
later
that
the
X-ray
picture
was
what
opened
his
eyes
to
the
DNA
structure
being
a
double
helix.
Worse,
Watson
in
his
book,
The
Double
Helix
(1968),
not
only
underplayed
Franklins
role,
but
wrote
disparagingly,
calling
her
Rosy
and
implying
that
she
was
a
Gorgon
of
a
lady
and
extremely
difficult
to
work
with.
He
wrote,
Clearly
Rosy
had
to
go
or
be
put
in
her
place.
Later,
he
added,
The
thought
could
not
be
avoided
that
the
best
home
for
a
feminist
was
in
another
persons
lab.
According
to
Brenda
Maddox,
in
her
biography
Rosalind
Franklin:
the
Dark
Lady
of
DNA
has
suggested
convincingly
that
Watson
portrayed
her
as
hostile
and
unreasonable
to
justify
his
stealing
of
her
data
with
the
connivance
of
Maurice
Wilkins.
Watson
Crick
and
Wilkins
went
on
to
get
the
Nobel
prize
in
1962,
a
prize
Rosalind
Franklin
could
not
have
shared
in
any
case
as
she
died
in
1958
aged
37
of
ovarian
cancer.
Nobel
is
not
given
posthumously.
But
deliberate
omission
of
Rosalind
Franklin
had
much
to
do
with
the
almost
male
world
of
British
science,
which
did
not
permit
women
to
close
the
threshold.
It
was
not
an
accident
that
Franklin
left
Kings
College
to
join
J
D
Bernal
in
his
laboratory;
Bernal
was
a
communist
and
far
more
egalitarian
in
his
lab
then
what
was
prevailing
elsewhere.
The
race
for
discovering
the
DNA
structure
was
an
intense
one
with
Linus
Pauling,
later
to
get
the
Nobel
Prize
twice
–
once
for
chemistry
and
once
for
peace
–
as
the
clear
front-runner.
The
Kings
College
had
Maurice
Wilkins
and
Rosalind
Franklin
who
were
photographing
diffraction
patterns
by
bombarding
powdered
DNA
molecules
with
X-rays.
Crick
and
Watson
did
no
experiments
themselves
but
build
models
of
the
DNA
structure.
They
had
come
up
earlier
(1951)
with
a
three-chained
model
of
the
DNA
structure
that
was
found
to
be
wrong.
Linus
Pauling
in
1952
announced
that
he
had
determined
the
structure
of
the
DNA.
However,
he
also
had
3
chains,
which
Crick
and
Watson
knew
to
be
incorrect,
themselves
having
traversed
that
path.
Franklins
photograph
made
clear
to
Watson
that
DNA
consisted
of
two
spiral
chains,
running
parallel
to
each
other
but
in
opposite
directions.
Watson
and
Crick
also
found
that
two
combinations
of
four
bases
adenine-thymine
(A-T)
and
guanine-cytosine
(G-C)
lined
up
in
a
way
that
they
could
hook
together
in
the
space
between
the
sugar
phosphate
spiral
chains.
Thus
was
born
the
familiar
spiral
staircase
model
of
the
DNA,
with
the
sugar
phosphate
ribbons
forming
the
support
for
the
steps,
while
the
steps
were
the
AT
and
GC
pairs.
This
was
the
seminal
discovery
that
discovery
that
Watson
and
Crick
made
in
1953
that
we
are
celebrating
this
week.
The
sequence
of
these
bases
the
code
of
AT
and
GC
pairs
–
makes
up
the
genes.
It
is
the
basic
code
that
contains
the
information
for
replication
of
the
cell.
If
we
unwind
the
DNA
strand
in
just
1
person,
it
would
stretch
about
600
million
miles,
about
six
times
the
distance
from
the
earth
to
the
sun.
In
one
cell,
the
DNA
strand
would
stretch
for
6
feet.
The
DNA
research
has
not
only
created
controversies
such
as
human
cloning
and
genetically
modified
foods,
but
also
various
uses.
One
of
them,
DNA
fingerprinting,
by
which
each
individual
can
be
uniquely
identified
based
on
even
a
tiny
amount
of
DNA
material,
has
had
unexpected
consequences.
A
group
in
the
US
started
the
Innocence
Project
and
used
DNA
evidence
to
clear
124
person
convicted
of
serious
crimes,
many
of
them
condemned
to
the
death
penalty.
In
Illinois,
the
DNA
evidence
exonerated
so
many,
that
Governor
George
Ryan
lost
confidence
in
his
states
justice
system
and
commuted
all
the
death
sentences.
Incidentally,
George
Bush
remains
still
a
devotee
of
the
death
sentence,
and
in
his
period
as
Governor
of
Texas,
carried
out
a
very
large
number
of
such
sentences.
In
Argentina,
the
mothers
of
those
who
were
secretly
killed
by
the
military
regime,
used
the
DNA
evidence
to
reclaim
their
grandchildren
who
had
been
adopted
by
childless
military
couples.
Nora
Cortinas,
one
of
the
leaders
of
this
movement
the
Mothers
of
Mayo
Plaza,
who
had
lost
her
own
son,
was
in
the
Asian
Social
Forum
in
Hyderabad
this
January.
HUMAN
GENOME
PROJECT
Perhaps
the
most
important
work
in
genetics
has
been
mapping
the
human
genome.
The
project
was
proposed
by
many
scientists
in
the
US,
but
really
gathered
steam
when
Watson
joined
the
project
in
1990.
He
quit
the
project
when
he
found
the
then
Director
of
National
Institute
of
Health
was
patenting
genes.
The
human
genome
project,
initially
housed
in
NIH
in
the
US,
later
became
an
international
effort,
with
many
countries
and
laboratories
joining
in.
By
this
time,
a
private
company
set
up
by
Craig
Venter,
who
first
sequenced
a
single
celled
organism,
had
also
joined
the
race.
Finally,
the
two
groups
shared
their
knowledge
and
announced
their
results
in
the
same
time,
one
in
Nature
and
the
other
in
Science,
in
February
2001.
The
results
of
the
Human
Genome
project
not
only
produced
the
first
draft
of
the
gene
sequences
but
also
showed
that
the
number
of
genes
were
much
lower
than
the
140,000
that
it
was
supposed
to
contain.
The
final
tally
was
closer
to
30,000.
While
at
first
sight
this
may
be
considered
only
a
question
of
numbers,
it
has
profound
implications.
There
are
just
not
that
many
genes
that
would
explain
various
facets
of
human
personality.
Worse,
the
number
of
genes
that
human
beings
share
with
lower
mammals
such
as
mice,
make
it
very
unlikely
that
human
nature
is
a
product
of
just
genes
expressing
themselves.
The
ideological
world
of
free
market
of
course
loves
genetic
determinism.
According
to
the
free
market
ideologues,
genes
explain
the
status
quo
completely.
This
genetic
fundamentalism,
flowing
out
of
geneticists
such
as
Richard
Dawkins
and
socio-biologists
such
Edward
Wilson,
now
comes
up
against
hard
evidence
that
there
are
not
enough
codes
in
the
genome
to
programme
human
nature.
The
cultural
component
of
human
development
is
what
decides
the
way
we
behave.
Venter,
in
his
2001
Press
Conference
announcing
the
sequencing
of
the
Genome
had
said,
“The
small
number
of
genes30,000
instead
of
140,000supports
the
notion
that
we
are
not
hard
wired.
We
now
know
that
the
notion
that
one
gene
leads
to
one
protein
and
perhaps
one
disease
is
false.”
Further,
Venter
continued,
“We
now
know
that
the
environment
acting
on
these
biological
steps
may
be
key
in
making
us
what
we
are.
Likewise,
the
remarkably
small
number
of
genetic
variations
that
occur
in
genes
again
suggest
a
significant
role
for
environmental
influences
in
developing
each
of
our
uniqueness.”
In
the
Nature
versus
Nurture
debate,
in
which
IQ
to
criminal
behaviour
has
all
been
attributed
by
some
to
genes
and
heredity,
the
genomes
unravelling
gives
a
clear
refutation
of
the
Nature
position.
On
the
question
of
race,
in
his
Press
Note
Venter
had
said,
“We
are
confident
that
our
sequence
will
help
to
demonstrate
that
the
human
genome
will
not
aid
those
who
want
to
perpetuate
racial
prejudice.”
Neither
is
it
likely
to
help
those
who
propose
that
the
elite
in
society
are
those
who
have
more
intelligence
coded
in
their
genes.
ROLE
OF
CULTURAL
EVOLUTION
The
change
of
only
a
few
genes
has
resulted
in
the
growth
of
the
brain,
rise
of
speech
and
tool
making
abilities
in
human
beings.
It
is
sobering
and
enormously
humbling
for
human
beings
to
know
that
they
have
arisen
from
a
few
genetic
accidents.
The
complexities
of
human
civilisation
thus
lie
in
enabling
cultural
evolution
to
take
place
rather
than
the
earlier
expectation
of
a
long
history
of
physical
evolution.
Human
uniqueness
lies
not
in
our
genes
but
in
our
culture.
This
explains
the
enormous
changes
in
how
we
live
today,
a
result
of
our
cultural
evolution
of
the
last
150,000
years.
While
hailing
the
50
years
of
development
that
started
with
the
Double
Helix,
we
must
end
on
a
note
of
caution.
Today,
the
ethical
questions
such
as
should
human
cloning
be
allowed,
should
we
allow
genetic
engineering
to
produce
designer
babies
have
to
be
addressed
along
with
real
dangers
–
either
intentionally
or
by
accident
of
producing
dangerous
pathogens
or
producing
super
pests
and
new
exotic
species
that
crowd
out
other
species.
While
it
is
impossible
to
stop
the
growth
of
knowledge,
just
as
King
Canute
could
not
stop
the
waves,
we
have
to
develop
not
only
the
maturity
of
a
civilisation
that
can
handle
such
questions
and
dangers,
but
also
a
just
and
equitable
social
order.
Whether
we
will
get
drugs
at
astronomical
prices,
with
all
genetic
knowledge
patented
by
the
drug
companies,
while
a
large
part
of
the
population
languishes
without
health
care
as
it
is
uninsurable
due
to
genetic
“defects”,
depends
on
what
kind
of
society
we
want
to
build.
The
answer
here
does
not
lie
in
our
genes
but
in
ourselves.
To
Paraphrase
Marx,
it
is
men
(and
women)
who
make
history.
Not
genes.
This
is
what
50
years
of
the
Double
Helix
has
now
made
clear.
