1092-2172/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/MMBR.68.2.173-186.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
A New Biology for a New Century
Carl R. Woese*
Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
THE MOLECULAR ERA IN THE BIGGER PICTURE
Reductionism versus Reductionism
Synthesis
TOWARDS A NEW REPRESENTATION OF BIOLOGY
CHANGING THE OVERVIEW
SOME PERTINENT HISTORY
THE PANDORA'S BOX OF MICROBIOLOGY
The Dismantling of Bacteriology and a Deconstruction of the Procaryote
Other Guesswork Solutions?
CELLULAR EVOLUTION: THE BUMPY ROAD TO WHO KNOWS WHERE
THE DYNAMICS OF CELLULAR EVOLUTION
The Key to Understanding the Character of HGT
From There to Here
An Interesting, if Not Relevant, Aside
When Is a Tree Not a Tree?
ONE LAST LOOK
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Biology today is at a crossroads. The molecular paradigm, which so successfully guided the discipline throughout most of the 20th century, is no longer a reliable guide. Its vision of biology now realized, the molecular paradigm has run its course. Biology, therefore, has a choice to make, between the comfortable path of continuing to follow molecular biology's lead or the more invigorating one of seeking a new and inspiring vision of the living world, one that addresses the major problems in biology that 20th century biology, molecular biology, could not handle and, so, avoided. The former course, though highly productive, is certain to turn biology into an engineering discipline. The latter holds the promise of making biology an even more fundamental science, one that, along with physics, probes and defines the nature of reality. This is a choice between a biology that solely does society's bidding and a biology that is society's teacher.
Science is an endless search for truth. Any representation of reality we develop can be only partial. There is no finality,sometimes no single best representation. There is only deeper understanding, more revealing and enveloping representations. Scientific advance, then, is a succession of newer representations superseding older ones, either because an older one has run its course and is no longer a reliable guide for a field or because the newer one is more powerful, encompassing, and productive than its predecessor(s).
Science is impelled by two main factors, technological advance and a guiding vision (overview). A properly balanced relationship between the two is key to the successful development of a science: without the proper technological advances the road ahead is blocked. Without a guiding vision there is no road ahead; the science becomes an engineering discipline, concerned with temporal practical problems. In its heyday the representation that came to dominate and define 20th century biology, molecular biology, was a rich and inspiring blend of the two. By the end of the 20th century, however, the molecular vision of biology had in essence been realized; what it could see of the master plan of the living world had been seen, leaving only the details to be filled in. How else could one rationalize the strange claim by some of the world's leading molecular biologists (among others) that the human genome (a medically inspired problem) is the "Holy Grail" of biology? What a stunning example of a biology that operates from an engineering perspective, a biology that has no genuine guiding vision!
Look back a hundred years. Didn't a similar sense of a science coming to completion pervade physics at the 19th century's end—the big problems were all solved; from here on out it was just a matter of working out the details? Deja vu! Biology today is no more fully understood in principle than physics was a century or so ago. In both cases the guiding vision has (or had) reached its end, and in both, a new, deeper, more invigorating representation of reality is (or was) called for.
A society that permits biology to become an engineering discipline, that allows that science to slip into the role of changing the living world without trying to understand it, is a danger to itself. Modern society knows that it desperately needs to learn how to live in harmony with the biosphere. Today more than ever we are in need of a science of biology that helps us to do this, shows the way. An engineering biology might still show us how to get there; it just doesn't know where "there" is.
Department of Microbiology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
THE MOLECULAR ERA IN THE BIGGER PICTURE
Reductionism versus Reductionism
Synthesis
TOWARDS A NEW REPRESENTATION OF BIOLOGY
CHANGING THE OVERVIEW
SOME PERTINENT HISTORY
THE PANDORA'S BOX OF MICROBIOLOGY
The Dismantling of Bacteriology and a Deconstruction of the Procaryote
Other Guesswork Solutions?
CELLULAR EVOLUTION: THE BUMPY ROAD TO WHO KNOWS WHERE
THE DYNAMICS OF CELLULAR EVOLUTION
The Key to Understanding the Character of HGT
From There to Here
An Interesting, if Not Relevant, Aside
When Is a Tree Not a Tree?
ONE LAST LOOK
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
REFERENCES
Image not related to this article/Imagem não relacionada com este artigo
Summary
Introduction
Science is impelled by two main factors, technological advance and a guiding vision (overview). A properly balanced relationship between the two is key to the successful development of a science: without the proper technological advances the road ahead is blocked. Without a guiding vision there is no road ahead; the science becomes an engineering discipline, concerned with temporal practical problems. In its heyday the representation that came to dominate and define 20th century biology, molecular biology, was a rich and inspiring blend of the two. By the end of the 20th century, however, the molecular vision of biology had in essence been realized; what it could see of the master plan of the living world had been seen, leaving only the details to be filled in. How else could one rationalize the strange claim by some of the world's leading molecular biologists (among others) that the human genome (a medically inspired problem) is the "Holy Grail" of biology? What a stunning example of a biology that operates from an engineering perspective, a biology that has no genuine guiding vision!
Look back a hundred years. Didn't a similar sense of a science coming to completion pervade physics at the 19th century's end—the big problems were all solved; from here on out it was just a matter of working out the details? Deja vu! Biology today is no more fully understood in principle than physics was a century or so ago. In both cases the guiding vision has (or had) reached its end, and in both, a new, deeper, more invigorating representation of reality is (or was) called for.
A society that permits biology to become an engineering discipline, that allows that science to slip into the role of changing the living world without trying to understand it, is a danger to itself. Modern society knows that it desperately needs to learn how to live in harmony with the biosphere. Today more than ever we are in need of a science of biology that helps us to do this, shows the way. An engineering biology might still show us how to get there; it just doesn't know where "there" is.
+++++
+++++
NOTA DESTE BLOGGER:
Todas as vezes em que leio artigos de cientistas evolucionistas honestos como o Carl R. Woese que fazem a leitura correta do paradigma em um contexto de justificação teórica, e verificam que o paradigma já colapsou devido à montanha de evidências negativas e contrárias, eu fico gratificado nesta minha luta de mais de uma década apontando a nudez epistêmica do neodarwinismo como explicação da biologia evolutiva.
E o que tudo isso revela? Darwin está nú, e há algo de podre na Nomenklatura científica que não permite vozes dissonantes e críticas do paradigma consensual ter hora e vez de exporem suas hipóteses e teorias científicas tentando explicar a origem e a volução da vida. Para os que me detratam no ciberespaço e impedem o meu avanço acadêmico, me resta o consolo: o bom em ciência, é que ela é uma busca pela verdade. Ciência e mentira não podem andar de mãos dadas. Além disso, o cientista deve seguir as evidências aonde elas forem dar.
Eu entendo, pela visão kuhniana de paradigma, que a turma de Down não vai entregar a rapadura assim tão fácil, pois há muita coisa em jogo (PODER, status, y otras cositas mais), mas eles vão ser encontrados do lado daqueles que perseguiram, expulsaram e silenciaram vozes contrárias, e nós não! A História da Ciência vai registrar isso. Quem viver, verá...
Fui, dando graças a Deus, oops, a Darwin, que ainda existem cientistas honestos como o Carl R. Woese!
+++++
