Today I read a commentary to an article the editor of the paper made about the new “breakthrough” in science that now shows that “junk DNA” actually serves a purpose. The original post from the editor I thought was not quite accurate but I liked that it would hopefully at least get people searching around to learn more about this “breakthrough.” The response submitted to the editor was correct in pointing out about the fallacy of scientists just now discovering that “junk DNA” serves a purpose but his scientific explanations seemed terribly off, a bit racist, and a bit incoherent. This guy’s response sounded an awful like an internet troll, but I do think that he probably feels this way.
I know most non-scientific folk would accept this guys opinion as fact because he used a lot of scientific jargon (although incorrectly). So I thought this would be a good time to read up on the actual “breakthrough” and to correctly address it. And I did all this with a wonderful migraine. I find that if I focus a lot of thought on something that my migraines aren’t so bad. But I digress. Here is my response:
DNA milestone not necessarily breakthrough
On September 30th Terry Ross’s Editor’s Notebook discussed the heralded breakthrough of “Junk DNA” being discovered as having an actual function and purpose. Mr. Stan Lenihan’s response to this commentary was published October 24th in which he said that this was not news and then proceeded to incorrectly describe micro RNAs and the science behind alternative splicing (RNAs are involved but not miRNA), differences in muscle proteins (not sure how the protein itself can get “stronger”), ethnic races, and incoherently concluding that equality is a “commie-liberal” belief.
I do agree with Mr. Lenihan to some degree in that scientists have known for a while now that introns (non-gene coding regions) and modifications of DNA (epigenetics) are involved in the regulation of genes. In fact not many scientists (at least the responsible ones) ever used the term the “junk DNA,” because most understood very early on that their role at the time was not known.
What is important about what was recently published in a number of scientific journals was the cumulation of information from the ENCODE (ENCylopedia of DNA Elements) project. This collection of data was able to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well studied protein-coding regions providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation and how diseases affect some people differently (Nature Sep. 2012). The ENCODE project is a direct result from the Human Genome project that was completed in 2001. Simply put the Human Genome project is a very basic map of our genes while the ENCODE project superimposes on this map the roads and paths that lead from a gene/s to a possible disease or different developed characteristics.
This is a definitely cool and exciting milestone in science because the ENCODE project provides the rationale to sequence the whole genome of individuals with rare diseases and the ability to now see what “roads” are damaged and in need of repair. As a result treatments for these diseases may be more accurately studied and targeted.
Regarding the odd equality/commie-liberal comment I think most of us understand there are of course physicals differences between people but in the end we are all humans and that everyone (regardless of appearances) deserve the same basic rights and freedoms.
Yuma Scientist 