QUOTE
Towards An Epigenetic Biology And Medicine
By Richard C. Strohman, Professor Emeritus, Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley
Modern biomedical science has replaced the concept of "organism" with that of a survival machine in which life is reduced to the mechanistic workings of an evolved collection of genes. Our research establishment is mistakenly dedicated to recreating genomes to reflect a continuously degraded world. But genomes are actually adaptive and conserved entities and are highly interactive internally and with the world. [Note what is being said here: A lot of science, like a lot of religion, is fallible; it can be mistaken.]
They are difficult to change and their complexity does not permit linear genetic prediction of health. or diagnosis of disease. The logic of health and disease resides not in genes alone, but in holistic, epigenetic regulatory networks in cells and in all organisms - networks that are coextensive with the external world and which require for a manifestation of wellness the presence of environments reflective of our inherited and conserved genetic and epigenetic capacities.
Developments in the life sciences make it clear that the current genetic paradigm is too limited by mechanistic and deterministic models to accommodate new perceptions of the organism! Despite the successes of the currently accepted genetic paradigm in biomedical science, and the continuing pursuit of applied research using its models, basic research has revealed conflicts and inadequacies inherent in the assumptions supporting the paradigm [1]. What emerges from these challenges to concepts of genetic causality is the beginning of a new biological paradigm, an epigenetic view that embraces creative characteristics, fusion of genetic with environmental signals [2] and other aspects beyond currently accepted biomedical theory.
Epigenetic Biology Defined
The term epigenetic has been used in the past to describe organismal development as a nonlinear, complex process. Usually, it was used to distinguish developmental complexity from the theory of 'preformation', which claimed that the becoming of complex organisms was simply a matter of growth of tiny preformed bodies. In modern form preformation is recreated in terms of DNA and genetic programs within which developmental instructions reside.
Of course, this version of preformation based on DNA as the transcendent aspect of information is also wrong. The new biological paradigm has an epigenetic basis........ (For the full article, check out):
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php...nt%3Dclnt00001&
==========
Conclusion
The new biology is discovering important areas of conflict with the prevailing paradigm of genetic determinism. These discoveries lead us into new realms of complexity, and we see that obvious characteristics of life such as purpose, and creative (as distinct from vital) forces need to be accommodated.
An epigenetic paradigm holds possibilities for recapturing these characteristics within a scientific framework. Through epigenetic controls or vast networks of genes, gene products, and environmental signals found in living cells there is an opportunity for a new understanding.
This understanding may augment the idea of body wisdom. Rather than the need to orient ourselves to a technology devoted to engineering genes so we can fit imperfectly into a persistently degraded world, we may come to understand how to re-engineer the world to reflect the ancient and highly adapted genome that we humans bring with us as our evolved informational capacity The genome is well, changes only slowly and with difficulty; the environment is not well and can be changed to reflect human needs inseparable from the diverse needs of the planet itself.
An epigenetic paradigm, then, is a goal worthy of our highest priority and one toward which we have taken the first steps.
===============
References
1. STROHMAN, R.C. Ancient Genes, Wise Bodies, Unhealthy People: Limits of Genetic Thinking in Biology and Medicine'. (1993). Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 37 (I), pp.112-144.
By Richard C. Strohman, Professor Emeritus, Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley
Modern biomedical science has replaced the concept of "organism" with that of a survival machine in which life is reduced to the mechanistic workings of an evolved collection of genes. Our research establishment is mistakenly dedicated to recreating genomes to reflect a continuously degraded world. But genomes are actually adaptive and conserved entities and are highly interactive internally and with the world. [Note what is being said here: A lot of science, like a lot of religion, is fallible; it can be mistaken.]
They are difficult to change and their complexity does not permit linear genetic prediction of health. or diagnosis of disease. The logic of health and disease resides not in genes alone, but in holistic, epigenetic regulatory networks in cells and in all organisms - networks that are coextensive with the external world and which require for a manifestation of wellness the presence of environments reflective of our inherited and conserved genetic and epigenetic capacities.
Developments in the life sciences make it clear that the current genetic paradigm is too limited by mechanistic and deterministic models to accommodate new perceptions of the organism! Despite the successes of the currently accepted genetic paradigm in biomedical science, and the continuing pursuit of applied research using its models, basic research has revealed conflicts and inadequacies inherent in the assumptions supporting the paradigm [1]. What emerges from these challenges to concepts of genetic causality is the beginning of a new biological paradigm, an epigenetic view that embraces creative characteristics, fusion of genetic with environmental signals [2] and other aspects beyond currently accepted biomedical theory.
Epigenetic Biology Defined
The term epigenetic has been used in the past to describe organismal development as a nonlinear, complex process. Usually, it was used to distinguish developmental complexity from the theory of 'preformation', which claimed that the becoming of complex organisms was simply a matter of growth of tiny preformed bodies. In modern form preformation is recreated in terms of DNA and genetic programs within which developmental instructions reside.
Of course, this version of preformation based on DNA as the transcendent aspect of information is also wrong. The new biological paradigm has an epigenetic basis........ (For the full article, check out):
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php...nt%3Dclnt00001&
==========
Conclusion
The new biology is discovering important areas of conflict with the prevailing paradigm of genetic determinism. These discoveries lead us into new realms of complexity, and we see that obvious characteristics of life such as purpose, and creative (as distinct from vital) forces need to be accommodated.
An epigenetic paradigm holds possibilities for recapturing these characteristics within a scientific framework. Through epigenetic controls or vast networks of genes, gene products, and environmental signals found in living cells there is an opportunity for a new understanding.
This understanding may augment the idea of body wisdom. Rather than the need to orient ourselves to a technology devoted to engineering genes so we can fit imperfectly into a persistently degraded world, we may come to understand how to re-engineer the world to reflect the ancient and highly adapted genome that we humans bring with us as our evolved informational capacity The genome is well, changes only slowly and with difficulty; the environment is not well and can be changed to reflect human needs inseparable from the diverse needs of the planet itself.
An epigenetic paradigm, then, is a goal worthy of our highest priority and one toward which we have taken the first steps.
===============
References
1. STROHMAN, R.C. Ancient Genes, Wise Bodies, Unhealthy People: Limits of Genetic Thinking in Biology and Medicine'. (1993). Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 37 (I), pp.112-144.