Recently I discussed with my students the topic 'Expression of Biological Information'. They were quite boggled as to why Crick called his hypothesis the 'central dogma'. They could understand and accept that genetic info generally flows from DNA to RNA to protein.
But they had problems with 'DNA makes RNA makes protein', when RNA (primers) and proteins (enzymes) are needed for DNA synthesis.
Then I found out that Crick admitted that he used the term 'central dogma' simply because he had a grand hypothesis that had 'little experimental support'.
So what if he had called it the 'central idea' or the 'grand idea' of molecular biology? Please give your opinions. Thanks.
Dogma is a principle or its set, which are true and beyond any controversies. It cannot be changed or discarded without affecting the ideology.
The term idea has been used for a range of abstract concepts. It is a characteristic feature of a human being to create and understand the meaning of ideas.
A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something.
Going by these standard definitions, I think "Central Dogma" is perfect !
I appreciate the way you put up the question for discussion. Eventhough his experiment was not associated with much evidence at that time, the concept made sense to the scientific fraternity and later on experiments were done to prove his hypothesis. As his proclaimed idea was not supported by much experimental proofs therefore he named it as "Central Dogma".
Thanks Rohan, I think you are quite right. When I searched, I found that Crick acknowledged that calling it 'dogma' caused a lot of problems. It seemed that Crick did not quite understand the meaning of the word 'dogma', until Monod (probably a younger scientist) told him its real meaning. [Similarly, in RG, we can help one another and learn from each other.]
I put up the question because I had problems with my students as I have stated earlier. To me, It means that we have to be very careful in our words, especially when we are scientists, teachers and researchers.
Whatever it is, I would normally appreciate all feedback from the RG community, even if I may not heartily agree with their opinion. Each has a right to hold their view point. Do you agree?
Wasn't it meant as a joke? a small poke at the antagonism of science, especially biology, for religion, especially Christian dogma in the US? Scientist like such jokes (e.g. the name "quark").
You could be right. He could have meant it as a joke. But if Crick had called it 'hypothesis', it would be more accurate.
Besides, by calling it 'central idea' or 'central hypothesis' it could have spurred research. Then perhaps, we would have gained more knowledge. Thanks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Cell Biology