#1

The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book.

How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology Philip Ball Pan Macmillan (2024)

For too long, scientists have been content in espousing the lazy metaphor of living systems operating simply like machines, says science writer Philip Ball in How Life Works. Yet, it’s important to be open about the complexity of biology — including what we don’t know — because public understanding affects policy, health care and trust in science. “So long as we insist that cells are computers and genes are their code,” writes Ball, life might as well be “sprinkled with invisible magic”. But, reality “is far more interesting and wonderful”, as he explains in this must-read user’s guide for biologists and non-biologists alike.

When the human genome was sequenced in 2001, many thought that it would prove to be an ‘instruction manual’ for life. But the genome turned out to be no blueprint. In fact, most genes don’t have a pre-set function that can be determined from their DNA sequence.

Instead, genes’ activity — whether they are expressed or not, for instance, or the length of protein that they encode — depends on myriad external factors, from the diet to the environment in which the organism develops. And each trait can be influenced by many genes.

Full Article:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00327-x

Other Reviews

Buy on Amazon:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Life-Works-Users-Biology/dp/0226826686/

11 Likes
#2

I have bought this and started reading it. I find it quite a good book and well worth getting.

I would say, however, “It’s time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life” is not really an accurate title to describe the book. It does explain the complexity of cellular biochemistry and that there are things beyond genes that can be inherited.

5 Likes
#3

I just uploaded it to my Kindle. Hope it is a good read.

2 Likes
#4

@John_Hemming Anything therein about the role of mitochondria (and therefore mitochondrial dna) on the “blueprint”? It seems that nuclear DNA being the source code is a bit reductionist (and incorrect).

I’m glad you convinced me last year to take mitochondria more seriously. It’s my #1 focus now.

1 Like
#5

@scta123 how are you doing, everything ok? Haven’t seen you in a while.

#6

I dont remember anything about mtDNA. Separately is the argument that the cell membrane is also inherited

1 Like
#7

@Neo I’ve been doing just fine. I had really limited time I could spend on this platform. I missed it a bit and I am gradually returning. I was finishing my residency and PhD at the same time which drained me of any spare time. I have been slowly reading all the posts I missed these months. Many interesting discussions I would like to return to. How are you doing? Was wondering the same about @AnUser. i seem to return and he is taking time off… I gather it must be “dry” January :sweat_smile:

5 Likes
#8

Big congrats residency and PhD @scta123 !!!

Yes, all is well with me

The more I learn about the science and technology that might be available over the next 10-15 years - the more excited I get about the future of health and longevity

Hope all is well with you @AnUser - it’s true that we haven’t seen you much in a while

3 Likes
#9

Sorry for the late response, but I understood your message as it is written now, even before the edit.
Doing good, before that about okay – as usual, but feel like I am getting onboard on the health and longevity mission.

Waiting for Silk Road to get back online. :wink:

3 Likes