Memememe - That's "Meme" - THE ANSWERS

[bronwynrh]

Courtesy of Platofish, one of my scientifically inclined friends, comes the interview meme.
Five questions:

1. James Watson: Hero or villain?
In my view, he's neither one nor the other. He was lucky to be at the right place at the right time. He had the data and his mind was ready to see it, so he and Francis Crick had the stroke of insight that Maurice Wilkins wasn't ready to have. Rosalind Franklin may have seen it, were she studying the B-form crystallographs, but alas, she was looking at A-forms. Chargaff had pieces of the puzzle, but didn't see it; Linus Pauling, a chemical genius, insisted on a model that was inside-out. Watson and Crick sat in a room with a chalkboard and tinker toys and put other people's data (without their consent or knowledge) to use. It was a brilliant leap.

"It has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material." Watson and Crick, Nature, April 25 1953. What biology student hasn't read those words?

James Watson since then has ridden the wave of his popularity and has personally contributed very little to the scientific world. He is also, from what I have heard from those who have worked with him, and based on his own writings, a chauvinist and an ass :-) Neither he nor Crick ever gave credit where it was due - namely, that the data on which their model was based belonged to Ms. Franklin; neither did they acknowledge her when they won the Nobel prize. Watson disparaged her in his book and continues to do so today. So no. He's not a hero or a villain. I think he had a great insight once, but then became a victim of his own (and the world's eventual) delusions of his grandeur. Sad, really, and I have only a little respect for him.

2. What is your view on astrobiology? In particular, what kind of microbial life might be out there, if any?
On this topic, of course, we can only speak in hypotheticals. I have no religious or moral imperative telling me that ours is the only planet on which life exists. What I work from is my understanding of the ideas behind the RNA world and the origins of life, the first cell, etc. Arthur Koch, who has done much of the theoretical work in the field of the first cell, works in our department - I suppose I am lucky for this. I even edited his last book!

I'm not saying I understood it, mind you (heehee, right Dave?)

Astrobiology. The statistical chances of life having begun at all on our own planet are infinitesimally small, while the universe is insanely large. I would think that, given those odds, it is possible that life has also begun somewhere "out there". I don't think it would follow any rules other than those we already know are required for the basic cell - ie, this life would be C,N,O-based and follow the basic rules of membranes, for example.

I do think it's possible, but I don't think the universe is teeming with life in a Star-Trek sort of scenario ;-)

3. Which would you choose, having to cut your own hair for the rest of your life, or not drinking alcohol?
I thought this was really easy at first - No alcohol! Definitely! I Then I thought, well, wait. . .*laughs* This is a more difficult question after all! After much thought, much more deep thought than ever I thought I could put into such a question, I have decided that I would rather go without alcohol than ever have to cut my own hair.

That is my final answer.

4. What would you do for a living, if you couldn't do science? (Real jobs, not travelling the world and writing about it)
Gee, does that mean archaeology is out? *grin* I'm trying to think of something that doesn't have -ology in the suffix! My parents would love it if I went back to live with them (or near them, at least) and helped them start up their nursery business. That would be great. I could spend a lot of time out doors.

I'd be devastated though, because archaeology really would be my first (second) choice. . . I really can't imagine doing anything but science.

5. Is genetically modified food an issue, or is it ok?
Haven't we been eating genetically modified food since the ancients bred wild wheats into bread-flour wheats? All those different tomatoes we love so well are genetically modified too. But oh no, if a pipet and an Agrobacterium strain comes near, watch out! *sigh* Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I honestly believe that there are more benefits to GM foods than there are drawbacks.

Having said that, GM foods should be thoroughly researched and properly tested for safety - no need to run pell-mell into anything, only to get burned in the end.

My point is that there are many GM products that we already know are perfectly safe that are being rejected simply because of stigma and prejudice. Meanwhile, people are going hungry, rivers are dying and reservoirs are being polluted.

GM foods are not a god to be worshipped and never questioned, but they are not something to be rejected outright.

Thanks, platofish! Of course, ashfault76 decided to steal the questions you gave to me and he answered them last night on his own page. Harumph. :-D

Anyway, here are my answers. Longwinded, but as well thought out as I could make them in the time limit I gave myself. Congratulations to those of you who made it this far! If you want questions from me, let me know. It may take me some time, but I'll come up with some and toss 'em your way.

Comments

[kendokamel.livejournal.com]

3. Which would you choose, having to cut your own hair for the rest of your life, or not drinking alcohol?

Heehee... I do both of those, anyway. (;

enjoyed reading your responses.

[(Anonymous)]

I had to look up meme "an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture "...not a word found normally in my conversations! I wonder what questions you would give me... As for #4 you and I both lean the same way... and digging in the ground is involved in both!
LUV SA