Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

LETTERS TO AND FROM THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Is there a crisis in biology? Commoner [?] claims the existence ofa crisis in biology today because ofthe different points ofview ofthe traditional biologists who look at the whole organism and the newer molecular biologists who look for the molecular mechanisms.While such concepts as the living molecule are certainly absurd and many ofthe modem scientists unwittingly committed the mistake ofover-simplification as Commoner indicates, the situation in biology hardly justifies the term "crisis." A crisis appears when all the available means for the solution ofa problem have been exhausted and yet the problem remains unsolved, such as the situation at the time ofthe discovery ofthe law of black-body radiation. In biology today, the available techniques ofphysics and chemistry have not been exhausted yet; in fact, in many areas the work along this line has hardly begun. My own study on the structure and function ofDNA [2, 3] indicates that many ofthe "mysteries" oflife are explainable in terms ofthe basic principles ofphysical science. Instead of speaking of a crisis, we should speak ofa golden opportunity in biology. Unlike a group ofdoomsday prophets discussing how the catastrophe will descend, the biologists today should act like prospectors in a gold rush arguing how to strike it rich. The golden opportunity becomes a crisis only because ofnarrow-mindedness and short-sightedness. In the history ofscience, there are discoveries ofnew phenomena—such as radioactivity —which are completely different from what was known before but nevertheless are explainable, eventually, by the basic principles ofphysical science. Life may well bejust such a "new" phenomenon. Because it is completely different from what is now known in physical science, we do not expect to explain life in the same way as we explain a machine oramolecule; nevertheless, we do expect to explain it in terms ofthe basic principles ofphysical science without recourse to supernatural or a-natural, until all avenues in this exploration have been exhausted. Commoner's example ofsuperconductivity is certainly not the best example that can be cited in support ofhis case which emphasizes the property ofthe "whole." A better example is the discharge tube which sometimes exhibits a "negative resistance" in apparent contradiction to the basic laws of physics—yet, everything of gaseous discharge can be and has been explained in terms ofbasic laws ofphysics. What makes the discharge tube appear mysterious and different from the other physical phenomena is that it is a self-maintained system. In fact, a self-maintained system is considered one ofthe charac679 teristics oflife [2]. A self-maintained system is a property ofthe whole; yet, the whole is made possible by the peculiar co-ordination (due to historical and evolutional factors) of the special properties of its components. Biology studies along this line show that the unification of the two viewpoints (one emphasizing the whole; the other, the parts) is not only possible but also attainable. Commoner complained justly that the central dogma of molecular biology is so far a dogma. Nevertheless, it is an issue subject to scientific analysis. In fact, in the course of study ofthe characteristics ofthe genetic code from the point ofview ofthe structure of ?-RNA, I have found a scientific basis which is a statistical one (thus the dogma might be leaky). references i. Barry Commoner. Science and survival. New York: 1966. (Excerpts in Saturday Rev., Oct. i, 1966.) 2.Peter Fong. Nat. Acad. Sci. Proc, 52 ¡239, 641, 1964. 3. --------.J. Theor. Biol, (in press). Peter Fong Department ofPhysics Emory University Atlanta, Georgia 30322 Dear Sir: Dwight J. Ingle's review of The Testing ofNegro Intelligence, by Audrey M. Shuey, exposes at least two dangerous unscientific approaches. (1) The first is almost a purely Aristotelian view of environment: "When Negro pupils are compared with whites of the same socioeconomic class, the average differences in test performance are still substantial and significant. Negro children who have no experience with slums, poverty, or segregated schools do less well, on the average, than do white children ofthe same socioeconomic class" [1]. It should be obvious to all but the most trenchant Aristotelians that "the same socioeconomic class" can include a plethora ofenvironments. Prejudice and differential attitude by teachers...