home Well and well

Watson is a scientist. Who discovered the double helix of DNA? Advances in science

There are quite a few Nobel laureates in the world, but only a few of them are widely known. The legendary James Dewey Watson is one of them. Every schoolchild knows about the spatial structure of the DNA molecule he discovered. However, Watson became famous not only for his scientific achievements - among scientists he deservedly bears the title of number one brawler.

Unpleasant person
From the very beginning, James Watson followed his own special path in science. Perhaps the reason for this is his quarrelsome, quarrelsome, and, according to some, simply disgusting character. Watson's Harvard colleague, the famous zoologist Edward Wilson, once admitted: "Watson is the most unpleasant person I know." But Watson has long been accustomed to taking a punch - after all, he is from Chicago. It was in the capital of American crime that during the Great Depression, in 1928, the future genius James Dewey Watson happened to be born. True, young James never got involved with bad companies. He had no time for that. His father, a mediocre businessman, doted on his only son and did everything to give his son an excellent education. The parent's persistent efforts were crowned with success. An elementary school graduate was invited to participate in the radio program “Quiz for Children,” where only gifted children performed. But unlike other young talents, Watson is the only one who achieved worldwide recognition...

Sharp turns
After completing two years of high school, James is sent to college at the University of Chicago. Watson is most attracted to biology, and he dreams of becoming an ornithologist - a specialist who studies birds. In 1947, at the age of just 19, Watson received his B.A. University luminaries predicted a brilliant future for him, but the young man suddenly showed his obstinate disposition and decided to retrain as a geneticist. In this field, Watson also achieved recognition: already in 1950 he received a doctorate for studying the effects of X-rays on the reproduction of viruses living in bacteria. The National Research Society allocated a considerable subsidy to the young specialist, but he again played all-in - he left America and rushed to Europe.

The path to Olympus
In the Old World, Watson plunges headlong into studying the biochemical properties of deoxyribonucleic acid - DNA. The scientist wants to know how it works, but he has serious competition - Linus Pauling himself, winner of two Nobel Prizes, has been working on this problem for a long time. Watson changes universities like gloves and meets misunderstanding and opposition everywhere. However, James, a timid guy, is not used to retreating. In the autumn of 1951, he first crosses the threshold of Cambridge and there he finds a like-minded person - Francis Crick. The cry was a match for Watson - he was known as an eccentric. He spoke too quickly and too much, but could not boast of great achievements in science. Despite the age difference (James is 23, Francis is 35), they quickly find a common language and get to work with inspiration.

Modelers-constructors
By the early 1950s, it was clear that the components of DNA constituted some kind of unified structure. Just which one? No one knew this yet. True, the same Linus Pauling managed to suggest that DNA looks like a spiral. He was the first to come up with the idea of a “children’s construction set” - a spatial model of a molecule. But so far no one, including Pauling himself, has been able to correctly assemble this “constructor.”

Watson and Crick, day after day, did nothing but put together “balls” and “wires.” Watching them “juggle,” their colleagues jokingly called them scientific clowns. The insight came, as always, unexpectedly. One cold January night in 1953, while sleepless, Watson was reading a newspaper. But only three letters were spinning in his head - DNA. And suddenly the scheme they had been struggling with for so long appeared before his eyes! James grabbed a pen and quickly sketched a picture right in the margins of the newspaper. The DNA molecule finally took on the appearance of a twisted rope ladder.

In 1962, James Watson, along with Crick and Maurice Wilkins (the latter confirmed the structure of DNA using X-ray crystallography), was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Thus began the era of molecular biology in science, and Watson became its symbol.

Against the stream
Meanwhile, the “symbol” behaved inappropriately. He wasn’t particularly politically correct before, but now it’s as if he’s gone off the rails. He once said that it would be nice to use his discovery to make all girls beautiful. A scandal arose. Someone else in his place would have drawn conclusions, but it was not this one who was attacked! Watson seemed to be testing public patience. He publicly declared that it would be good to find the gene responsible for sexuality. Then each woman could decide for herself whether to keep a homosexual child or get rid of him in the womb. What started here! “Every woman wants grandchildren,” the scientist later explained. “I was only arguing in favor of her right to make a choice.” I didn’t discuss whether it was good or bad.” The explanations did not satisfy anyone.

Another time, Watson admitted that stupidity is a disease that should be treated, at least using genetic engineering methods. Well, the biologist never showed mercy for human shortcomings, but this time, it seems, he did not spare even himself, because his son suffered from schizophrenia. But the public did not accept this statement either. However, these were still flowers. In 2007, a real storm broke out. The Times newspaper published an interview with Watson, in which he stated without hesitation: “The prospects for Africa, in my opinion, are the gloomiest ... Our whole social policy is based on the assumption that they are as smart as us, while tests show that this is not the case.” The biologist was not forgiven for this phrase, and at the age of 79 he was forced to resign from the scientific laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor. It was a punch in the gut. The scientist himself created this laboratory, recruited staff there himself, led it for many years, thanks to him it turned into one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the world. How many times did Watson make excuses? He supposedly meant that people in different regions have different innate intellectual abilities, which is due to different living conditions. They didn't even listen to Watson.

Genes and prices
So, the hero was toppled from his pedestal. But he didn't break. Despite his advanced age, Watson today travels around the world giving lectures. Last August, for example, I visited Moscow. He gave a dozen interviews, received an honorary doctorate from Moscow State University, and gave two lectures. The halls where he performed were stormed. Watson eagerly talked about research into the human genome, which would help us understand the root cause of many serious diseases. Now such research costs a tidy sum, but in the future, according to the scientist, the cost of a complete reading of one human genome will approach the cost of a car. “And you will do this for your son or daughter, because knowing your DNA sequence is as important as having a car!” - the biologist is sure. By the way, Watson’s own genome was recently deciphered by two well-known American companies. It took two months of hard work and almost a million dollars to give the Nobel laureate such a gift!

Lyubov DYAKOVA

By the way:
1. For most, Watson is primarily the creator of the spatial model of the DNA molecule. But the scientist has one more talent. His book “The Double Helix,” which describes the history of the discovery, is rightfully considered the best that has been written about science.

2. Decoding the first human genome, undertaken in 1988 (including with the participation of Watson), cost three billion dollars and lasted more than thirteen years.

Announcement picture: Array

James Dewey Watson - American molecular biologist, geneticist and zoologist; He is best known for his participation in the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953. Winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

After successfully graduating from the University of Chicago and Indiana University, Watson spent some time doing chemistry research with biochemist Herman Kalckar in Copenhagen. He later moved to the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where he first met his future colleague and comrade Francis Crick.

Watson and Crick came up with the idea of a DNA double helix in mid-March 1953, while studying experimental data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. The discovery was announced by Sir Lawrence Bragg, director of the Cavendish Laboratory; This happened at a Belgian scientific conference on April 8, 1953. The important statement, however, was not actually noticed by the press. On April 25, 1953, an article about the discovery was published in the scientific journal Nature. Other biological scientists and a number of Nobel laureates quickly appreciated the monumentality of the discovery; some even called it the greatest scientific discovery of the 20th century.

In 1962, Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their discovery. The fourth participant in the project, Rosalind Franklin, died in 1958 and, as a result, could no longer qualify for the prize. Watson was also awarded a monument at the American Museum of Natural History in New York for his discovery; since such monuments are erected only in honor of American scientists, Crick and Wilkins were left without monuments.

Watson is still considered one of the greatest scientists in history; however, many people openly disliked him as a person. James Watson has been involved in quite high-profile scandals several times; one of them was directly related to his work - the fact is that while working on the DNA model, Watson and Crick used data obtained by Rosalind Franklin without her permission. The scientists worked quite actively with Franklin's partner, Wilkins; Rosalind herself, quite possibly, might not have known until the end of her life how important the role her experiments played in understanding the structure of DNA.

From 1956 to 1976, Watson worked at Harvard's biology department; During this period he was interested mainly in molecular biology.

In 1968, Watson received a position as director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island, New York; Through his efforts, the quality of research work in the laboratory has significantly increased, and funding has noticeably improved. Watson himself was primarily involved in cancer research during this period; Along the way, he made the laboratory under his control one of the best centers of molecular biology in the world.

In 1994, Watson became president of the research center, and in 2004 - rector; in 2007, he left his position after making rather unpopular statements about the existence of a connection between intelligence level and origin.

Best of the day

When breasts interfere with life
Visited:253

Vocalist "A'Studio"
Visited:205

Head of Russian literature

James Dewey Watson - American biochemist. Born April 6, 1928 in Chicago, Illinois. He was the only child of businessman James D. Watson and Jean (Mitchell) Watson. In his hometown, the boy received primary and secondary education. It soon became apparent that James was an unusually gifted child, and he was invited to appear on the radio program “Quizzes for Children.” After only two years of high school, Watson received a scholarship in 1943 to attend an experimental four-year college at the University of Chicago, where he developed an interest in studying ornithology. After graduating from the university in 1947 with a bachelor's degree in science, he then continued his education at Indiana University Bloomington.

Born in Chicago, Illinois. At the age of 15 he entered the University of Chicago, graduating four years later. In 1950, they received their doctorate from Indiana University for their study of viruses. By this time, Watson had become interested in genetics and began studying in Indiana under the guidance of a specialist in this field, G.D. Meller and bacteriologist S. Luria. In 1950, the young scientist received his Doctor of Philosophy degree for his dissertation on the effect of X-rays on the reproduction of bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria). A grant from the National Research Society allowed him to continue his research on bacteriophages at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. There he studied the biochemical properties of bacteriophage DNA. However, as he later recalled, experiments with the bacteriophage began to weigh on him; he wanted to learn more about the true structure of DNA molecules, which geneticists were so enthusiastically talking about. His visit to the Cavendish Laboratory in 1951 led to a collaboration with Francis Crick that culminated in the discovery of the structure of DNA.

In October 1951, the scientist went to the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge to study the spatial structure of proteins together with D.K. Kendrew. There he met Crick, a physicist who was interested in biology and was writing his doctoral dissertation at that time.

“It was intellectual love at first sight,” says one historian of science. “Their scientific views and interests are the most important issue to solve if you are a biologist.” Despite their common interests, outlook on life and style of thinking, Watson and Crick mercilessly, although politely, criticized each other. Their roles in this intellectual duet were different. “Francis was the brain and I was the feeling,” says Watson.

Beginning in 1952, building on the early work of Chargaff, Wilkins, and Franklin, Crick and Watson decided to try to determine the chemical structure of DNA.

Recalling the attitude of the vast majority of biologists of those days to DNA, Watson wrote: “After Avery’s experiments, it seemed that DNA was the main genetic material. Thus, understanding the chemical structure of DNA could be an important step toward understanding how genes are reproduced. But unlike proteins, there was very little chemical information that was precisely established about DNA. Few chemists had worked on it, and except for the fact that nucleic acids are very large molecules built from smaller building blocks called nucleotides, there was nothing known about their chemistry that a geneticist could grasp. Moreover, organic chemists who worked with DNA were almost never interested in genetics.”

American scientists have tried to bring together all the previously available information about DNA, both physicochemical and biological. As V.N. writes Soifer: “Watson and Crick analyzed the data from X-ray diffraction analysis of DNA, compared them with the results of chemical studies of the ratio of nucleotides in DNA (Chargaff’s rules) and applied L. Pauling’s idea about the possibility of the existence of helical polymers, which he expressed in relation to proteins, to DNA. As a result, they were able to propose a hypothesis about the structure of DNA, according to which DNA was composed of two polynucleotide strands connected by hydrogen bonds and mutually twisted relative to each other. The Watson and Crick hypothesis so simply explained most of the mysteries about the functioning of DNA as a genetic matrix that it was literally immediately accepted by geneticists and was experimentally proven in a short time.”

Based on this, Watson and Crick proposed the following DNA model:

1. Two strands in the DNA structure are twisted around one another and form a right-handed helix.

2. Each chain is composed of regularly repeating phosphoric acid and deoxyribose sugar residues. Nitrogenous bases are attached to sugar residues (one for each sugar residue).

3. The chains are fixed relative to each other by hydrogen bonds connecting pairs of nitrogenous bases. As a result, it turns out that phosphorus and carbohydrate residues are located on the outside of the helix, and the bases are contained inside it. The bases are perpendicular to the axis of the chains.

4. There is a selection rule for pairing bases. A purine base can combine with a pyrimidine base, and, moreover, thymine can only combine with adenine, and guanine with cytosine...

5. You can swap: a) the participants of this pair; b) any pair onto another pair, and this will not lead to disruption of the structure, although it will have a decisive impact on its biological activity.

“Our structure,” wrote Watson and Crick, “thus consists of two chains, each complementary to the other.”

In February 1953, Crick and Watson reported the structure of DNA. A month later, they created a three-dimensional model of the DNA molecule, made from beads, pieces of cardboard and wire.

Watson wrote about the discovery to his boss Delbrück, who wrote to Niels Bohr: “Amazing things are happening in biology. I think Jim Watson has made a discovery comparable to what Rutherford made in 1911." It is worth recalling that in 1911 Rutherford discovered the atomic nucleus.

The model allowed other researchers to clearly visualize DNA replication. The two strands of the molecule separate at hydrogen bonding sites, like the opening of a zipper, and then a new one is synthesized on each half of the old DNA molecule. The sequence of bases acts as a template, or pattern, for a new molecule.

The DNA structure proposed by Watson and Crick perfectly satisfied the main criterion, the fulfillment of which was necessary for a molecule claiming to be a repository of hereditary information. “The backbone of our model is highly ordered, and base pair sequence is the only property that can mediate the transmission of genetic information,” they wrote.

Crick and Watson completed the DNA model in 1953, and nine years later, together with Wilkins, they received the 1962 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids and their importance for the transmission of information in living systems." Maurice Wilkins - His experiments with X-ray diffraction helped establish the double-stranded structure of DNA. Rosalind Franklin (1920–58), whose contribution to the discovery of the structure of DNA was considered by many to be very significant, was not awarded the Nobel Prize because she did not live to see that time.

Having summarized data on the physical and chemical properties of DNA and analyzed the results of M. Wilkins and R. Franklin on the scattering of X-rays on DNA crystals, J. Watson and F. Crick in 1953 built a model of the three-dimensional structure of this molecule. The principle of complementarity of chains in a double-stranded molecule that they proposed was of utmost importance. J. Watson has a hypothesis about a semi-conservative mechanism of DNA replication. In 1958-1959 J. Watson and A. Tissier conducted studies of bacterial ribosomes that became classic. The scientist’s work on studying the structure of viruses is also known. In 1989-1992 J. Watson headed the international scientific program "Human Genome".

Watson and Crick discovered the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a substance that contains all hereditary information.

By the fifties, it was known that DNA is a large molecule that consists of thousands of small molecules of four different types connected to each other in a line - nucleotides. Scientists also knew that it was DNA that was responsible for storing and inheriting genetic information, similar to text written in a four-letter alphabet. The spatial structure of this molecule and the mechanisms by which DNA is inherited from cell to cell and from organism to organism remained unknown.

In 1948, Linus Pauling discovered the spatial structure of other macromolecules—proteins—and created a model of the structure called the “alpha helix.”

Pauling also believed that DNA is a helix, moreover, consisting of three strands. However, he could not explain either the nature of such a structure or the mechanisms of DNA self-duplication for transmission to daughter cells.

The discovery of the double-stranded structure occurred after Maurice Wilkins secretly showed Watson and Crick an X-ray of a DNA molecule taken by his collaborator Rosalind Franklin. In this image, they clearly recognized the signs of a spiral and headed to the laboratory to check everything on a three-dimensional model.

In the laboratory, it turned out that the workshop had not supplied the metal plates necessary for the stereo model, and Watson cut out four types of nucleotide models from cardboard - guanine (G), cytosine (C), thymine (T) and adenine (A) - and began to lay them out on the table . And then he discovered that adenine combines with thymine, and guanine with cytosine according to the “key-lock” principle. This is exactly how the two strands of the DNA helix are connected to each other, that is, opposite the thymine from one strand there will always be adenine from the other, and nothing else.

This arrangement made it possible to explain the mechanisms of DNA copying: two strands of the helix diverge, and to each of them an exact copy of its former “partner” in the helix is added from nucleotides. Using the same principle as printing a positive from a negative in a photograph.

Although Franklin did not support the hypothesis of the helical structure of DNA, it was her photographs that played a decisive role in the discovery of Watson and Crick. Rosalind did not live to see the prize that Wilkins, Watson and Crick received.

It is obvious that the discovery of the spatial structure of DNA made a revolution in the world of science and entailed a whole series of new discoveries, without which it is impossible to imagine not only modern science, but also modern life in general

In the sixties of the last century, Watson and Crick's assumption about the mechanism of DNA replication (doubling) was completely confirmed. In addition, it was shown that a special protein, DNA polymerase, takes part in this process.

Around the same time, another important discovery was made - the genetic code. As mentioned above, DNA contains information about everything that is inherited, including the linear structure of every protein in the body. Proteins, like DNA, are long molecular chains of amino acids. There are 20 of these amino acids. Accordingly, it was unclear how the “language” of DNA, consisting of a four-letter alphabet, is translated into the “language” of proteins, where 20 “letters” are used.

It turned out that the combination of three DNA nucleotides clearly corresponds to one of the 20 amino acids. And thus, what is “written” on DNA is unambiguously translated into protein.

In the seventies, two more important methods appeared, based on the discovery of Watson and Crick. This is sequencing and obtaining recombinant DNA. Sequencing allows you to “read” the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. It is on this method that the entire Human Genome program is based.

Obtaining recombinant DNA is otherwise called molecular cloning. The essence of this method is that a fragment containing a specific gene is inserted into a DNA molecule. In this way, for example, bacteria are obtained that contain the gene for human insulin. Insulin obtained in this way is called recombinant. All “genetically modified products” are created using the same method.

Paradoxically, reproductive cloning, which everyone is talking about now, appeared before the structure of DNA was discovered. It is clear that now scientists conducting such experiments are actively using the results of the discovery of Watson and Crick. But, initially, the method was not based on it.

The next important step in science was the development of the polymerase chain reaction in the eighties. This technology is used to quickly “reproduce” the desired DNA fragment and has already found many applications in science, medicine and technology. In medicine, PCR is used to quickly and accurately diagnose viral diseases. If the mass of DNA obtained from a patient’s analysis contains genes brought by the virus, even in minimal quantities, then using PCR it is possible to “multiply” them and then easily identify them.

A.V. Engström of the Karolinska Institutet said at the prize ceremony: “The discovery of the spatial molecular structure ... DNA is extremely important because it outlines the possibility of understanding in great detail the general and individual characteristics of all living things.” Engström noted that “unraveling the double helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid with its specific pairing of nitrogenous bases opens up fantastic possibilities for unraveling the details of the control and transmission of genetic information.”

At the end of June - beginning of July, at the invitation of the Russian Academy of Sciences and with the support of the Dynasty Foundation, the outstanding biologist, Nobel laureate James Watson, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA, visited Moscow. His visit was dedicated to the 55th anniversary of this discovery and the 80th anniversary of the scientist himself.

During his few days in Moscow, James Watson gave two lectures - a lecture for scientists and students “Can DNA show us how to cure cancer in our lifetime?” at the Institute of Molecular Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and a public lecture “DNA and the brain. In Search of Genes for Mental Diseases" in the House of Scientists, visited the Zvenigorod Biological Station of Moscow State University, and then Moscow University itself, where he was awarded a commemorative medal and a diploma of an honorary professor of Moscow State University, and, of course, gave countless interviews. On behalf of “Elements” questions were asked to the legendary scientist Elena Naimark And Alexander Markov.

- Last year you published an autobiographical book “Avoid boring people”. It describes the story of your life from childhood. What would you like to draw the attention of Russian readers to, because we hope that the book will be translated into Russian.

I actually began the account of my life from my earliest years and carried it forward until I was forty-eight years old, when I left teaching at Harvard University and became director of the Institute at Cold Spring Harbor, and then through the years of directorship. I spent my childhood in Chicago, surrounded by books that were highly respected in my family. My parents diligently encouraged my love of reading and sent me to university early. They taught evolution at the University of Chicago, so I got a real education and got into science very early, when I was only 20 years old. And at the age of 24 I had already graduated from university.

It so happened for me that the structure of DNA was discovered in 1953, although it could well have been discovered in 1952, the discovery waited a little for me. But if I had entered university at the right age, the discovery would have gone to someone else. So my advice is to get an education as early as possible; at the age of 20 we are already ready to make independent decisions. In general, the tips that I wrote in my book have been tested by me personally, and I don’t know how suitable they are for other people. But it seems that these tips do not correspond one hundred percent to people's ideas about how they should behave. True, if I had always behaved in accordance with these ideas, I am afraid that I would not have achieved such success.

- Your education at the University of Chicago was based on the teachings of evolution. It is sometimes suggested that human evolution has stopped and natural selection no longer has power over our bodies and minds.

I don't think that's entirely true. Along the way, new genetic variations arise all the time. But this can only really be noticed if you read the genetic sequences of parents and their children. Then it becomes clear what changes have appeared. But there are no such studies yet. Some friends of mine in Houston, Texas, who had been working on my personal genetic sequence, suggested that they research the genetic sequences of my two sons and my wife. But the cost of the project is too high - this is the main reason why we do not do this. Although the cost of reading a genetic sequence is now rapidly decreasing.

- But they have already deciphered your genome?

Deciphered. But we don’t know if there are changes there, and what kind of changes they are, there’s nothing to compare with. Each newborn appears to have 200–500 newborns in genes that are absent in the parents. Most of them are in regions of the genome that are of little significance. Only 5% of the genome is responsible for anything important. So the child has about 25 changes that will somehow affect his life. Some changes have a slight effect, some have a strong effect. It is a new area of research to understand how new genetic variations arise.

There is a simple method, which was developed, including by employees of the Laboratory in Cold Spring Harbor, which allows you to determine the number of copies of various parts of the genome. That is, the entire DNA sequence is not considered, but only the number of copies of one specific DNA fragment is counted, and this number is compared with the library standard. Sometimes three copies are found instead of two, or five instead of two, or one is found instead of two, and sometimes there are no copies at all. In this latter case, we can assume that this DNA fragment is not needed at all. If there are many copies, then perhaps we are dealing with an important section of DNA.

This work has been going on for 4 years now, and progress is obvious. Previously, cytologists worked with chromosomes and, recording major changes - duplication or loss of a piece of chromosome - associated them mainly with diseases. For example, a change in the 22nd chromosome is known, which affects a region of 15 genes at once. Now we can move on to recording smaller changes, the disappearance or appearance of one gene. It is clear that these small changes can lead to important events in the body.

We can evaluate not only the quality, but also the quantity of changes. Approximately half of the mutations in the body are due to an increase or decrease in the number of copies of DNA fragments, and half are due to point changes in bases in the nucleotide sequence. The estimates came from analysis of bacterial sequences. We are trying to associate changes in the number of gene copies with various diseases.

- What other methods are there for studying the course of human evolution?

It is also possible to analyze genetic changes in different parts of the planet, among different peoples. We detect some variations equally often everywhere, while others in one place or another have an increased frequency or do not occur at all. Similar studies are united by the large international project HapMap and are associated with the analysis of so-called SNP markers (single nucleotide polymorphism, replacement of one nucleotide with another in the nucleotide sequence). The Chinese and Japanese, for example, may have one frequency of occurrence of a particular nucleotide substitution, that is, a SNP marker, while Africans may have a different frequency.

Hypothetically, such a difference indicates evolution that occurs from the moment of geographical separation of one part of the population from another. Adaptation to certain conditions varies greatly among residents in different parts of the planet. Maybe the inhabitants of the north have some kind of genetic modifications that allow them to survive in a cold climate? We do not know. For example, when I find myself in the tropics, I cannot function normally, but the locals cope quite well. Why is that? Maybe it has to do with genetics, or maybe it has to do with cultural traditions.

It seems that left-wing American scientists have made many erroneous statements that human evolution has stopped. Now the opinion on this issue has changed. I can tell an Irish girl from a Scottish girl by her face. But these populations separated no more than 500 years ago. Isn't this evidence of ongoing evolution? It is possible that selection acts not only on morphology, but also on character traits. Under communism, calmer individuals will survive. I believe human nature is largely determined by genes.

- Is there a genetic component to thinking, behavior and emotions?

A study of identical twins provides some answer to this question. We know from experience that parents sometimes cannot control the development of their children's character. This does not mean that character traits are entirely dependent on genes, but it also does not mean that character traits are the result of upbringing and cultural traditions. A cheerful person or a gloomy one - what is it, genes or upbringing? We do not know. I want to emphasize - Bye we don't know. In the next 20 years, we will be able to read the genomes of cheerful people and gloomy people, compare these sequences and find the key difference. We might even be able to study the patterns of lifelong smokers who are still healthy. Maybe there is a genetic explanation for this too. But this, of course, is a matter of the future, when the cost of reading the genome will further decrease. So far in a year it has dropped from a million dollars to about a hundred thousand.

But for us, geneticists, studying people’s happiness is not yet relevant; we are still dealing with misfortunes. The causes of schizophrenia and autism are more serious and important for us.

We know that among us there are people with explosive temperaments. We call them “rambunctious heads.” So, is this trait the result of stress or genes? Hopefully this will become clear in the next 20 years. It is important for us that there is a fundamental possibility for this. Exactly the same question with schizophrenia - is it culture or genes? About 15 years ago, I had an argument with a left-wing colleague about whether schizophrenia was caused by genes or cultural pressure. He believed that in our capitalist society, schizophrenia is caused by stress. Society as a whole is determined to accept the concept of stress - that is, that schizophrenia is the result of stress and that if we improve the social environment, the incidence of schizophrenia will decrease. But modern science is already able to identify genetic changes in patients with schizophrenia.

I am, of course, not saying that the environment has no influence on the onset of schizophrenia. Stress is never welcome, but if the genetics are in order, then stress will not have a serious effect on the body. There is something specific about schizophrenia that makes some people exceptionally susceptible to any influence. That is, now there is every reason to talk about a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia.

The greatest attention of behavioral scientists is now given to the study of painful deviations. We know that schizophrenia causes mental decline. And now genes have been found whose damage negatively affects the intellectual level. The intellectual level is determined using various tests. There is nothing surprising in the connection between genetic damage and decreased mental abilities: a damaged gene causes a disruption in the functioning of nerve synapses, the functioning of the neural network is disrupted, resulting in dullness. This is indeed a very serious problem: we have drugs that lift a person out of psychosis, but there are no drugs that increase mental abilities. This is one of the reasons why severe forms of schizophrenia are not treated in any way.

- Please tell us about the most interesting and important achievements of your Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.

I will talk about what interests me personally. This applies to the problem of cancer. Just as in the study of mental illness, DNA sequence analysis is used to study cancer. Special techniques have been developed to study cancer cells. At the present stage, we can only be amazed at how complex a cancer cell is, how many genetic tumors it contains.

Moreover, as the disease progresses, these neoplasms constantly change. If there is a cancerous tumor, then one side of it may be completely different from the other. Therefore, a prescribed medicine may work on one part of the tumor, but may not work on another. For this reason, treatment is not always effective. Of course, this was known before, but now we can look at detailed changes in the functioning of the genetic apparatus.

- Biological science is developing at an unprecedented pace and has achieved remarkable success. But despite this, the confrontation between science and society is intensifying. For example, many people deny evolution, although a colossal number of facts, including from the field of genetics, speak of its reality.

Yes, evolution is an undeniable fact. But most people are unable to understand the facts. And one should not expect people to cast aside their religiosity and vote for science. People don't understand science, it's too complicated. A person needs answers to why certain things happen. But in the religious consciousness such answers exist. We are brought up in a religious tradition, God is sometimes on our side, sometimes against us, we pray to him, and this specifically changes our perception. But if your child has cancer, then if you do not accept science and medicine, prayers will not help.

In general, the problem of the conflict between science and society is that science is becoming more and more complex, and it is becoming more and more difficult to understand it. Even scientists can't cope. And the brain, as it was, remains so. However, a society that denies evolution will cease to develop, and will even be thrown back. The Catholic Church does not deny evolution, although it costs it a lot of trouble. After all, the Catholic Church runs medical schools, and whether you like it or not, you can’t do without evolution. Those who deny evolution, for example religious gurus, have nothing to do with medicine and generally distance themselves from areas related to knowledge. If they dealt with knowledge, they would have to... well, die to continue denying evolution.

In this regard, there are concerns about whether America can remain a great and powerful country if many people in the country are uneducated. Look at Sweden, everyone there is educated, but in the States there is a minority of educated people.

- But in China, most people do not reject evolution, although there are many uneducated people there.

Indeed, this is so, but the Chinese are not held back by religious prohibitions regarding evolution. In general, we cannot live outside of cultural traditions. I consider myself a non-believing Christian. In the sense that my upbringing is based on Christian culture. I always openly declare that I do not believe in God, but when I die, they will bury me in the church, because I respect my culture and traditions.

The culture of Russia has been associated with the Orthodox tradition for many hundreds of years. How many beautiful churches have been built, how many works of art have been created. I have visited many churches and cathedrals in Moscow, including the newly rebuilt Cathedral of Christ the Savior - they are magnificent, and I am very glad that I can join Russian history, even though I am not a believer. There is no point in abandoning your own history. The communists, I remember, tried to do this. And what? Nothing good came of it.

In addition, the church is traditionally the place where morality is discussed. And if you destroy churches, then where do you learn morality, where do you find out where good and evil are? However, not only religious figures, but also scientists should join the discussion of where is good and where is evil. My scientific colleagues and friends are all non-believers, but they do not want to speak out on the topic of what is good and what is bad, simply for fear of hurting someone's religious feelings. It is believed that scientists do not respect traditions. But that's not true. I have approximately the same values as religious people, they just come from a different source. We all try to help the unfortunate, not just those whom Jesus commanded to be merciful. Therefore, I do not want to fight with the church.

My friend Francis Crick, he was an irreconcilable fighter against the church. And no one listened to him. And he couldn’t convince anyone that you need to believe in DNA, and not in God, except, of course, those who didn’t believe in God anyway. I think it would be very naive on a rational level to try to turn people away from religion. This cannot happen in any country, in any religion - to make efforts in this direction would be great stupidity. But maybe our children will give up religion, we just need to give them this opportunity - make it a matter of free choice. In the United States, can a politician who wants to win an election declare that he does not believe in God? Of course not. But the situation is not the same everywhere: for example, in most Western European countries people trust facts more, and they would rather give Sunday to football than to church.

- Many people these days are afraid of scientists, they fear that they will invent, for example, some kind of killer virus or that genetically modified foods will have a bad effect on health. What to do with this, because technology cannot stand still?

These are all irrational fears. After all, humanity has been engaged in genetic modification since the very beginning of agricultural history, for 10 thousand years, and at the present stage we are only trying to speed up this process through targeted changes in DNA. And this technology works. China will be among the leading producers of GM products, Australia may also move to the forefront because its agriculture is quite strong. Europe is somewhat poorer because it does not produce genetically modified products.

The situation in Russia cannot be called anything other than stupidity. Firstly, in Russia there was a powerful school of genetics and selection, founded at the beginning of the century by Vavilov. Then Lysenko completely destroyed it. But this was a school on genetic modification technologies. And a country where these technologies do not develop rolls back. Secondly, there is a problem with patents. The American company Monsanto wants to own all patents on GMOs. By offering Russia more equal cooperation in this area, they would benefit more. It is clear that no one wants to be under the control of foreign companies.

Another reason for the opposition to GMOs is the green movement. Moreover, many participants in the movement do not get to the bottom of the truth; they prefer to be content with dogmas, sometimes of a communist nature. Many on the left (and not necessarily the left) advocate for protecting the environment from industrial pressure. But these people do not protect nature so much as they dislike business as such. Therefore, you need to understand that in the case of calls against GMOs we are talking about left-wing ideology.

I started to feel downright bad about this policy when it started opposing DNA research. It was believed that if you are truly leftist, then you cannot support GM technologies and GM products and DNA research in general, because this is a capitalist business, and capitalist business is to blame for all the world’s misfortunes.

However, I don't think that business and GMOs are such a big disaster. Diseases are a misfortune. But what can we do, man is a contradictory creature, we are both kind and selfish. Our brain is extremely complex, this is the reason for the imperfection of human life. Therefore, we should not expect that our life will ever become ideal.

- A few words about the ethical problems facing modern biology. For example, some people oppose the use of animals in experiments. What is your opinion?

For me, my wife is more important than my dog. So it's just a matter of choice. If we ban experiments with animals, the development of medicine will stop. You can't do without experiments. People tend to forget that in nature someone always eats someone, there are predators and prey, and people in former times survived thanks to hunting. This is how nature works, the death of one means the survival of another. Some, however, believe that the life of a dog is more important than the life of a person. For me, let them think as they wish, it is important that they do not refuse to take medications if necessary. Dedicating your life to dogs may not be a bad thing, no one claims that dogs are bad, on the contrary, they are very nice, but at some point you just have to make a meaningful choice.

In my opinion, the main problem is that people have stopped viewing themselves as a product of evolution. Darwin made a great discovery; his theory, without exaggeration, turned the world upside down. We consider the existence of one animal in relation to others; all animals have some degree of common origin. And in the Darwinian worldview there is not much room left for God. Some people, I know, manage to combine these two categories, but I don’t understand how they do it. The scheme is simple: a change in DNA improves or worsens the organism; if it worsens, it will be supplanted; if it improves, then it is likely to spread. But again, accepting this scheme does not mean denying morality. And here it is important that attention is directed more to the person than to the animal.

- Is there any share of politics in the ethical problems of biology?

Don't think. Here, however, purely human preferences are more manifested. Some people adore animals, others are indifferent to them. Or maybe my wife is obsessed with babies... ( in a whisper) but they are not interesting to me. ( Everyone laughs.) Does this mean that I am a bad person or a good one? This is not the criterion by which we will evaluate a person. Many men are not interested in small children, that's the nature of men, and I don't feel guilty about not paying attention to newborns.

- This is a very honest statement.

In general, I believe that honesty is useful to this world, it makes the world work more efficiently .

Biology work

Romanova Anastasia

Francis Crick

James Watson

"Discovery of the secondary structure of DNA"

The beginning of this story can be taken as a joke. "And we just discovered the secret of life!" - said one of the two men who entered the Cambridge Eagle Pub exactly 57 years ago - February 28, 1953. And these people who worked in a laboratory nearby were not exaggerating at all. One of them was named Francis Crick, and the other was James Watson.

Biography:

Francis Creek

During the war years, Crick worked on the creation of mines in the research laboratory of the British Navy Ministry. For two years after the end of the war, he continued to work in this ministry and it was then that he read Erwin Schrödinger’s famous book “What is Life? Physical aspects of the living cell", published in 1944. In the book, Schrödinger asks the question: “How can spatiotemporal events occurring in a living organism be explained from the perspective of physics and chemistry?”
The ideas presented in the book influenced Crick so much that he, intending to study particle physics, switched to biology. With Will's support, Crick received a Medical Research Council fellowship and began working at the Strangeway Laboratory in Cambridge in 1947. Here he studied biology, organic chemistry, and X-ray diffraction techniques used to determine the spatial structure of molecules.

James Deway Watson

He received his elementary and secondary education in Chicago. It soon became apparent that James was an unusually gifted child, and he was invited to appear on the radio program “Quizzes for Children.” After only two years of high school, Watson received a scholarship in 1943 to attend an experimental four-year college at the University of Chicago, where he developed an interest in studying ornithology. After receiving a Bachelor of Science from the University of Chicago in 1947, he continued his education at Indiana University Bloomington.
By this time, Watson had become interested in genetics and began studying in Indiana under the guidance of specialist in this field Herman J. Meller and bacteriologist Salvador Luria. Watson wrote a dissertation on the effect of X-rays on the reproduction of bacteriophages (viruses that infect bacteria) and received a Ph.D. in 1950. A grant from the National Research Society allowed him to continue his research on bacteriophages at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. There he studied the biochemical properties of bacteriophage DNA. However, as he later recalled, experiments with the phage began to weigh on him; he wanted to learn more about the true structure of DNA molecules, which geneticists were so enthusiastically talking about.

In October 1951 year, the scientist went to the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge to study the spatial structure of proteins together with Kendrew. There he met Francis Crick, (a physicist interested in biology), who was writing his doctoral dissertation at that time.
Subsequently, they established close creative contacts. “It was intellectual love at first sight,” says one historian of science. Despite their common interests, outlook on life and style of thinking, Watson and Crick mercilessly, although politely, criticized each other. Their roles in this intellectual duet were different. “Francis was the brain and I was the feeling,” says Watson

Beginning in 1952, building on the early work of Chargaff, Wilkins, and Franklin, Crick and Watson decided to try to determine the chemical structure of DNA.

By the fifties, it was known that DNA is a large molecule consisting of nucleotides connected to each other in a line. Scientists also knew that DNA is responsible for storing and inheriting genetic information. The spatial structure of this molecule and the mechanisms by which DNA is inherited from cell to cell and from organism to organism remained unknown.

IN 1948 In the same year, Linus Pauling discovered the spatial structure of other macromolecules - proteins. Bedridden by jade, Pauling spent several hours folding paper with which he tried to model the configuration of a protein molecule, and created a model of a structure called the “alpha helix.”

According to Watson, after this discovery, the hypothesis about the helical structure of DNA became popular in their laboratory. Watson and Crick collaborated with leading experts in X-ray diffraction analysis, and Crick was able to almost accurately detect signs of a spiral in images obtained in this way.

Over the next eight months, Watson and Crick combined their findings with those already available, reporting the structure of DNA in February 1953 of the year.

A month later, they created a three-dimensional model of the DNA molecule, made from beads, pieces of cardboard and wire.
According to the Crick-Watson model, DNA is a double helix consisting of two chains of deoxyribose phosphate connected by base pairs, similar to the rungs of a ladder. Through hydrogen bonds, adenine combines with thymine, and guanine with cytosine.

You can swap:

a) the participants of this pair;

b) any pair onto another pair, and this will not lead to disruption of the structure, although it will have a decisive impact on its biological activity.

Although Rosalind Franklin did not support the hypothesis of the helical structure of DNA, it was her photographs that played a decisive role in the discovery of Watson and Crick.

Later, the model of DNA structure proposed by Watson and Crick was proven. And in 1962 their work was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine “for their discoveries in the field of the molecular structure of nucleic acids and for determining their role in the transmission of information in living matter.” Among the laureates was not Rosalind Franklin, who had died by that time (from cancer in 1958), since the prize is not awarded posthumously.

yom from the Karolinska Institute said at the prize ceremony: “The discovery of the spatial molecular structure of DNA is extremely important because it outlines the possibility of understanding in great detail the general and individual characteristics of all living things.” Engström noted that “unraveling the double helical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid with its specific pairing of nitrogenous bases opens up fantastic possibilities for unraveling the details of the control and transmission of genetic information.”

https://pandia.ru/text/78/209/images/image004_142.jpg" width="624" height="631 src=">