Selfish genery

One thing that has struck me recently is the odd nature of some of the opposition to ‘The Selfish Gene’ approach to evolution; I would tend to call this the ‘gene centred view of evolution’ but it was of course expertly summed up in the famous book (of the same name) by Richard Dawkins in 1976. Dawkins actually used the book to synthesise much other research into one coherent whole; and, by use of clear and helpful analogies, explain how that natural selection operated at the level of the gene. At the time of writing there was still a lot of support for group selection (that natural selection may occur between groups of organisms) and Dawkins was trying to demonstrate that this was erroneous. The alternative to this is individual selection – that natural selection operates on differences between individuals. Dawkins sought to go further, and I feel by the very basic tenets of biology he must be right, that natural selection operates on differences between the genes within individuals.

 

Before going on with this blog I will make one point; I am an undergraduate and I’m by no means an expert – in fact I am trying to make it clear that I am not claiming to be an expert. I write this blog based on my understanding of biology and my current knowledge of the scientific literature. If anybody notices errors then please feel free to let me know. Also, to explain all the background in careful detail here would take many thousands of words. I would encourage anyone who hasn’t done so to read The Selfish Gene for themselves, and ideally other books about natural selection and evolution.

I was inspired to write a blog on this when I happened upon a section in an old Open University course book on Human Biology. I remember being a bit confused by this section at the time I first read it, but re-reading it now made me realise that confusion about Dawkins’ work even seems to have crept into university student literature. I don’t wish to criticise the Open University as I found them to be an excellent organisation, and this is only 2 pages in a 200 page book. Neither am I suggesting they are challenging evolutionary theory, this section appears in a chapter in which they talk about Darwinian evolution and natural selection. There are a few strange arguments laid forth in this short section, I will deal with one in this blog post and may follow up with some further posts about some of the other points they make.

An issue with this section becomes clear with the heading entitled ‘Nature and nurture revisited’. They talk about whether anything “... in addition to genetic inheritance should also be taken into account when considering evolutionary change” (italic emphasis is theirs and not mine). They then go on to say “There is at one extreme, a gene-centred theory of evolution popularized by the biologist Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene (1976), which views organisms as nothing more than vehicles for ensuring the survival of genes. In this highly reductionist account, all the characteristics of an organism (behavioural, psychological and physical) can be traced to the activity of its genes”.

I realise now, as I start to write more on this, it would actually take a very long time to pick this apart and explain where I am coming from. I will focus on making two points. Firstly, by including this in a section about nature and nurture, I think this shows the author’s desire to indicate that Dawkins’ work reflects a theory of genetic determinism – that it is an extreme view. They wish to suggest that Dawkins says that genes are the be all and end all - environment, social interactions and learning are all inconsequential because everything is explained by the genes. This is the old nature vs. nurture dichotomy, but it is a false dichotomy and the view is not held by Dawkins or any other major biologist whose works I have read. Yes, Dawkins argues that it is differences in the genes that lead to differences in the organism that are then subjected to natural selection – but he is not espousing genetic determinism nor is his an extreme view. He is not trying to say that everything that we see in an organism is a product of the genes alone – in fact if he were to say that (or if any biologist were to say it) he would be going against masses of evidence that organisms often show phenotypic plasticity – simply meaning that the same genes can lead to differences in an organism if they are subjected to different environments. Dawkins knows full well, and if you read The Selfish Gene (or most of his other major work) you will see, that genes and environment always interact during the development of any organism.

But, if Dawkins argues that it is the genes that are subject to natural selection, then isn’t that genetic determinism because the differences must lie in those genes? No, it is not. By definition the reason for the differences must lie in the genes, and I would love anybody to explain how we can get heritable change in any form outside the genes. It is the genetic code that is inherited vertically from one generation to the next, even a small change in a tiny part of the genetic code could make a net difference in some trait of that organism (although changes in non-coding DNA would not); if the altered trait gives an organism an advantage in its environment it may lead to evolutionary change within that species (over many generations). If an organism gains an advantage due to some change of a non-genetic kind (perhaps the organism happens to source a particularly fruitful food supply which he can monopolize) then he may survive better than other organisms and have more children. But, here is the key point, do his children necessarily inherit the food supply? They may do, they may not. The parent may have depleted it, some other organism may find it, the environment may change and the food supply may disappear. It is only genes that are fully heritable (Dawkins calls them replicators); offspring do not inherit the environment in the broader sense of the word – although, of course they are likely to live in the same environment as their parents.

Having said all that, any gene whatsoever needs a complex interaction with all kinds of environmental variables; such as nutrient supply, hormones during development, temperature, social interaction, the action of other genes and much more. An organism may inherit a gene that has the potential to produce a morphological (physical) difference, let’s say in a kangaroo’s leg musculature to improve jumping, but without the right nutritional input at the right developmental stages it may not develop any stronger legs than other kangaroos without the altered gene. In the gene centred view of evolution nobody is arguing that only genes are involved – but instead they argue that it is the genes that contain the heritable variation that produces differences in individuals on which natural selection can act.

And so to my final point (I promise). Later in the section there is reference to “ ...the holistic view of evolutionary change”, let’s lay aside this odd terminology as I’ve never heard the term before in terms of biology, and see what they are driving at. I quote “This approach to an understanding of evolution asserts, just as Darwin did, that whole organisms are subject to natural selection”. Hmmmm. Does Dawkins not agree with Darwin? I doubt you will find many more committed Darwinists working today in evolutionary biology than Richard Dawkins. More to the point, does the ‘Selfish gene’ theory suggest that whole organisms are not subject to natural selection? No. It states no such thing. The point being made is quite subtle, of course Dawkins realises that it is the actual organisms which live or die; the point is that it is differences at the level of their genes which provides those differences in organisms on which natural selection can act. I may be repeating myself or restating an earlier point, but I think it worth doing so because it seems that this point is often accidentally, or wilfully, misconstrued.

Well, I’ve gone on for long enough. I feel better for getting that off my chest – not that I’m kidding myself than anyone is likely to read all this! However, if anyone reads some, or all of it, then many thanks for reading! Comments, as always, are welcomed.

Dominic

The Piano Teacher - my review

I'm on some kind of a roll with reviews of films. I saw The PIano Teacher by Michael Haneke yesterday and felt compelled to get my thoughts down straight away. I'll try and write a different kind of blog soon, but for now here is my review of a very dark but compelling film. You can see my comments here on Imdb.com too: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0254686/usercomments-224

I'm not sure I should really attempt a review of this because I doubt very much that I can sum it up or even begin to describe the power of this film. One thing to say is that it is extremely challenging viewing and if you are unsure of watching this make sure you know what you are in for first. Not that anything could prepare you for this film, but be aware that it is a dark and often disturbing look into some of the most troublesome aspects of human behaviour.

I can't say that this is an enjoyable film - that surely isn't the right word. However, this is filmmaking at its very best, coupled with a central performance from Isabelle Huppert that genuinely deserves the high praise it has received. I was only introduced to Michael Haneke very recently, and this is only the 2nd of his films that I have seen, but he is clearly an incredibly gifted director and writer who makes films almost unlike any others I have seen.

Films of sustained intensity and anxiety are quite rare, and there are very few films I have seen that are able to achieve the intense and foreboding atmosphere that Haneke, and also Isabelle Huppert, craft here. What is unique is that Haneke doesn't rely on a chilling musical score to build tension, nor is the film cast in dark and brooding light that suggests to us what the underlying nature of the story is. Haneke builds the tension with supreme subtlety and ingenious craft. The only music that is used comes from the piano playing of the characters themselves; the beautiful and artistic music is juxtaposed with the dark and secretive thoughts of Erika.

We gradually delve into the troubled mind of the otherwise austere piano teacher, Erika, and get glimpses of a side of her which initially seems almost out of place. Her acts are played out to a backdrop of a sad and lonely existence, one in which she is still controlled by a domineering and rather embittered mother. The mother, played excellently by Annie Girardot, perhaps gives us a tiny insight into why Erika feels trapped and repressed.

Huppert is astounding and the subtle nuances of her performance are indicative of an actress at the very top of her game. Huppert conveys so much fear, sadness, lust, anger and even love through a veneer of temperance. She constantly reminds us that these feelings are largely repressed and yet we can see them bubbling under the surface. Huppert betrays these underlying dark emotions often with as little as a slight shift in her facial expression – make no mistake this is acting of the highest calibre; subtle, understated and yet utterly powerful and compelling.

The actions of Erika are often quite alarming and certainly not appealing, and yet it is the hallmark of excellence, in both Haneke's script and Huppert's performance, that we can still sympathise with this woman. Even, if it is only a fleeting glimpse of sympathy or understanding – it is still there. That is how I felt, and that is another reason why the film is so challenging. Should I feel sympathy? Should I feel anger? Should I feel disgust? Haneke doesn't insist that we feel one way or another, he lets the power of the story carry itself and the viewer is left to sift through this thickened sea of conflicting emotion.

As I said at the start, I don't think I can do this film justice on paper – it has to be seen; and if you do choose to see it you will get something much more – you will feel your way through it. As I watched this film I felt an array of different emotions; I was gripped, tense, anxious, saddened, disgusted and much more. By the end I had a barrage of unanswered questions and I wasn't even sure how to feel about what I'd seen. That is the beauty, and I do mean beauty, of this incredibly thought-provoking and dark film. If after reading this you think you can stomach the content then I would encourage you to watch it for a very unique film experience. It is a breathtaking film but one that might well leave you with an uncomfortable feeling deep in the recesses of your subconscious. 9/10.

The Fighter - my review

Well, University life has been very busy so I haven't posted much. I've just written a review of The Fighter which I posted to Imdb.com, I've been meaning to do it for months. Here it is in full, or you can see it on Imdb.com here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0964517/usercomments-280

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I had high hopes for The Fighter, not only due to the praise which was lavished on it, but also because I loved 'I heart Huckabees'. I know that was a film which polarised opinion, but I thought it was inventive, intelligent, funny and excellently written. I was therefore expecting The Fighter to provide something new. Perhaps expecting David O'Russell to take the boxing movie genre in a completely new direction was asking too much, but I did expect to find unique elements for a film of this kind.

What I saw was a film full of cliché and caricature. I didn't find it very compelling or exciting; instead I found it to be flat and frequently annoying. It was like O'Russell found a book of 'fighting movie clichés' and made sure he included them all. We get the traditional training montage played out to cheesy rock music - something that has been seen, and parodied, many times before. What about the other boxing cliché classic of several fights shown as a highlights package to chart the protagonist's rise up the ranks? Oh yes, O'Russell includes that as well. I actually couldn't believe my eyes that this was felt to be the best way to tell the story. Surely they could have come up with something more original!

I understand that it's the characters being portrayed that are annoying; however, some of them are like cartoon caricatures and infuriating to watch. The gaggle of aggressive sisters were the worst by far. They were not funny or interesting, they had no emotion, no depth and nothing for me to connect with. Amy Adams played Charlene very well, but again I found her to be an aggressive stereotype and I couldn't connect with her character. The scenes with the sisters, Alice and Charlene arguing were cringe-worthy. I can watch old re-runs of the Jerry Springer show if I'm into that kind of 'banter' but it brought nothing of worth to the film.

That brings me on to Melissa Leo as Alice Ward. She landed an Oscar and received much praise for her performance. I have to say that this was a solid, and certainly strong performance, but I don't think it comes close to being worthy of an Oscar. It was one dimensional and abrasive and never gave us a chance to see the woman behind the stern exterior. She stomps around moodily, cigarette in hand, dishing out barrages of f- bombs, and not much more. I couldn't find any depth, or motives, she seems like a cartoonish comedy character and not something to be taken seriously. Maybe we can blame the screenplay – but I think her performance really lacks something, which I look for in really great acting.

So then, what about Dicky and Micky surely they are the heart of the film and the ones who matter. I like Mark Wahlberg a lot and I don't think this his performance as Micky Ward is a bad one, but it rumbles along but never soars. I think it's more of a problem with the screenplay than the acting. I just didn't care about Micky enough to get into the film. After all, he is what this story is about and it is a failing of the film that you never get to see anything that lies behind the mask of bravado worn by this 'tough man'. What drives Micky on? What does he care about? We get glimpses perhaps, but never enough to flesh out the character so we can truly empathise with him. Having said that, the film hooked me in just enough during the last 20 minutes to root for Micky in his big fight, but prior to that I didn't become engaged with what was going on.

Christian Bale also took home an Oscar for his performance as Dicky, and whilst it was good I felt it was lacking heart. Yet again, this is partly to do with the screenplay. The drug addict and unreliable brother who comes good in the end is perhaps another cliché, but one that can be used effectively if it's done well. I though Bale was good, don't get me wrong, but I was left feeling that there was no emotional depth to the character that would give the audience something to care about. Having said that, there is a short scene at the end of the film where Bale showed true emotional depth and it was certainly pitch-perfect acting. But, 10 seconds of engaging and heartfelt acting doesn't warrant an Oscar. Maybe I'm being harsh on Bale but after what I had read about this film I was expecting a lot more. For example, I think he is much better in The Machinist (and I'm not referring to the weight loss method acting, I'm referring to the heart of the performance).

It may seem like I've totally slated the film but I'm not saying that it's awful. I just think it falls well short of the hype that surrounded it during awards season. I can't see how it deserved nominations for best film or best director. Overall it's OK, I think it's worth watching but it's not something I would choose to see again. It had a few decent moments, but overall there is no meaning. Essentially it contains a lot of angry people shouting at each other for long periods, interspersed with average boxing scenes. It's hard to care about the characters and I think it pushes away any real connection a viewer can have with the story. The last 20 minutes were a bit better but that wasn't enough to redeem it in my eyes. I think it could have been so much better, and in the end I was very disappointed. Obviously enough people loved the film, so I guess it's still worth giving it a go, but as far as I'm concerned it's average and not an award-winning film. 5/10

The wonder of biological development

First of all - Happy New year! I still haven't managed my goal of more frequent posts but I will keep trying. This post is about one of the (many) areas of biology I find fascinating.

I could list hundreds of reasons why I chose to study biology because it really is a rich and diverse field which is thoroughly fascinating in many ways. If I had to specify an overarching theme of biology to explain why it sustains my interest, then I would perhaps say the astounding complexity and powerful beauty that underlies biological processes and systems.

Whilst I was considering this recently one thing struck me very strongly, and that is how some very surprising and often highly complicated biological processes are taken for granted by all people; whilst some others which are based on the same underlying biological themes can be challenged and sometimes derided as fanciful.

To give a good example of the kind of thing I mean I will chose a process familiar to everyone – because it is a key moment in how we all came to be here in the first place. I am referring to fertilization; when a sperm entered an egg and produced a single-celled zygote (the initial product of fertilization prior to development into an embryo). Immediately after fertilization a human zygote is roughly around 150 micrometres in diameter (one micrometer is one millionth of a meter); please take a moment to consider the kind of size we are dealing with. However, the key point I want to press home is that the zygote forms the first cell of a new human body. The zygote has one cell only, but importantly that cell contains the full complement of DNA that will go on to produce the embryo and finally a new baby.

It is not my intention to provide a technical account of development despite the fact it is thoroughly absorbing and well worth reading into (although, my level of knowledge would only allow me to give detail to a certain point in any case). What I primarily want to get across is the almost unbelievably complex and ordered process which takes place to turn one tiny cell into a human body with at least 10 trillion cells (estimates vary of the total number of human cells). Please dwell on that difference – one single cell turning into trillions of cells. Whilst a human body is developing the various tissues, blood vessels, nerves, bones, organs and limbs develop in the correct order, in the right place and at the right time of development relative to each other.

Every cell in your body derived from that initial and tiny zygote. That single cell contained the instructions for making every part of a human body. Again, in an almost mind-boggling feat of complexity the relevant instructions were only turned in each appropriate part of the body. That’s why your eyes became eyes and not fingernails – even though the cells in your eyes contain the instructions for making fingernails as well as the instructions for making a heart, a strand of hair, a toe or any part of the body you could name.

I don’t know about you but I find this truly wonderful and amazing and it drives me to learn more about how this transformation takes place. I have been focusing on humans but let’s not forget that the equivalent happens for all other animals, plants or fungi - and for all multicellular life with specialisation of form (as an aside, a great deal can be said about the complexity of bacteria and other unicellular life – but that is off the point here).

Think for a moment how readily this feat of transformation is accepted by us all. We all accept that a human develops in this way. Again, we have no issue with the fact that a tiny seed can develop into a Giant Redwood tree (Sequoia) over 100 metres tall – again note the difference in size and form between the seed and the tree. We are equally familiar with the fact that a caterpillar will pupate and change form quite remarkably into a butterfly or moth that takes to the air; again consider the difference in form between the stages. To me, these facts are all astounding and yet I have barely scratched the surface of biological wonders.

Having made plain the quite astonishing developmental processes which we often take for granted, I am left to wonder why many people will argue that similar transformations of an evolutionary kind are not possible. I have heard many people tell me how absurd it is to suggest that life as we know it arose from simple unicellular organisms. I don’t wish to claim that ontogeny (development) is exactly the same process as evolution because that would be slightly misleading. What I do wish to suggest is that we should be no more incredulous about unicellular life evolving into complex multicellular life over 3,500 million years, than we are at a single fertilized egg becoming a fully formed human in around 9 months. They both involve a complex, step-wise and highly ordered biological process of change over periods of time. Furthermore, understanding development sheds light on evolution.

Recent progress in evolutionary-developmental biology (or Evo Devo) has cast light on how changes in development drive large evolutionary change. It can be shown how changes in the timing of gene activation, or even in the location of where genes are turned on, can produce quite striking differences of form. One interesting example I recently learnt of during lectures is how the webbing in ducks feet are formed. During development bird feet are webbed but the expression (turning on) of certain genes causes the webbing between the toes to die; the toes themselves do not die off because another gene called ‘Gremlin’ is expressed on the toes - this prevents the toe cells from being killed. In Ducks, Gremlin is also turned on in the webbing and therefore it does not die and they are born with aquatic webbed feet. If chicken embryos are manipulated so that Gremlin is expressed in the webbing (before it is killed off) then they too are born with webbed feet. This is quite a complex process and difficult to sum up easily in a few sentences, the take-home message is that by changing where a gene is expressed can change the form of feet quite dramatically – a simple genetic change produces an evolutionary step. We may think ducks and chickens have very different feet but the underlying genetic changes are very small.

If you are intrigued by this idea of ‘Evo Devo’ then I would recommend reading “Endless forms most beautiful” by Sean B Carroll for some greater clarity and insight than I have just provided.

I was inspired to write about this because both evolutionary change and developmental change stir up a sense of awe inside me, and that is a primary reason I have chosen to study biology. I hope that I have been able to give a glimpse into the remarkable complexity and beauty that biology offers and that you may decide to find out a bit more about it. I can only touch upon things in a blog but rest assured there are many more examples I could give – and more interestingly there are many more waiting to be discovered!

Many thanks for reading,

Dominic