What do you think?
Rate this book
The Misunderstood Gene
At a time when the complete human genome has been sequenced and when seemingly every week feature news stories describe genes that may be responsible for personality, intelligence, even happiness, Michel Morange gives us a book that demystifies the power of modern genetics. The Misunderstood Gene takes us on an easily comprehensible tour of the most recent findings in molecular biology to show us how — and if — genes contribute to biological processes and complex human behaviors.
As Morange explains, if molecular biologists had to designate one category of molecules as essential to life, it would be proteins and their multiple functions, not DNA and genes. Genes are the centerpiece of modern biology because they can be modified. But they are only the memory that life invented so that proteins could be efficiently reproduced. Morange shows us that there is far more richness and meaning in the structure and interactions of proteins than in all the theoretical speculations on the role of genes.
The Misunderstood Gene makes it clear that we do not have to choose between rigid genetic determinism and fearful rejection of any specific role for genes in development or behavior. Both are true, but at different levels of organization. Morange agrees with those who say "we are not in our genes." But he also wants us to understand that we are not without our genes, either. We are going to have to make do with them, and this book will show us how.
As Morange explains, if molecular biologists had to designate one category of molecules as essential to life, it would be proteins and their multiple functions, not DNA and genes. Genes are the centerpiece of modern biology because they can be modified. But they are only the memory that life invented so that proteins could be efficiently reproduced. Morange shows us that there is far more richness and meaning in the structure and interactions of proteins than in all the theoretical speculations on the role of genes.
The Misunderstood Gene makes it clear that we do not have to choose between rigid genetic determinism and fearful rejection of any specific role for genes in development or behavior. Both are true, but at different levels of organization. Morange agrees with those who say "we are not in our genes." But he also wants us to understand that we are not without our genes, either. We are going to have to make do with them, and this book will show us how.
238 pages, Paperback
First published June 25, 2001
36 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 1, 2024
I rate this book 4/5 stars. I felt the book was well-written, but I didn't agree with the author's views on abortion, which are mentioned at the end of the book (i.e. a fetus is not a baby, etc.). Once the sperm has entered the egg, an entirely new organism is created. This was for me, a negligible factor though. I wanted to read a nonfiction science book, because I had heard that reading nonfiction books in subjects that you find challenging can help - even if I don't understand or agree with everything. It can also help strengthen knowledge and reading comprehension - I've heard, anyways.
This book was a nice introduction to genetics. I found myself reminded of my sophomore biology class in high school where we learned about Mendel, but it goes further into human genetics as well.
- "Having proposed that evolution was the result of the natural selection of the fittest, Darwin hesitated for some time over the nature and source of the hereditary variations that were the target of natural selection. If these variations were large, it was easy to see how natural selection could "choose" the fittest. However, if this were the case, the ability of organisms to change over evolutionary time would be entirely dependent on these miraculous variations. Darwin, who had tried to remove God from the description of organisms, felt that such marcrovariations had an almost supernatural nature. So he opted for the hypothesis that natural selection targeted variations that were extremely small. This hypothesis corresponded more closely to his model of hereditary transmission. However, some elementary mathematics shows that under this model new variations within a population would be smothered by the weight of old characters, and after a few generations even favorable variations that had arisen by chance would be disappear from the gene pool." (p.17-18)
"The existence of altruistic behavior in animals-particular[ly] obvious in social insects where workers do not produce their own offspring but rear those of the queen-posed a major challenge for Darwinian theory. In termites, some individuals even play the role of kamikazes, literally blowing themselves up as they spray threatening predatory insects with a toxic liquid. How is it that such behaviors have been conserved by natural selection, when they are clearly harmful for the individuals that perform them and thereby diminish their reproductive success?" (p.149)
"[Studies on mitochondrial DNA] have not fundamentally changed what was already known about human migrations and the way we have populated the world. But they do show that today's population throughout the world is derived from a few thousand individuals living in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago. ["HLA sequence polymorphism and the origin of humans," [i/]Science[/I] 274: 1552-1554, 1996 cited]... [T]he results obtained from Neanderthals show that they were genetically very different from modern humans, despite the fact that the last Neanderthals were contemporaries of the first modern humans." (p.172)
This book was a nice introduction to genetics. I found myself reminded of my sophomore biology class in high school where we learned about Mendel, but it goes further into human genetics as well.
- "Having proposed that evolution was the result of the natural selection of the fittest, Darwin hesitated for some time over the nature and source of the hereditary variations that were the target of natural selection. If these variations were large, it was easy to see how natural selection could "choose" the fittest. However, if this were the case, the ability of organisms to change over evolutionary time would be entirely dependent on these miraculous variations. Darwin, who had tried to remove God from the description of organisms, felt that such marcrovariations had an almost supernatural nature. So he opted for the hypothesis that natural selection targeted variations that were extremely small. This hypothesis corresponded more closely to his model of hereditary transmission. However, some elementary mathematics shows that under this model new variations within a population would be smothered by the weight of old characters, and after a few generations even favorable variations that had arisen by chance would be disappear from the gene pool." (p.17-18)
"The existence of altruistic behavior in animals-particular[ly] obvious in social insects where workers do not produce their own offspring but rear those of the queen-posed a major challenge for Darwinian theory. In termites, some individuals even play the role of kamikazes, literally blowing themselves up as they spray threatening predatory insects with a toxic liquid. How is it that such behaviors have been conserved by natural selection, when they are clearly harmful for the individuals that perform them and thereby diminish their reproductive success?" (p.149)
"[Studies on mitochondrial DNA] have not fundamentally changed what was already known about human migrations and the way we have populated the world. But they do show that today's population throughout the world is derived from a few thousand individuals living in Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago. ["HLA sequence polymorphism and the origin of humans," [i/]Science[/I] 274: 1552-1554, 1996 cited]... [T]he results obtained from Neanderthals show that they were genetically very different from modern humans, despite the fact that the last Neanderthals were contemporaries of the first modern humans." (p.172)
Displaying 1 of 1 review