The Music of Life: Biology Beyond Genes

by Denis Noble

The gene's eye view of life, proposed in Richard Dawkins acclaimed bestseller The Selfish Gene , sees living bodies as mere vehicles for the replication of genetic codes. But in The Music of Life , world renowned physiologist Denis Noble argues that, to truly understand life, we must look beyond the "selfish gene" to consider life on a much wider variety of levels.
Life, Noble asserts, is a kind of music, a symphonic interplay between genes, cells, organs, body, and environment. He weaves this musical metaphor throughout this personal and deeply lyrical work, illuminating ideas that might otherwise be daunting to non-scientists. In elegant prose, Noble sets out a cutting-edge alternative to the gene's eye view, offering a radical switch of perception in which genes are seen as prisoners and the organism itself is a complex system of many interacting levels. In his more expansive view, life emerges as a process, the ebb and flow of activity in an intricate web of connections. He introduces readers to the realm of systems biology, a field that has been growing in strength in the past decade. Noble, himself one of the founders of this field, argues modern systems biology may be the view we need to adopt to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of life.
Drawing on his experiences in his research on the heartbeat, and on evolutionary biology, development, medicine, philosophy, linguistics, and Chinese culture, Noble presents us with a profound and very modern reflection on the nature of life.

Genres: Science, Biology, Nonfiction, Evolution, Nature, Medicine, Popular Science

153 pages, Paperback

First published June 8, 2006

About the author

Denis Noble is Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology. He now directs the computational physiology research group. He was the first to model cardiac cells (in two papers in Nature in 1960) and has published over 350 research papers. He is one of the leaders of Systems Biology and has written the first popular book on Systems Biology, The MUSIC of LIFE (OUP, 2006).

Reviews

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.

"The music of life is a symphony. It has many different movements. Some melodies find echoes in more than one, but the movements are non the less distinct."

I don't want to over sell this book but it is fantastic stuff, combining the learnedness of Carl Segan with the conversational readability of Bill Bryson. It is so well written in fact, that on closing it I immediately google-searched (note the new verb) for anything else that he has written. It's also a refreshing alternative to the pseudo fundamentalist polemic of Mr. Richard Dawkins or maybe, rather less harshly, what others have done with his writing. Here is somebody from within his own camp, somebody with scientific credibility that is, who in a calm and well reasoned voice can say "Now, Now, Mr. Dawkins. What you peddle as modern science is, at best a gross oversimplification, and in part at least, subjective polemic that reflects your opinion and prejudicial reading of the evidence rather than the facts of the matter."

Word!

"...the genome is viewed as dictating to all other levels (of a complex biological organism)...In a way, this is not so much an interpretation of biological data as the reflection of pre-existing assumptions about how things are meant to be..."

And so Mr Noble tackles the reductionist (and pop-science) view of 'the selfish gene' head on; challenging it as opinion and rightfully reducing it to metaphor; and then a metaphor that isn't totally substantiated by the verifiable facts no less; bad science in that case!

I hope this..(is)..a strong antidote to the 'genes program everything' view. To that end it has been useful to develop some alternative metaphors. But there are of course always limits to the validity of a metaphor. They are ladders to understanding. When you have climbed them, you can throw them away.

He argues well, and with intelligence, in favour of using a different metaphor. In accepting that metaphor is already present in scientific language he then uses one that is better informed by reason and the experimental evidence, namely an orchestra; a complex interplay of DNA, the cell's community and systems theory. En route, this book tackles some pretty complex scientific ideas and presents them in very readable, straight forward form; downward causation; gene expression and encoded protein production as effected by systemic feedback, environmental control and phenotypic plasticity, integrated systems theory, physiology and a bit of biochemistry. These are all explained and stated in a very well articulated case for the cell being the basic biological unit of division and not the gene and the idea of a 'self', 'soul' or I as a reductionist wild goose. Life's processes are a reciprocal interplay between DNA, system (Cell, tissue, organ, organism) and environment. The problem with reductionist analysis is that it doesn't heed the old wisdom which states that 'the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts', when you reach the bottom i.e. the smallest reducible unit, you cannot build from there back up again and achieve realistic results without accepting some form of gestalt. In some ways this is in the Zeitgeist of much 'new science' writing of the last 20 years in that in recognises the limits of reductionism and the subjective aspects of the scientific method, i.e. what the experimenter/theorist brings to the experiment.
He ends on a mystical note quoting, amongst others, Meister Eckhart! Very reminiscent of Fritjof Capra. It came then as no surprise to also see amidst the scientific papers of the bibliography a number of philosophical titles and even Zen Buddhist references!
Scientific Zen or just a voice of reason and yet full of wonder?!
More please, Mr Noble. More!

Here are 2 links to related lectures by the author himself;

http://www.pulse-project.org/node/25

http://www.pulse-project.org/node/32

[Jeannie · Rating 5 out of 5]

In The Music of Life, Denis Noble argues for an integrative systems approach to evolutionary biology to complement the reductionist gene’s eye view that has prevailed throughout the past century. He begins by evaluating and reconstructing the framework of the metaphor used by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene to illustrate both the limitations of the gene-centric perspective and of the reliance on literary devices to convey scientific ideology. Noble elegantly moves outward from the genome, through the levels of systems physiology, to the philosophical perception of self, in order to illuminate the importance of an extended evolutionary synthesis. A perspective which encourages one to assess organismal life from the ‘middle-out’, Noble contends, will allow the scientific community to gain further insight into the mechanics of evolution.

While the book makes a clear and compelling case for an extended evolutionary synthesis, it is possible that some readers may find Noble’s philosophical ruminations to be weak and unnecessary jaunts outside of the realm of hard experimental science. However, given the advances Noble himself has made to systems physiology using the extended synthesis approach to model the human heart, it is difficult to accuse him of being soft or pseudo-scientific. Readers of cross-disciplinary studies are likely to enjoy his venture into metaphysics, as it broadens the scope of the argument from the infinitesimal genome to a holistic view of life’s processes. This is a beautiful and stimulating addition to scientific literature.

[Scriptor Ignotus · Rating 4 out of 5]

When the Human Genome Project was launched in the 1990s, the gargantuan international effort to map out the entire sequence of three billion nucleotide base pairs comprising humanity’s genetic “code” was greeted by the press and lay public with breathless excitement. If the “code” could be “cracked” and the “Book of Life” deciphered, after all, it could also potentially be edited; and there was no limit to the medical advances that might ensue if researchers had a clear vision of, and unfettered access to, humanity’s now open-source software.

Thirty years later, the medical breakthroughs have not been as voluminous as hoped for. From the perspective of a systems biologist like Denis Noble, who views the living organism as a gestalt emerging from a vast, self-assembling, self-regulating complex of interdependent biochemical processes—many of them initiated “downward” from higher-level systems (such as the cell) to lower-level components (such as genes and the proteins they code for)—irreducible to any of its parts and with no obvious etiological “starting point,” both the excessive expectations and the ensuing disappointment that have surrounded the mapping of the human genome are primarily the consequence of inadequate metaphors. It is highly misleading to think of the genome as the Book of Life, or as an .exe file that initiates and determines biological function. Many of our medical ailments cannot be seen or resolved at the level of the genome because they occur at a higher, systemic level; and the same is true of biological functionality as a whole. Life cannot be reduced to genes—or to anything else, for that matter. As Noble puts it, “the book of life is life itself.”

According to the gene reductionist view, popularized by (misreadings of?) Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, the organism is structured and operated by the “selfish” genetic code for its own “purposes”: namely, to replicate itself. The organism is the prisoner of the gene; the phenotype, the vehicle for the gene’s “will to power” (I’ll stop using scare quotes now). The gene is the closest thing to an agent of biological function. Noble quotes an evocative passage from The Selfish Gene which starkly expresses this gene determinist viewpoint (but he is also careful to note that Dawkins has dramatically qualified this stance in other writings):

Now [genes] swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence.

But how much of this statement is empirically based? Noble proposes a thought experiment, an “acid test” for determining the empirical content of a claim: if the statement were completely turned on its head, could one find an empirical basis for favoring either alternative? Noble offers his own formulation:

Now [genes] are trapped in huge colonies, locked inside highly intelligent beings, moulded by the outside world, communicating with it by complex processes, through which, blindly, as if by magic, function emerges. They are in you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read; and their preservation is totally dependent on the joy we experience in reproducing ourselves. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence.

The only clause that Noble leaves intact—“They are in you and me”—is the only part of the original statement that seems empirically indisputable. Everything else is metaphor; and Noble suggests that a more fruitful metaphor is a musical one. Like music, life cannot be reduced to a thing, nor can any component be isolated from the whole; it is a conative process, a multilevel, multicausal system of integral inputs and feedback controls, expressed in something analogous to chords, keys, phrases, and movements, capable of harmony and improvisation. Life is a symphony.

Genes do practically nothing on their own: they are simply a database from which the cell (and the proteins involved in cellular function) “reads” when a particular protein is needed. The genetic sequence is a template which, at the behest of the cell in conjunction with organ systems and their interaction with the external environment, is copied onto an mRNA molecule, transmitted to the ribosomes, and “translated” into the amino acid sequence that comprises a protein. All the work of gene transcription is carried out by the protein and cell machinery that controls the rate and pattern of transcription and modifies gene products; and this machinery in turn is determined by the organism as a whole in its interaction with its environment. To say that an organism exists for the sake of its genome is akin to saying that a piano piece exists for the sake of the piano keys. It’s better to say that the organism “plays” the genome, and that life is the resulting music.

The 30,000 “keys” (for this is the approximate number of genes in the human genome) may themselves be (practically) immutable, but the music that can be played on them is infinitely variable. A particular gene can have many “splice variants”: different sequences in which its constituent exons (non-contiguous segments) are read out, each reading producing a different protein. One gene (via the interaction of its product with many other proteins) can be involved in many different functions, while numerous genes are involved in any particular function. The same genes expressed in different patterns can produce entirely different functions. There is no direct correspondence between genes and functions at all; it is the ever-changing interaction of the proteins (most of a protein’s actions are not coded for by its gene) that enables the biochemical “pathways” involved in intracellular function, and by extension, the higher-level functions of the organism. And this is to say nothing of the manifold forms of “downward causation” exerted by higher-level systems themselves, triggering cell signaling and controlling gene expression. It's also worth noting that proteins are not the only molecules involved in organic functions. Water, lipids, and other essentials are not coded for by DNA, as these natural “givens” never needed to be part of the database. The success of an organism—or any particular gene—in the selection process is not determined by the genetic code itself, but by its interpretation. In Noble’s view, the genome should be read through the phenotype rather than the other way around.

If one looks for a conductor, conceived as an agent directing this orchestra from within, one is missing Noble’s overall thesis and committing a reductionist error akin to that of the gene determinists. There is no particular gene, protein, organelle, cell, tissue, organ, or biological mechanism one can grab onto and say, “this is life”; just as there is no particular note, key, string, instrument, section, movement, or performative act one can grab onto and say, “this is music”; just as there is no particular object one can grab onto and say, “this is the self.”

Noble ends on a quasi-mystical note (pun intended), expressing appreciation for the Buddhist doctrine of anatman: the non-existence of an immutable self—at least in any phenomenal object of perception. He distinguishes this from Christianity (though he puts in a good word for Meister Eckhart); but truth be told, none of the contemplative traditions of any major religion have thought of the self—or soul, or witness consciousness, or what have you—as an object within the body. No Christian mystic, Sufi, Sikh, or Vedantin would be at all scandalized by the notion that there is no self cortex in the brain or self hormone secreted by the endocrine glands. In fact, it is the very irreducibility of the “living soul” which makes it, in theistic belief systems, akin to the divine. But this is only a trivial criticism of a composition executed with admirable clarity and grace.

[Pavlogreen]

Una de las mejores obras divulgativas sobr biología, especialmente en el aspecto molecular. Noble combina una erudición biológica muy amplia con unas dosis de filosofía occidental y oriental muy refrescantes.

Es además una obra imprescindible en la crítica al reductivismo genético y a cualquier escuela biológica que quiera ofrecer soluciones simplificadas a problemas tremendamente complejos.

[Maya · Rating 4 out of 5]

The chapters on consciousness and Noble's decisive takedown of the notion of containing the idea of a 'self' in a particular part of the brain was a definite highlight. Some 'thoughtful comments' as per the reading list:
- Reductionism can cause us to ignore the effects & importance of interactions at every level
- Biological causation/feedback is broadly 'circular' - that is to say each component affects every other component
- Attempts to define/categorise phenomena are only useful if the definition is 'true'. This is more difficult to understand because it's a broadly philosophical question. I do enjoy Noble's take that it is pretty much unnecessary to have to define everything, but I see the importance of this as well. I mean 'true' in the sense that the boundaries of the definition are absolute, I think.
- Things are not merely the sum of their parts; not a new idea, but I liked the way it was articulated. They are altered by their interactions; for example, we listen to music through the lens of our own ears and experience. The function of genes etc. is altered by the behaviour of the organism.
- Genes (and indeed other levels) only become understandable in the context of their environment.

[Kate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Denis Noble, professor emeritus (Oxford), writes a polemical response to Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Dawkins has been crowned, rightly or wrongly, King of the Genetic Reductionists (that who we are, what we do, how we feel, and what diseases we get are a function of our genes). Noble, on the other hand, makes an impassioned plea for a more wholistic approach to understanding what Life is, and therefore thinks in terms of systems rather than genes. In doing this, he employs musical metaphors in each of his short chapters. I find some of his metaphors expressive and useful (the human genome as an organ with 30,000 pipes). But at the level of the sentence, I found the book wanting.

[Avantika Parihar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is about Systems Biology. A counter view to reductionist Biology and the theory of genes as the most basic element of life.

[Justin Covey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Intriguing counter point to the popular gene determinist view of biology. We commonly think of DNA as the great determinator of life as it's the pathway of heredity and evolution, but Noble makes the case that DNA alone cannot do this. That it is virtually impossible to recreate an organism solely from its DNA, without also the egg cell and an understanding of the organisms embryonic conditions. In Noble's central metaphor DNA is not the program or plan it is normally imagined to be, but instead an instrument used by the cell to create proteins. Consider that all the diverse cells of the body have the same set of DNA, but due to chemical tags applied by the cell they use this DNA, even the same segments, to accomplish wildly different tasks. This viewpoint also reveals holes in popular DNA similarity comparisons. When we hear that we and mice are very close genetically it does not mean we are nearly identical, no more than two pieces of music are identical because they are played on same instruments.

[Joseph D. Walch · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like New York City or the most complex space satellite, every cell in our bodies contain tens of thousands of moving parts that serve myriad functions. On top of that, these cells organize differently in groups to form functional organs which are in turn dependant on other organs in a system that sustains intelligent life. This book is the story of the delicate yet amazingly orchestrated biological systems that form the foundation of life.

This is a very interesting book that explores the paradigms of our present biological models and how they are shifting in our age of nanotech and higher-order computing. It shows how the old reductionism of science (i.e., breaking down and isolating variables of a system for individual study) is giving way to a more holistic view of complex interactions in systems biology. It's a fascinating look into the irreducible complexity that forms the basis for many physiological functions (e.g., how heartbeats are orchestrated from a number of different ion channels acting in symphonic harmony with differential nerve conduction and heart muscle excitability) and points out the incredible emergent behavior from both normal interactive physiological mechanisms and pathological conditions that result in suprising effects.

It also challenges the facile simplicity of the genes-as-god attitude present in millenial biology and explores how genes are affected just as much by protein modulators, silencers, activators, environment, etc. as they effect changes in all these factors in a complex dance during development an throughout maturity. Thus it endorses the study of physiology and life from the 'middle-out' perspective; 'middle' representing organ systems utilizing both reductionistic, holistic, and individualistic study of systems from the molecular/biochemical level all the way up through cells, organs, etc. to the level of clinical science. It's a very good book and a fascinating read that will fill the reader with wonder and profound appreciation for the incredible music of life manifest in the way our body and mind functions.

I read this book after going to Experimental Biology in 2009 and hearing about it from the number of presenters who mentioned it.

[Maret Vilbaste · Rating 5 out of 5]

A truly enjoyable read that opened my eyes to the deeper nature of life. The book takes me beyond the boundaries of genetics, showing life as a harmonious and dynamic process, where all parts play their part. The author uses the metaphor of music, which makes complex concepts easy to understand and engaging.

[Patricia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Certainly a book I will have to read again. I liked the philosophical discussion surrounding our conception of biology and genes. The last chapters were a bit more mysterious to me, distinct from the rest of the book, but I overall enjoyed the read. (Basic biomolecular knowledge needed to appreciate the book).

[Helen]

This book is hard to rate because I did not like it but I think what he had to say was important, and I’m no biologist, but when he was actually talking about his biological theories the book was entertaining and informative. Otherwise it’s just a bunch of annoying metaphors. But it’s pretty good and I think people should read it to broaden their understandings about science.

[Wiki · Rating 1 out of 5]

Veelbetekenend boek over het gebruik van metaforen in de wetenschap, met aandacht voor metaforen gedurende ontwikkelingen met betrekking tot de evolutietheorie, Neodarwinisme en de expressie van reductionistisch determinisme in moleculaire biologie.

Ik vind het een verschrikkelijk saai boek omdat het vanuit het perspectief van een in mijn ogen reductionist / determinist het gebrek in het werk van invloedrijke wetenschappers die nóg meer reductionistisch en deterministisch zijn bekritiseert en voor de betrokken metaforen alternatieve metaforen voorstelt. In het voor- en nawoord komt daar nog laag van een in mijn beleving zwakbegaafde commentator bij.

Dit boek gaat vooral over ethiek en filosofie, over de manier waarop men omgaat met wetenschap. En dus niet zozeer over biologie en genen.

Het zal vast zeer interessant zijn voor de gemiddelde mens. En ik vind het telkens weer erg lastig om te zeggen door de sociale stigma's, maar in wetenschappelijke context vind ik de inhoud van dit boek en het gehele thema dom gezwets. Dáár zou een boek over geschreven moeten worden: de stigma's op verschil in intelligentie en het naar noodzaak ontwikkelende nut om bijvoorbeeld van het binair redeneren of 3D-denken door te groeien naar meer variabelen en zo ook het reductionisme op langere termijn afleren.

Ik ben benieuwd of er al hoogfunctionerende autisten zijn die een serieuze omnidimensionale benadering van de werkelijkheid hebben beschreven. Hawking en anderen staan op mijn leeslijst maar iets dergelijks is niet waar je bekend mee wordt tot veel lezers de inhoud kunnen begrijpen en die gaan vereenvoudigen om het te rest uit te kunnen leggen, dus als er al iets geschreven is zal het waarschijnlijk niet makkelijk te vinden zijn.

Indien deze tekst als provocerend overkomt, excuseer uzelf voor het vervallen tot stigmatisering van intelligentieverschillen. Mijn overtuiging is dat het niet goed of fout is om slim of dom te zijn. Deze tekst is dan ook vanuit mijn persoonlijke beleving geschreven, wat volgens mij de bedoeling is van een recensie.

De lage score ken ik toe voor de presentatie van reductionistische metaforen als algemeen wetenschappelijk relevant; daar ben ik het niet mee eens, ik ben er zelfs tegen. Een reden is dat metaforen en andere vormen van reductionisme of vereenvoudiging tot in beangstigende diepten van de beleving van het bewustzijn doorgedrongen zijn en hun oorspronkelijke functie (ezelsbruggetjes voor het kunnen begrijpen van complexere zaken) niet meer ten dienst staan maar juist tegenwerken, namelijk door vereenvoudiging te gaan definiëren als volledige, correcte en absolute representatie van de complexe werkelijkheid. Als je dit niet snapt is dat niet erg, niet iedereen hoeft alles te snappen en er zijn ook zat dingen die ik niet snap, vandaar dat ik graag studeer. Ok doei.

[Tiina · Rating 2 out of 5]

Bioloogia pole kunagi olnud üks minu tugevamaid aineid, geneetikaga olen ilmselt kokku puutunud veidi rohkem, kui mõned teised. Ometi võttis see raamat mind ohkama. Autor hüppab kohe suurele pildile, jättes kõrvale peamised algtõed, millega lugeja kindlasti peaks kursis olema. Minu arust oleks võinud Noble seda teha, et lugejale kas või lihtsalt varem õpitut meelde tuletada. Mina lendasin selle raamatuga pea ees vette ja pidin ise vaatama, kas ma upun või ujun. Jõudsin lõpule, nii et lained uhtusid mu kaldale.

Võrdlus muusikaga jäi minu jaoks ka segaseks, aga jällegi võrdleb autor suuri asju omavahel. Muusika on rohkemat kui sümfooniad ja dirigendid ja heliplaadid, mis infot edasi kannavad. Jutustused tulnukatest ja nende vaatepunktist jäid minu jaoks ka segaseks. Mis nende eesmärk oli?

Viimases peatükis kirjutab autor: „Ma panin käesolevale raamatule pealkirjaks „Elu muusika”, kuna ka muusika pole asi, vaid protsess. Seda tuleb hinnata eelkõige terviku seisukohast. Ja nagu me teame, on muusikat ka väga keeruline sõnadega kirjeldada.” Mina sellega ei nõustu. Muusikat on väga lihtne sõnadega kirjeldada, me teeme seda praktiliselt iga päev. Muusikat tuleb hinnata igat pidi, sa võid hinnata muusikat tervikuna nagu looduse ilu, aga kui sa tõesti tahad seda mõista ja sellest aru saada, siis tuleb teha tutvust noodikirja, instrumentide ja ka muusikapala autoriga. Tervikust endast ei piisa: igal noodil on oma tähtsus, oma roll selles helide näitemängus. Ja seetõttu jäigi mulle see raamat arvatavasti nii segaseks. Noble rääkis suurest pildist samal ajal, kui mina üritasin meeleheitlikult algtõdesid meelde tuletada.

Soovitan seda raamatut pigem neile, kes bioloogiaga kodus on. Ehk nemad saavad sellest rohkem aru. Minule jäi sellest raamatust üks suur peavalu.

[Helene Uppin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kas geenid siis ei juhigi kõike? Aga kes siis juhib? Mittekeegi - kuidas nii?
Mõnes mõttes on see vastus Dawkinsi "Isekale geenile" (soovitaks isekat geeni enne lugeda, et vastuolust, millele raamat tugineb, aru saada), teisalt on see aga rohkem. See on nagu järgmine peatükk, etapp või faas eluteaduste mõtestamises. Ma nautisin väga autori laiast silmaringist ja kultuursusest tulenevalt rikkalikku näidetepagasit, nutikaid metafoore ja süsteemselt semiootilist lähenemist (kuidas mõjutab see, kuidas me mõtleme teadvusest, "minast" ja ajust, seda, kuidas me seda bioloogiliselt seletame?). Väga põnev olid epigeneetikat puudutav hüpotees. Mingitel hetkedel läks mu mõte aga rändama, võibolla seetõttu, et ma pole (loodus-) teaduskeelset aimekirjandust ammu lugenud, aga võibolla hakkas see nutikas ja poeetiline kõnemaneer lõpuks ennast hävitama (sisu jälgimine muutus keeruliseks, sest vormi läbinärimine võttis liiga palju energiat). Aga no see muusika metafoor (orkester ilma dirigendita) on muidugi geniaalne. Nii või teisiti, väärikas lisandus Rohelise Raamatu sarjale, soovitan.
Lisaks on eestikeelsel väljaandel sümpaatne lõppsõna Kalevi Kullilt!

[Laurent Grenier · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important book for anyone trying to wrap their mind around the integrated complexity of advanced multicellular living systems.

Notably, it puts in question the typical bottom-up reductive approach in modern biology that is necessary to understanding such systems, but is not sufficient. Every level (i.e., that of molecules, cells, organs, or that of the organism as a whole) in the hierarchy of their existence is equally causative. I think a most fitting concept in this case comes from Taoism: mutual arising. In other words, every level of being within the totality of life is dependent on every other, or significantly contributes to its functioning.

To sum up, the author of the work in question, Denis Noble, writes in support of an integrative, versus a reductive approach to modern biology that is most refreshing and arguably revolutionary.

In my humble opinion, THE MUSIC OF LIFE should be required reading for people majoring in this field of study, or more generally for all the inquisitive minds that aren't satisfied with simplistic views.

Laurent Grenier, Author of the essay "Life Revisited: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Purpose of Existence."

[Fadel Fakih · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book! Denis Noble is certainly one of the really good writers. The book delivers quite complex science and philosophy of science in very smooth way. The stories to introduce the ideas are genius.
I read this book as literature review to some ideas that are not letting me sleep. I am convinced more and more in the idea of emergent properties and top-down causation in life. As a molecular biologist, I needed such books. Since as a physiologist, Noble was free from the chains in mainstream molecular biology and its charm taking biologists toward a rather reductionist mentality. All in the age of the giants of neo-darwinism suggest that he was not afraid.
Noble counteracts genetic determinism in a beautiful way. However, I would still be careful not fall to what neo-darwinists did. I think it is always blurred in biology as I would not propose models and laws. I would even be careful abusing the use of emergence where it becomes magic at some point. It is like walking in a minefield. I think he did quite well.

[Ro · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful Beautiful Beautiful! This has to be one of my favorite books in 2023 even though its my first book of the year, but i just know it will stick with me forever. there are so many instances in which i find myself challenged as a geneticist in a philosophical way which is admittedly rare. Usually genetics is complex and confusing, but concepts are rarely challenging. The author have put my thoughts that i didn’t know how to articulate into words and metaphors. I have always felt slightly uneasy when i talk to non-geneticists and i can sense how much they overestimate the role of genes, or the idea that perhaps everything we do and experience is “written” in our codes. this book beautifully explains how this is not the reality of being, and it is not the full picture. Genetics is beautiful, but our DNA is not the code of “life”

[Philemon - · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very clear exposition against reductionism in biology, in particular against the popular idea that who we are is determined by genes. That meme, very much out of date but still pushed by Richard Dawkins almost 50 years after The Sellfish Gene, no longer stands up. Genes don't direct anything. They are codes interpreted by the whole life forms that use them. A given gene may be used in different ways by different species, or by different tissue types within one species. The number of possible contexts defies even hypothetical computer analysis. Biotech's assumption that given genes control given diseases has not borne fruit.

[1] I came across Noble via this excellent YouTube podcast

[Laurent Grenier · Rating 4 out of 5]

The orthodox gene-centrist view (championed by Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish Gene") is arguably like putting the cart before the horse. Denis Noble doesn't subscribe to this view, but describes the organism, not as a puppet in the service of genetic expression, but as endowed with agency aiming to survive and even thrive through regeneration and reproduction. From this perspective, the genome is a repository of solutions–accumulated and improved over time–to the many challenges encountered by the organism in the course of living. The organism adaptively avails itself of these solutions when they are appropriate to the situation. In a word, Denis Noble sets the record straight.

[Tyler Cole · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think Noble did an solid job launching a polemic against scientific reductivism and a deep dive into the topic as a whole. I overall agreed with the sentiments of Noble, but I also found that to be one of the biggest drawbacks of the book. A lot of what he was saying felt a little too light and over drawn out, like there was no really necessity to bring Buddhism into the mix. It felt like the author was trying to make a generic brand copy of Gödel Escher Bach on a topic which had significantly less importance and room to explore.

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 3 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.

[Ardon · Rating 5 out of 5]

The thesis of this book is, essentially, a well-mounted counterargument against the idea that life arises purely because of the existence of genes. It’s very well written and extremely holistic, weighing the ideas put forward by prolific writers, like Richard Dawkins, and evaluating them thoroughly.

[Elena]

a beautiful book, read for my cogsci class. all the biology talk is not really in my wheelhouse, but the ideas articulated are accessible and elegantly argued. i particularly liked the last segment discussing “viewing the self as a process rather than an object”, and i also appreciated the music metaphor used throughout

[Tero Parviainen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A delightful little book on "systems biology" - the conceptualisation of creatures like us as complex systems that cannot be explained by a reduction to lower level causes, genetic or otherwise. I enjoyed the fabric of musical metaphors woven through the chapters, as well as the passages on connections between process-oriented science and Buddhist thought, brief as they were.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book and point if view. He states the book us written as a polemic, making the point that biology is much more than genes, indeed we are VERY complicated systems. I am not a biologist but at least one I respect thinks he makes a good case. Lots to learn, read it!

[John Zobolas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book stands as an antithesis to "The Selfish Gene" in lots of ways. The layman's primary book on Systems Biology. Really well written and worth your time! It is very compact but it also inspires you to think about the stuff that you are reading (if you wish to do so)!

[Bradley Woolf · Rating 5 out of 5]

Debates the gene-centered perspective from The Selfish Gene vs the author's more holistic perspective, where the genome is continually responding to, and updating, as a result of external stimuli. Author suggests that better proxies for this info would be cells and proteins.

[Steven Huggins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Simple to understand, entertaining and mind blowing.

[Viki Meadows · Rating 5 out of 5]

I took it slowly and it wasn't always very easy but it was extremely interesting and thought-provoking and I enjoyed it.