[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: The Genome Wager: Wolpert V Sheldrake The Genome Wager: Wolpert V Sheldrake THE GENOME WAGER Please contact: Najma Finlay, Head of PR Icon Books najma.finlay@iconbooks.co.uk 020 77009962 In the spirit of famous scientific wagers by notable scientists, such as Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman, two leading biologists, Professor Lewis Wolpert and Dr Rupert Sheldrake, have set up a wager on the predictive value of the genome. Due to appear exclusively in the 11 July issue of The New Scientist, The Genome Wager, as it has been called, will be explained in full as Wolpert and Sheldrake state their cases both for and against. The wager is to be decided on May 1, 2029, and if the outcome is not obvious, the Royal Society, the world's most venerable scientific organization, will be asked to adjudicate. The winner will receive a case of fine port, Quinta do Vesuvio, 2005, which should have reached perfect maturity by 2029 and is being stored in the cellars of The Wine Society. Prof Wolpert bets that the following will happen. Dr Sheldrake bets it will not: By May 1, 2029, given the genome of a fertilized egg of an animal or plant, we will be able to predict in at least one case all the details of the organism that develops from it, including any abnormalities. Prof Wolpert and Dr Sheldrake agree that at present, given the genome of an egg, no one can predict the way an embryo will develop. The wager arose from a debate on the nature of life between Wolpert and Sheldrake at the 2009 Cambridge University Science Festival. Prof Wolpert believes that all biological phenomena can in principle be explained in terms of DNA, proteins and other molecules, together with their interactions. He is convinced that it is only a matter of time before all the details of an organism can be predicted on the basis of the genome. Dr Sheldrake believes that the predictive value of genes is grossly over-rated. Genes enable organisms to make proteins, but they do not contain programs or blueprints. Instead, he thinks that the development of organisms depends on organizing fields called morphogenetic fields, which are not inherited through the genes. Famous scientific wagers in the past include Richard Feynman's bet of $1000 that no-one could construct a motor no bigger than 1/64 of an inch on a side. He lost. Stephen Hawking bet fellow cosmologist Kip Thorne that Cygnus X-1 would turn out not to be a black hole (Hawking lost). And in 1980 biologist Paul Erlich bet economist Julian Simon that the price of five mineral commodities would rise over the next ten years. In fact they fell. Lewis Wolpert's book, How We Live and Why We Die: The Secret Lives of Cells is published by Faber and Faber and the new edition of Rupert Sheldrake's A New Science of Life is published by Icon Books. Images are available on request. Both Professor Wolpert and Dr Sheldrake are available for interview and review requests should be made to the contacts below. Contacts Faber and Faber: Anna Pallai AnnaP@faber.co.uk 020 79273884 Icon Books: Najma Finlay najma.finlay@iconbooks.co.uk 020 77009962 PRESS RELEASE ENDS
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Prefrontal Vortex (#0)
Kinda cheap-o bets, scientists.
Many details of an organism should be predictable from the genome but not likely all because of variations in nutrients, radiation and other "environmental" conditions, some of a random nature, during development.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||