In the most recent issue of Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA that I have seen
(vol. 94, pp. 13388-13389 (1997)), Roy Pollock and Michael Gilman deliver
themselves of the following opinion:
"One of the beautiful things about biology is that you don't have to fully
understand it to put it to good use. The engineers who design spacecraft
may need a certain working familiarity with all of the parts in their
systems. But biologists, and particularly biologists whose mission is to
treat human disease, can make do with considerably more ignorance. One
reason for this difference is that biological control is usually exerted
through linear pathways of protein-protein interactions. Intervention at a
single known point in the pathway often is sufficient to capture that
pathway in its entirety."
Even if we ignore the false analogy between creating a new spacecraft with
modifying an existing biological system (which is easier: altering the
trajectory of a rocket already in flight, or designing a new biological
system from scratch? Can we conclude from the answer that biology is more
demanding than rocket science? Or is it just a silly comparison to start
off with?), and even if we recognize that they are not using the term
pathway in the sense of metabolic pathway, this remains a worrying opinion.
Is there any sense in which we can safely say "Intervention at a single
known point in the pathway often is sufficient to capture that pathway in
its entirety"?
Certainly Henrik Kacser wouldn't have agreed -- his view that the only way
to understand systems is to study systems was a lot more general than just
metabolic pathways. What do readers of this news group think?
Athel
Email: athel at ibsm.cnrs-mrs.fr
Home page: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/homepage.htm
MCA FAQ: http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/mcafaq.htm
MCA chapter from my book:
http://ir2lcb.cnrs-mrs.fr/lcbpage/athel/mcai.htm
