On Tue, 19 May 1998 16:22:20 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote
(in message <6js83c$h23 at mserv1.dl.ac.uk>):
> Crick apparently replied that he hadn't thought about it before but yes,
> population geneticists were not scientists. Dunnett goes on to analyse this
> and to convince me (or would have if I hadn't thought it already -- anyone
> who thought that Motoo Kimura was not a scientist must be... but maybe I'd
> better stop there and charitably assume that Crick hadn't thought it
> through) that Crick's view was wrong. I'm quoting this from memory, but I'll
> try to remember to check and come back if I'm seriously misrepresenting the
> book.
Surely any scientist needs to decide upon the degree of precision which is
suitable to provide useful information in his own particular experiment- to
attempt too high a degree of precision is erroneous, because it simply clouds
the issue. Science has always employed approximation, simplification and
analogy in order to aid understanding. The use of analogy or model is
particularly pertinent here- the black box approach to metabolic regulation is
simply a model which is used as a test against experimental results, in the
same way that any computer model might be used as an analogy to a mechanical
system. The degree of precision can be varied to suit the generality of the
test. This does not make the experiment any the less valid (for 'valid', please
read 'useful')
If I were to model chemiosmotic ion fluxes with an analog computer, these
results would surely have some use in understanding, even if individual binding
constants of ions to proteins are not described? I can, for instance, use
Hess's law to calculate an overall enthalpy change for a reaction without
invoking individual reaction steps and activation energies. The outcome of my
calculations can still be of use to me.
I agree- Crick is wrong. This is surprising in the light of his pragmatic and
empirical determination of the structure of DNA.
