{"id":398,"date":"2014-02-28T19:41:57","date_gmt":"2014-02-28T19:41:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/genotopia.peachpuff-wolverine-566518.hostingersite.com\/?p=398"},"modified":"2014-02-28T21:12:34","modified_gmt":"2014-02-28T21:12:34","slug":"its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cWe have found the secret of life!\u201d So Francis Crick exclaimed, bursting into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, exactly sixty-one years ago. He and his partner, James Watson, had just solved the structure of DNA. The only eye-witness account is from the historical farce <\/span>The Double Helix<\/i>, written more than a decade after the fact by Crick\u2019s number one fan, Watson. There is much in the book that cannot be taken at face value, as I suggested in my book and in a recent review in Science. But let\u2019s take Watson at his word here. Because whether or not Crick in fact uttered that famous sentence, the anecdote rings true. For one thing, it concisely conveys the thrust of Watson\u2019s career since 1962, the year he, Crick, and Wilkins went to Stockholm. For more than half a century, Watson has been DNA\u2019s chief spokesperson, literary agent, and cheerleader. Whether or not Crick said it, Watson said it, and it\u2019s fair to say that no single person has done more than he to promote the idea that DNA is the secret of life.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sixty-one years after the double helix turns out to be an interesting moment in the history of heredity. My guess is that the early 21st<\/sup> century will turn out to have been an inflection point. For the last, oh, couple thousand years, \u201chereditary\u201d has connoted \u201cinnate.\u201d It was that part of you that could not be changed. That\u2019s changing, and yet our culture has not yet caught up with DNA science. In 2014, the double helix is simultaneously reinforcing and undermining the idea that your genes are your immutable identity. The meanings of DNA are multiple\u00a0and sometimes contradictory.<\/p>\n

*<\/p>\n

\u00a0\u201cWe have found the secret of life.\u201d The statement is profound yet untrue. It is a marvelous reflection of one of science\u2019s greatest deadfalls: thinking constantly about a particular mechanism tends to make one think that it\u2019s the key to the universe. It should be self-evident that there is no single secret of life. Heredity is obviously important\u2014evolution can get no traction without it\u2014but the secrets of life include metabolism, self-organization, homeostasis, reproduction, adaptation to the environment, and response to stimuli. DNA is involved in all of those processes, but it\u2019s a mistake to think it fundamental<\/i> to them. Not a mistake, actually: an artifact.<\/p>\n

The double helix reinforced the idea that heredity lies at the heart of life. I\u2019ve written a lot about hereditarianism here, so won\u2019t rehearse those arguments again. Suffice it to remind you that the development of Mendelian genetics after 1900 gave a big boost to hereditarian thought and put fangs on the Progressive era eugenics movement. Eugenics has two central ideas: your genes are the most important determinants in making you who you are; and we must take control of our own evolution. I maintain that the former is wrong and the latter is inevitable.<\/p>\n

After the 1962 Nobel Prize to Watson, Crick, and Wilkins, the double helix became the emblem of the \u201cnew genetics,\u201d or molecular biology. Like Mendelism 60 years before, it prompted a new way of thinking about how to control our evolution. Now that we understand how genes actually work, scientists began to think, we no longer need to rely on crude measures of controlling bodies through marriage restriction and sterilization. We will be able to do it delicately, surgically, through targeted modification of the genes. The year after Watson, Crick, and Wilkins won the Nobel, the polymathic biologist Joshua Lederberg fantasized about just this, and through the 1960s conference after conference debated the scientific, philosophical, and religious problems entailed by the prospect of directly manipulating an individual\u2019s hereditary makeup. Early gene cowboys such as Stanfield Rogers and Martin Cline circumvented both the rules and the principles of research ethics in their zeal to perform \u201cgenetic surgery.\u201d In short, as soon as DNA became popularly acknowledged as the secret of life, the nature of heredity began to change. The first cracks appeared in the monolithic concept of heredity as the immutable part of human identity.<\/p>\n

Of course, a few cracks in the glaze don\u2019t prevent a pot from being used. DNA science has been enormously productive. The more we study DNA, the more central to life it seems. And it has had fantastic PR. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Watson and others, the elegant twisting ladder of the double helix became the most recognizable scientific image since the Bohr atom. Niels Bohr\u2019s famous image of a nucleus with three orbiting electrons signified not the science of quantum mechanics that it helped launch but the atomic age that began some four decades later. It was the cultural, not the scientific, connotations that gave the image its, pardon the expression, valence. Ditto the double helix. Fantasies about engineering the genome notwithstanding, in the popular imagination DNA became a secular stand-in for the soul: it represented our essence, our identity, our nature.<\/p>\n

Since the turn of the century, though, two forces have been working at cross-purposes. On the one hand, biomedicine has become absolutely DNA-centric. Every branch of the life sciences, from paleontology to ecology to cardiology is grounded in the idea that the genes are not just important but fundamental<\/i> to life. The idea is so entrenched it seems almost ludicrous to question it: life springs from the nucleus. The chromosomes contain the genes that make the proteins that make us who we are. No matter where you start, if you plumb the depths of biological causality, ultimately you arrive at the core of being: the DNA.<\/p>\n

And yet. If you press scientists\u2014hell, if you simply read the scientific literature\u2014evidence abounds that that view is dissolving. The DNA is increasingly understood not as the bottom of the causal hierarchy but as a node in a network; dynamic, contingent, and susceptible to influence. It can be read in an almost infinite variety of ways. Its products\u2014proteins and RNA molecules\u2014can undergo modifications that dramatically change their function. At the frontiers now are new techniques such as CRISPR-cas (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, with cas-9 enzyme), which permit the editing of DNA sequence, as a copyeditor might scan a manuscript repairing typos. The first genetic engineering involved the manipulation of whole intact genes from organism to organism. Now the dream is to simply go in and repair\u2014or improve\u2014an individual\u2019s genome, nucleotide by polymorphic nucleotide.<\/p>\n

The inflection point, then, is the change from thinking of DNA as that which is innate and unchangeable, to precisely that which is<\/i> changeable. Thanks to the billions of dollars of public and private money poured into high-tech biomedical research, changing the DNA is becoming more practical than changing the environment. It is beginning to seem more feasible to treat obesity by changing the genes (or their products, the proteins) rather than by changing the diet. It is beginning to seem more practical to treat crime by changing the genes rather than address the tangled social problems of the inner cities. DNA can be treated in isolation. It can be controlled. Changing the genes is technically hard but conceptually simple; changing the environment is technically simple but conceptually hard. Humans are better with their hands than their minds.<\/p>\n

So here we sit at the crossroads. In the labs, DNA is increasingly manipulable. It has shed its reputation as that-which-cannot-be-changed. But in popular culture, the double helix still stands for innateness. DNA can be edited, but \u201cDNA\u201d remains immutable. Notwithstanding the mountains of evidence that show genes and environment to be interpenetrating and mutually contingent, we continue to fall back on a simplistic nature vs. nurture concept. And so we \u201cblame\u201d our genes for any quality we cannot or will not change.<\/p>\n

\"Museveni<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Thus we arrive at last Valentine\u2019s Day (of course), when a savvy PR person released the results<\/a> of a study suggesting that \u201ca gene for homosexuality\u201d lies on the long arm of the X chromosome. Uganda\u2019s president, Yoweri Museveni, may be retrograde but he reads the science news. Having promised to outlaw homosexuality, yesterday he backpedaled, saying he was turning to scientists for guidance <\/a>. Apparently the Valentine\u2019s gay gene gave him a pang of conscience. He said that if homosexuality is \u201clearned it can be unlearned.\u201d Being straight is, for him, a matter of personal responsibility. However, if anyone can show him a gay gene, he might reconsider signing the bill. If homosexuality is innate, it\u2019s not your fault if you are gay. Ironically, on this Museveni is on the same side as the gay community. From Kampala to the Castro, we persist in thinking that if it\u2019s in your DNA, it\u2019s not a moral issue. I understand the politics of the American gay community’s insistence that gayness is inborn, and perhaps it is indeed the expedient course in this political climate. But in Germany, gays insist that homosexuality is not inborn, because they have a cultural memory of a time when the solution for an innate “pathology” was extermination. The valence of scientific evidence is not inherent; it depends on the time and place.<\/p>\n

Gayness is neither a unit character, like white eyes in Drosophila, nor can it be labeled either<\/i> genetic or <\/i>learned. Like anything else interesting, it is a graded behavior, sometimes inborn, sometimes learned, the result of a vast constellation of genes and environmental factors whose relative roles are themselves mutually contingent and shifting. You can find dozens of genes that correlate with it, I\u2019m sure. Some will be associated with it in some people in some environments and not in others. It\u2019s a rabbit-hole. In a few years, the correlation of a gene with a behavior might have the opposite connotation: it could imply that there is<\/i> something you can do about it. “De-programming” is arduous and traumatic; someday, genetic surgery may seem the easiest, most painless course for changing behavior. Will future reactionaries hold people responsible precisely because<\/i> they have a \u201cgene for\u201d homosexuality, obesity, criminality, promiscuity, or any of the other socially undesirable qualities eugenicists have been trying to genetically eliminate since the early 1900s?<\/p>\n

Such is the cultural authority of science today that we believe a scientific justification to be irrefutable. But science, as John McPhee wrote, does not find the truth. Science erases what was formerly true. Every scientific theory ever proposed has been modified, qualified, or discarded. That alone should nullify it as the foundation of laws concerning moral issues. Genetic determinism can provide comfort to those who don\u2019t want to blame themselves (or each other) for a trait, but it doesn\u2019t stand the test. No, the more robust reason not to ban homosexuality is that it doesn\u2019t fucking matter who someone falls in love with<\/i>. Full stop.<\/p>\n

Happy anniversary of the double helix, everyone. Solving the structure was a marvelous intellectual feat. But lawmakers and politicians, keep your hands out of my genes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cWe have found the secret of life!\u201d So Francis Crick exclaimed, bursting into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, exactly sixty-one years ago. He and his partner, James Watson, had just solved the structure of DNA. The only eye-witness account is from the historical farce The Double Helix, written more than a decade after the fact … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-398","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nIt\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61 - Genotopia<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"\u201cWe have found the secret of life!\u201d So Francis Crick exclaimed, bursting into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, exactly sixty-one years ago. He and his partner, James Watson, had just solved the structure of DNA. The only eye-witness account is from the historical farce The Double Helix, written more than a decade after the fact ... Read more\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Genotopia\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-02-28T19:41:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-02-28T21:12:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/02\/Museveni-and-Crick.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Nathaniel Comfort\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Nathaniel Comfort\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Nathaniel Comfort\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1678c350e13f229dfc3ce10d37d5ef41\"},\"headline\":\"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-02-28T19:41:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-28T21:12:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1845,\"commentCount\":4,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/9\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/Museveni-and-Crick.png\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#respond\"]}],\"copyrightYear\":\"2014\",\"copyrightHolder\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/#organization\"}},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/\",\"name\":\"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61 - Genotopia\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/9\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/Museveni-and-Crick.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-02-28T19:41:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-02-28T21:12:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1678c350e13f229dfc3ce10d37d5ef41\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/9\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/Museveni-and-Crick.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/9\\\/2014\\\/02\\\/Museveni-and-Crick.png\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/398\\\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/\",\"name\":\"Genotopia\",\"description\":\"Here Lies Truth\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/1678c350e13f229dfc3ce10d37d5ef41\",\"name\":\"Nathaniel Comfort\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/92625f3c761b7e3f723c76a73bc4328259839fbe8530a221b68040b9b4483a99?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/92625f3c761b7e3f723c76a73bc4328259839fbe8530a221b68040b9b4483a99?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/92625f3c761b7e3f723c76a73bc4328259839fbe8530a221b68040b9b4483a99?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Nathaniel Comfort\"},\"description\":\"Nathaniel Comfort is a professor in the Department of the History of Medicine at The Johns Hopkins University. From 1997 to 2002, he was on the history faculty at The George Washington University, where he also served as Deputy Director of the Center for History of Recent Science. The Center\u2019s director and founder was Horace Freeland Judson (The Eighth Day of Creation), who, along with John McPhee and Monty Python, Comfort considers among his biggest writing influences. Comfort\u2019s books include The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine (Yale, 2012), The Tangled Field: Barbara McClintock\u2019s Search for the Patterns of Genetic Control (Harvard, 2001), and the edited volume, The Panda\u2019s Black Box: Opening Up the Intelligent Design Debate (Johns Hopkins, 2007). In addition to scholarly articles, he has written for Natural History, the New York Times Book Review, National Public Radio, Nature, Science, New Scientist, The Believer, and other publications. Should he expire tomorrow, he would be survived, in decreasing size order, by a son, a wife, a daughter, a dog, a cat, another cat, and still another cat.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/genotopia.peachpuff-wolverine-566518.hostingersite.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/scienceblog.com\\\/genotopia\\\/author\\\/genotopia\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61 - Genotopia","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61","og_description":"\u201cWe have found the secret of life!\u201d So Francis Crick exclaimed, bursting into the Eagle pub in Cambridge, exactly sixty-one years ago. He and his partner, James Watson, had just solved the structure of DNA. The only eye-witness account is from the historical farce The Double Helix, written more than a decade after the fact ... Read more","og_url":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/","og_site_name":"Genotopia","article_published_time":"2014-02-28T19:41:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-02-28T21:12:34+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/02\/Museveni-and-Crick.png","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Nathaniel Comfort","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Nathaniel Comfort","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/"},"author":{"name":"Nathaniel Comfort","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/#\/schema\/person\/1678c350e13f229dfc3ce10d37d5ef41"},"headline":"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61","datePublished":"2014-02-28T19:41:57+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-28T21:12:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/"},"wordCount":1845,"commentCount":4,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/02\/Museveni-and-Crick.png","inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#respond"]}],"copyrightYear":"2014","copyrightHolder":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/#organization"}},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/","url":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/","name":"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61 - Genotopia","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/02\/Museveni-and-Crick.png","datePublished":"2014-02-28T19:41:57+00:00","dateModified":"2014-02-28T21:12:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/#\/schema\/person\/1678c350e13f229dfc3ce10d37d5ef41"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/02\/Museveni-and-Crick.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/9\/2014\/02\/Museveni-and-Crick.png"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/398\/its-no-secret-the-double-helix-is-61\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"It\u2019s no secret: the double helix is 61"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/#website","url":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/","name":"Genotopia","description":"Here Lies Truth","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/#\/schema\/person\/1678c350e13f229dfc3ce10d37d5ef41","name":"Nathaniel Comfort","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/92625f3c761b7e3f723c76a73bc4328259839fbe8530a221b68040b9b4483a99?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/92625f3c761b7e3f723c76a73bc4328259839fbe8530a221b68040b9b4483a99?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/92625f3c761b7e3f723c76a73bc4328259839fbe8530a221b68040b9b4483a99?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Nathaniel Comfort"},"description":"Nathaniel Comfort is a professor in the Department of the History of Medicine at The Johns Hopkins University. From 1997 to 2002, he was on the history faculty at The George Washington University, where he also served as Deputy Director of the Center for History of Recent Science. The Center\u2019s director and founder was Horace Freeland Judson (The Eighth Day of Creation), who, along with John McPhee and Monty Python, Comfort considers among his biggest writing influences. Comfort\u2019s books include The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine (Yale, 2012), The Tangled Field: Barbara McClintock\u2019s Search for the Patterns of Genetic Control (Harvard, 2001), and the edited volume, The Panda\u2019s Black Box: Opening Up the Intelligent Design Debate (Johns Hopkins, 2007). In addition to scholarly articles, he has written for Natural History, the New York Times Book Review, National Public Radio, Nature, Science, New Scientist, The Believer, and other publications. Should he expire tomorrow, he would be survived, in decreasing size order, by a son, a wife, a daughter, a dog, a cat, another cat, and still another cat.","sameAs":["http:\/\/genotopia.peachpuff-wolverine-566518.hostingersite.com"],"url":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/author\/genotopia\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pgtNP1-6q","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=398"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/398\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=398"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=398"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scienceblog.com\/genotopia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=398"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}