If someone asked me what was the technology that defined the development of molecular biology at the end of last century would respond without thinking that was the PCR. PCR is the acronym Chain Reaction to Polymerase (P olimerase C hain R eaction) which is a reaction in vitro DNA polymerization. The mechanism is simple and allows us to obtain millions of copies of a specific DNA fragment. To understand the amplification process encour link English Wikipedia but I present this video which is quite good (post it to the computed volume because the audio is too low):
Currently this technique has been refined and expanded so that not only can amplify and isolate fragments DNA but also can build mutations (and committing a mortal sin in the process), to study gene expression patterns, identify and classify microorganisms, paternity testing and identifying genes that predispose to diseases among other uses. To give you an idea 25 years ago when my tutor was a graduate student isolation of a gene was an undergraduate thesis, today I do that in 2 hrs. With this technique the scope of each work expanded considerably and now I do not think there is a single work of molecular biology that makes use of that technique.
The inventor of this technique was a scientist named Kary Mullis industry working for the company Cetus. The story of how he invented the PCR can read his acceptance speech Nobel Prize, an award by the importance and impact of the technique certainly deserved. But Kary Mullis is also famous for some controversial positions. A look at the wikipedia entry shows he was in favor of astrology and more current descepcionantemente of HIV denialist as causes AIDS. Even Dr. Duesberg, the axis of the denialist movement, constantly boasts that the Nobel laureate who invented the technique used to calculate the viral load favor of its current even prefaced his book. This case is a classic example the main theme of this post that are the arguments ad verecundiam . These are those whose only support is in the importance, respect and fame that exposes or supporting it and are used continuously in the case of Nobel laureates. We all remember the controversy, surprise and disappointment after the unfortunate comments of Dr. Watson. What a genius as he was able to make judgments as reprehensible? How else Mullis genius is capable of denying that HIV causes AIDS? The answer is simple: they are geniuses! scientists are ordinary people who had the vision and clarity on time to discover or invent something transcendent. But that does not guarantee that absolutely everything that emanates from your mouth will leave with the same certainty that their work rewarded. Take the example of Kary Mullis, I definitely am eternally grateful for PCR, mutagenic PCR design fascinates me (and committing a mortal sin in the process) and use it to find cloning and save you days of work. However if you do a search on PubMed of the work of Kari Mullis find us this. has participated in 17 articles, the first in 1971 and the last in 1995, 13 years ago that stopped working!. Of these only one deals with AIDS and published in a journal with impact factor 1.5 which is quite low. To make matters worse in 9 of the other items is at the minor in the list of authors (the first two authors are usually those who did the work and the last boss, these three are the most important sites) and where it is first author or sole author the subject is the PCR. So Dr. Kary Mullis has not conducted research on HIV that allows you to say with scientific authority that this is not the cause of AIDS. Even AIDS chapter of his autobiographical work (and the naysayers cite as an argument) gives no evidence by which the PCR can not be used to calculate the viral load (Sorry, is INGESA). Kary Mullis only based their arguments on the absence of evidence to convince and reinforced by the Nobel medal, the same below which Duesberg hides whenever he mentions to Mullis.
This entry does not seek to devalue the credibility to attack the current Mullis denier, which aim is to warn that any comments of a scientist to be questioned even though it is very famous. Any statements that are issued if it is accompanied by scientific evidence is but one opinion as the eue anyone can give and many of these views can be simple or foolish blunders. Kari Mullis invented the technique that revolutionized molecular biology but has no evidence to negate the effects of HIV on the human body, James Watson determined the structure of DNA but do not know anything genetic determination of human intelligence. I think the problem is our tendency to create heroes and idols, if a scientist comes to the media and win a prize automatically consider him a genius and anything you say is true and example. Skeptical reasoning does not accept any claim in the absence of evidence, not even a Nobel Prize, for work outside the EU gave visibility there is usually a common man burdened by faults and virtues.
And as a grand finale-noñico comic touch in this entry is in charge of video for the song on the PCR (drool joke is likely to understand the molecular only):
0 comments:
Post a Comment