On Demand
The Code of Life
12 March, 2008 (10:55)
Gaetan Lee/Flickr
The genes of all living things are made of DNA. And DNA is made of four chemicals, called A, T, C, and G. These days, scientists can read those “letters” of DNA for any creature (including you and me). And they can make strands of DNA from jars of A, T, C, and G. In fact, scientists now have databases of thousands of different genes, written in letters, for functions like “glow in the dark,” or “metabolize glucose,” or any number of traits or talents.
All of this raises an interesting question: If the genetic “recipe” for making any gene or creature is just a string of letters, then are genes just information, like software code? Are the talents or traits that come from genes like software programs that can be loaded into a living thing? Well, Richard Dawkins thinks so:
What has happened is that genetics has become a branch of information technology. It is pure information. It’s digital information. It’s precisely the kind of information that can be translated digit for digit, byte for byte, into any other kind of information and then translated back again. This is a major revolution. I suppose it’s probably “the” major revolution in the whole history of our understanding of ourselves.
This quote comes from a conversation between Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter, which you can check out on the website Edge.
In our upcoming show, (So-Called) Life, we play around with this idea, and Robert talks to Craig Venter about making new life from scratch. The show is already airing in some places and will be available for download in the next couple weeks.
Comments
Comment from engineer27
Date: March 13, 2008, 12:14 pm
A truly amazing thing about DNA from an IT perspective, is that a single chunk of DNA can at the same time be BOTH data AND program code, plus possibly instructions for the “compiler” that runs the code (think enzymes, ribosomes, etc needed for the cell to convert the DNA code into proteins).
Comment from Nathan
Date: March 14, 2008, 2:28 pm
“You can’t make a racehorse of a pig.”
“No, but you can make a very fast pig.”
-Steinbeck, East of Eden
Comment from Bob Herman
Date: March 14, 2008, 3:04 pm
As Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel said “well, you did it again”. Great show!
I feel as though RadioLab has become an addiction for me. I look forward to each Friday’s new show with great smiles and hungry expectations. Is there a 12-step program to counter the effects of RadioLab addicts?
Thanks again and keep those shows coming.
Comment from Ivo Stainoff
Date: March 14, 2008, 10:29 pm
Wow! What an unbelievably stimulating show! This episode feels like cerebral fireworks!
Thanks to the Universe for WNYC for producing such a compelling and mind altering program!
Comment from pizza engineer
Date: March 15, 2008, 1:41 am
amazable shew!
butt whut aboute EPA-geneticles!?!
yuo knoww the mysterius littler jeans sewn in to the bigga blue jeans ov life!
how cums no talks about thats?
notice differences in identical twins
why don’t cha!?!
duhhhhhhhhh!
grate broads of cast!
Comment from rhizome
Date: March 16, 2008, 8:05 am
Your format, w/ all the edits and bells and whistles, is annoying beyond description; it seems targeted at kids hyped-up on sugary breakfast cereals. As for this show in particular, you were asleep at the wheel anent challenging the terrifying and ethically bankrupt doofuses who muck around with life forms for kicks, just a bunch of “Gee, golly” on your part.
Comment from Arkonbey
Date: March 18, 2008, 8:59 am
I enjoyed this show. I must remember to point it out to my friend who’s getting her PHd in biology. She can’t seem to understand why fiction has a lot of ‘mad scientists tampering with God’s domain’.
Rhizome: as a 39 year old (who eats Grape Nuts, btw), I found the Radiolab’s editing to be, at first, slightly annoying. A few listens and I was hooked. The weaving and the movement of sound help keep your brain on its toes. If you desire more information and less entertainment, listen to a TED lecture, or just read Scientific American.
As far as being ‘asleep at the wheel’ when dealing with these ‘mad scientists’, I think Radiolab was just trying to present information and let the listener decide whether the scientists actions are moral/ethical or not; prompt us to ask questions of ourselves and our own morality as well of those of others.
Pax.
Write a comment