Barbara McClintock

Jumping genes, forty years later

Barbara McClintock spent the 1940s documenting something strange in maize chromosomes. Genetic elements were moving from one location to another, changing the expression of nearby genes. She published her findings with characteristic precision. The scientific community dismissed them.

McClintock's observations contradicted a fundamental belief. DNA was stable. It changed through rare, random mutations - not by elements hopping around the genome. In time, jumping genes became fundamental to molecular biology research, an absolutely crucial tool in exploring how cells work. In 1983, she received the Nobel Prize. Forty years after her initial observations.

The then conceptual framework couldn't accommodate what she'd seen. Extraordinarily, even today the implications of genes that heritably change the local mutation rate in DNA are not being followed up. Even today, a fundamental mechanism in DNA, whilst accepted as real and used in the lab as a tool, is treated as an anomaly. Like the idea that some bacteria in the gut might be beneficial, the idea that transposable elements could be beneficial is going to take a while longer to be accepted.

James Lovelock

Outstanding invention, unacceptable model

James Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, an outstandingly sensitive instrument. He was initially unable to get funding for investigations using it 'because nothing could measure air composition at those ppm levels'. Fortunately he could show the device working to doubters, explain it mechanistically, and the direct utility - even if not fully understood - made it acceptable.

Less readily accepted was the mathematical model he developed in the 1970s showing how planetary-scale temperature regulation could emerge from local interactions between organisms and their environment. His 'Daisy World' presentation was an attempt to communicate the model, to make the ideas crystal clear. Dark daisies in 'Daisy World' absorb heat and spread when the planet is cold. Light daisies reflect heat and spread when it's warm. No coordination, no foresight - just feedback loops creating stability.

The Daisy World model demonstrates global homeostasis emerging from local selection pressures. It is an undeniable demonstration of interaction between levels in selection. The gene-centric view that dominates evolutionary biology can't easily accommodate this. Forty years later, the model remains on the periphery.

This is the same kind of resistance that McClintock faced. The science is sound, but the prevailing dogma - yes, dogma is the correct term here - prevents acceptance. There is inadequate mechanism to stand back from the currently accepted model with enough objectivity to see it could be wanting.

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren

Too much acid for bacteria

Bacteria had been documented in inflamed stomach linings for decades. Dogs showed them. Human biopsies occasionally revealed them. But the stomach was too acidic for bacterial colonization - this was established fact. So the bacteria were dismissed. At least nobody followed up. Which was a gross oversight, as acid-tolerant bacteria in stomach lining do cause ulcers.

In 1982, Robin Warren and Barry Marshall cultured the bacteria from human patients with gastritis and ulcers. They proposed these bacteria were not just contaminants, but caused the inflammation. The response was skepticism. Their 1983 paper was rated in the bottom 10%. Stress caused ulcers. Diet caused ulcers. Lifestyle caused ulcers. Everyone knew this.

Perhaps it's no surprise that Marshall couldn't get funding for human trials. In 1984, he instead drank a broth of cultured Helicobacter pylori . He was the 'male volunteer' in the research article he co-authored. Five days later he developed gastritis. Endoscopy by his colleague showed severe inflammation, with abundant bacteria seen under the microscope. An antibiotic eliminated the bacteria and reversed the ulcer. The experiment established the bacteria were pathogenic.

It still took a decade. The NIH and FDA intervened in the mid-1990s to fast-track acceptance. Warren and Marshall had documented evidence, dramatic self-experimentation, university positions, and institutional backing. A decade to shift consensus.

What's Unthinkable Now

The appendix was vestigial - a leftover from herbivorous ancestors with no modern function. Except it's a bacterial reservoir that repopulates the gut microbiome after illness. This is now widely accepted.

Junk DNA filled most of the human genome - selfish evolutionary debris, accumulated over millions of years. Except most of it shows signs of function.

The vertebrate retina is wired backwards - photoreceptors are furthest from the incoming light, with nerve fibers and blood vessels blocking the path.

There's a peculiar pattern in how biological design is discussed. When design appears inspired, it demonstrates evolution working well over millions of years. When design appears flawed, it shows how evolution is stuck with random changes and inescapable local optima. Bad design ought to call the whole edifice into question, yet instead it's cited as supporting evidence.

Here's a taste of the 'Unthinkable' write ups I'm planning:

Unthinkable ideas can become thinkable. The framework that treats bad design as evidence for evolution is slowly crumbling, but it does take time.

The Problem

The problem is that Occam's razor is blunt. It says in essence to go on believing what you already believe. The simplest explanation is what you already believe. Jumping genes are an artifact. DNA is mostly junk. The RLN is comically long.

Marshall drank bacteria to speed up scientific advance that wouldn't have happened otherwise. Even with this dramatic gesture, meticulous documentation, and institutional support, consensus took a decade. This can be seen in many lights. Huge kudos to Marshall and Warren. A daunting warning of what it takes to bring new ideas into the world. But there's a third perspective: if such a trove of outlier ideas exists - ideas that combine established mechanisms in ways the current paradigm doesn't consider - the value is enormous. The question is how to move them from unthinkable to accepted without forty years of institutional validation