Hi everyone, I was listening to someone talking about the recent changes in all sciences and it was very interesting to hear how all of our modern sciences are different from the ones that we had about 10 years ago... so I asked you this question. What are the new paradigms in all sciences? Thnx! David
Well, here is one recent paradigm shift in the area of mammalian reproductive biology. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15014492" target="new">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15014492</a> If this turns out to be true, then every text book on the subject (or at least a few chapters in every text book) will have to be re-written. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I would consider this a recent paradigm shift in our understanding of neurobiology - glial cells (particularly radial glia) appear to act as neural stem cells. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14583753" target="new">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=14583753</a> Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, it certainly is astounding! If it turns out to be true then yes, delaying menopause may well be a possible extension of this new discovery. But I am pretty sure that the most immediate clinical relevance (and medical demand) would be for the treatment of female infertility.
isn't paradigm change a fundamental part of science? The whole point is to either prove or disprove paradigms. I guess my point is if you want ALL the new paradigms not only would it take you're entire life's study but by the time you learned 1/10000th of them most would have changed again. Pick a discipline, then maybe you can learn a tenth of it before you die.
isn't paradigm change a fundamental part of science? I assume that paradigms only change when there is an overwhelming amount of data which won’t fit into the existing paradigm. So I doubt that the eggs& mammalian reproduction won’t change things hugely, rather be incorporated into wops we got that little bit wrong. Maybe the discovery of the necessity of the WNT-4 gene in the ‘typical’ female morphology has more relevance, but still it won’t change the male as active paradigm. One thing I think might is the expression of sex in the embryonic brain prior to the development of the gonads, and this might challenge the ‘sex development depends on hormone’ view. Perhaps genomics might be said to be a paradigm shift, as it involves a new object of study, and a new methods of study (i.e. human genome project as an exemplar). But much of it is hype right now, and not a major change, although the application away from chemical to biological fixes in crop management might be.
Genomics is not a paradigm shift. People have been chasing the human genome for years, and they all know exactly what they want from it. Genomics is the logical extension of the study of molecular biology.
I thought that at the heart of molecular biology was the 'central dogma' DNA-RNA-Proteins…is this still at the heart of genomics with the advent of proteomics, and the increased emphasis on RNA? Genomics also has an increased use of mode two knowledge production....I do think there has been a paradigm shift not from molecular biology to genomics, but from genetics to genomics. if thinking in terms of paradigms is useful. And the human genome project didn’t give the human genome (which doesn't exist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! , but it didn’t give the imprinting pattern or population variations, only genome databases will achieve that. But I think it can be viewed as one of the founding exemplars much like the W&C's DNA model building for molecular biology.
No database will ever contain the sum of human variation, I agree. The human genome project produced mappings of six humans if I recall correctly... I think "paradigm shift" is being bandied about too loosely; the assay of RNA's expanded role in cell function has to be done before conclusions can be made, but I don't think it will change the whole mode of thought in the field. I think it will just be a more precise explanation of one involved set of processes than we had before. The discovery of cytoskeletal structures (microfilaments/microtubules) made it clear that cells, rather than haphazard bags of goo with stuff floating in them, were highly organized self-regulating systems. This was not considered a paradigm shift, even though it's a pretty fundamental change in the way we view ourselves. In fact, few people bother to mention the difference. I am therefore unsure what qualifies a paradigm shift.
I seem to recall that Khun uses paradigm in 26 different ways makes it hard to pin down. Generally you need two competing paradigm, a traditional view and the new view. Its not a case of new knowledge providing greater understanding, or a more precise understanding, but that the new knowledge conflicts with what is expectant or can be understood by the traditional paradigm. One support for the genetics/genomics as competing paradigms is that there is a conflict between the concept of a molecular gene and Mendelian traits, (i.e. gene P/ gene D Lenny Moss). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Though I only read a brief summary of Lenny Moss' ideas, I'd say that neither is truly descriptive of the state of things as I learned them; giving all credit either to DNA or to protein interactions seems... incomplete. Many people these days like to treat DNA as if it's an inert lump, a library of books where clever little proteins go to do their research. Others like to treat if as if it's the final word in everything, like some kind of nuclear slave driver. This is sort of like declaring a "winner" in a chemical reaction... Nuclear chemistry requires a large series of interrelated parts, so giving credit to one for being more complex or another for being more active makes no sense. Perhaps you are right about a paradigm shift in this case, since popular science certainly has some funny ideas about molecules and responsibility.
Moss has a chapter on the genetics of cancer which I think is quite good at combating the idea that there is a ‘cancer gene’. I’m not so willing to agree that its just the popular science which has funny ideas, genetic determinism is very powerful in some of these threads as well in research funding bodies… Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On the subject of glial cells, I read an article in a recent scientific american about this. It spoke of how the glial cells actually controlled the myelinization of the neural axons (or dendrites, don't remember which right now.) The first practical application that I thought of when reading this was for treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, which is caused by the myelin sheath being eaten away causing poor signals to get through. I think that it said they have been successful in creating myelin for nerve cells outside the brain, but not inside (yet), I could be wrong about the last, I'd have to read the article again to be sure.
Ahhh, you’ve touched on my precise area of research! Yes Mr/Ms Nexus, you are referring to one of the three glial cell types of the CNS – oligodendrocytes. Oligodendrocytes are the myelinating cells of the CNS. They extend numerous long membrane extensions that wrap around axons and produce the myelin sheath which acts to insulate salutatory conduction along the axons. Acute injury or disease (such as MS) can result in demyelination at the site of the lesion. Unfortunately, the human CNS is only capable of small amounts of re-myelination. Research into new methods of achieving re-myelination centers around two main approaches: (i) introduction of oligodendrocytes (or their precursors or stem cells) into the brain/spinal cord, and (ii) stimulation of endogenous oligodendrocyte precursors to produce new oligodendrocytes. We are still a fair way from curing MS or making quadriplegics walk again. Interestingly, stimulating re-myelination after acute CNS trauma in animal models is not difficult at all.
Here's a very recent shift in the type of fuel for vehicles. http://clickit.go2net.com/search?po.../news/innovations/articles/46906/article.html
