ONE MAN'S JUNK IS ANOTHER MAN'S GENETIC BLUEPRINT

Researching my next novel, I’ve been reading a lot about “junk DNA”. It’s still usually called that in popular news articles because the nickname got so much traction with the public after it was introduced by geneticist Susumu Ohno in 1972 that the designation has been hard to shake. The more accurate term is non-coding DNA because only 2% - 3% of the DNA in humans actually “codes for” (produces) all the proteins. When that fact was discovered, it was thought that the other 97% was just the leftover junk of evolution that no longer served a purpose. That wouldn’t be very efficient, whether you believe in natural selection or an intelligent designer. So it shouldn’t be a surprise that subsequent research has shown junk DNA is anything but.

It isn’t just the numbers and kinds of proteins produced in a living creature that are important, but also which of the proteins are activated. Those proteins are regulated by certain processes, and it’s looking more and more as if that’s one of the key roles of non-coding DNA. Think of the strings of non-coding DNA providing the instructions that determine which genes are switched on and which are switched off, as well as how much of a particular protein is produced. It also looks to have a role in maintaining gene stability.

Some studies have indicated that repeated strings of non-coding DNA aren’t a mistake or accident, but are important because they enable faster mutations—a key element in adapting to changes in the environment. That makes the so-called “repeaters” a valuable survival mechanism for a species.

Other studies suggest that the differences between individual humans, and between humans and similar species (like chimpanzees), have more to do with their junk DNA than the protein-encoding DNA. We humans share nearly identical genes, but it’s mostly how they’re regulated that produces our variations. Those differences not only include individual traits like eye and hair colour but diseases as well, so this could be a very important area of disease research.

However, this improved understanding of how non-coding DNA reflects the traits of an individual may also lead to improvements in forensic DNA identification of individuals. And there’s word that the Transportation Safety Administration in the U.S. has begun experimenting with portable DNA scanners (able to quickly scan DNA from a drop of saliva) at places like airports, alongside those infamous full-body scanners.

That brings whole new meaning to the cry “don’t touch my junk.”

IS THE UNIVERSE A COMPUTER?

There are a lot of SF conventions I’d like to attend, but maybe just as important, from the perspective of having something to write about, there are also a lot of science events that should be part of my itinerary. Like the recent World Science Festival in New York City. Fortunately you can catch some of the sessions in webcast form.

One of this year’s panel discussions asked Is the Universe the Ultimate Computer? The theory under discussion was just as the name suggests, that beneath even the scale of quantum physics the universe is, at heart, bits and bytes—a giant computer program playing out with immense complexity, yet initiated and maintained by a very simple few lines of code that describe its rules. The theory isn’t being offered as an excuse to make more Matrix movies (although the first movie does provide an easy way of understanding one interpretation of it), but because there are still many things that current physics can’t explain, not to mention that classic physics and quantum physics don’t always mesh very well. Seeing the universe as bits of information allows certain thought exercises that the rules of regular physics constrain, which can be helpful in the early stages of developing a theory, for instance. So some proponents see it more as a useful model than a necessarily true picture of reality. Some others, like one of the pioneers of computing, Edward Fredkin, believe there may just be somebody or something in another universe running our universe on their version of an iMac (like The Matrix again). Or the other primary interpretation: that the universe itself is the computer, carrying out an unthinkable number of calculations with every flip (change of state) of sub-atomic particles.

Judging from the panel discussion, there aren’t any obvious experimental means to prove or disprove the concept, and even were it to be proven true the knowledge might not be of any practical value. Being able to someday read the universal code doesn’t mean we’d be able to use it for much (like predicting the weather in your home town next Tuesday from looking at a string of ones and zeroes). But anything that brings us to a more complete understanding of the rules by which the universe operates will probably be worthwhile in ways we can’t yet see.

At the very least, it’s got to be more comprehensible than string theory. Please.