On 2014 May 05, Madhusudana Girija Sanal commented:

Creativity in biology-reply to Bruce Alberts

Bruce Alberts, describes biology as 'not at all an easy science' (1). This entirely depends on the definitions of boundaries! Biology is more factual and visual (and hence ‘easy’ for majority) than physics and mathematics. However, biology attains the same degree of difficulty at its interface with these subjects were mathematics or physics is applied to answer biological questions.This relative ease may be one of the reasons we find more students graduating in biology than other basic sciences (2). Creativity in the generation of new ideas and concepts is the essence of science. The current 'reward-recognition' system which just counts the papers is not recognizing this fact. The current trend is to evaluate scientists on the basis of the number of publications and their impact factors rather than their impact on the growth of science and the betterment of the society. This has resulted in a ‘publish or perish’ situation leading to an increase in junk and fraudulent publications (2). The cracking of the central dogma in biology or the invention of PCR brought new concepts in biology. Personalized medicine, designer molecules and proteins and regenerative medicine have huge potential. However,currently the society is wasting its resources in premature translational research and personalized medicine which are growth arrested in infancy, awaiting major developments in technology to overcome the bottlenecks (3). Any significant leap in biology needs a major leap in chemistry, physics and mathematics. These subjects provide not only technology and tools but also concepts for the growth of biology. So funding and research in other fields need be encouraged for the development of biology (2).

Life Sciences-where ‘workers’ take a lead over thinkers!

The number of publications in biology is proportional to the amount of ‘work done’ rather than “adventure of ideas”. This is causing many problems. For example this results in the dissolution of the boundaries between a scientist, a technician and a robot (2). The number of papers and the journals in which they are published often becomes a matter of chance, available workforce, availability of funds and collaborations which in turn depends on politics, influence and umpteen other factors decreasing the overall importance of intellect on scientific publication. It is difficult to assess individual contributions of the authors-who contributed more for the concept and who did most of the (technician) work-from a research article. Needless to say that who contributed towards the development of the concept should be given more credit. But this is rarely practiced (2).

The future of Biology

We are still taking the same cereals, pulses, milk and meat, which existed thousands of years before! We have yet not created any new plant or animal! Currently in biology, we move in a top to bottom fashion i.e.; explore the existing biological systems and reveal the science behind them and copy it, re-engineer it, according to our need. For example, find out a gene, find its importance, function, the protein coded, structure, interactions etc But I feel biology mature enough to think moving the other way i.e.; design a gene according to our need-plan its structure function, interactions etc according to our need design it. If I extend this view we should be able to engineer and produce totally new proteins or organisms rather than building or modifying from an existing (natural) platform (2).

Other major advancements will be in creating brain-computer interfaces and computer assisted thinking, electronic immortalization of personalities (individuals), planned generation of citizens of varying functions and capabilities for the better service of the society etc. For all this to happen the limiting step is the development of basic sciences which could then be easily translated to appropriate technologies.

1) Alberts B.Creativity at the interface. Science. 2012 Apr 13;336(6078):131. 2) Sanal MG Where are we going in science? Publish and perish! Current Science 2006 3) Maher B. Nature.Tissue engineering: How to build a heart. 2013 Jul 4;499(7456):20-2

On 2014 May 05, Madhusudana Girija Sanal commented:

Creativity in biology-reply to Bruce Alberts

Bruce Alberts, describes biology as 'not at all an easy science' (1). This entirely depends on the definitions of boundaries! Biology is more factual and visual (and hence ‘easy’ for majority) than physics and mathematics. However, biology attains the same degree of difficulty at its interface with these subjects were mathematics or physics is applied to answer biological questions.This relative ease may be one of the reasons we find more students graduating in biology than other basic sciences (2). Creativity in the generation of new ideas and concepts is the essence of science. The current 'reward-recognition' system which just counts the papers is not recognizing this fact. The current trend is to evaluate scientists on the basis of the number of publications and their impact factors rather than their impact on the growth of science and the betterment of the society. This has resulted in a ‘publish or perish’ situation leading to an increase in junk and fraudulent publications (2). The cracking of the central dogma in biology or the invention of PCR brought new concepts in biology. Personalized medicine, designer molecules and proteins and regenerative medicine have huge potential. However,currently the society is wasting its resources in premature translational research and personalized medicine which are growth arrested in infancy, awaiting major developments in technology to overcome the bottlenecks (3). Any significant leap in biology needs a major leap in chemistry, physics and mathematics. These subjects provide not only technology and tools but also concepts for the growth of biology. So funding and research in other fields need be encouraged for the development of biology (2).

Life Sciences-where ‘workers’ take a lead over thinkers!

The number of publications in biology is proportional to the amount of ‘work done’ rather than “adventure of ideas”. This is causing many problems. For example this results in the dissolution of the boundaries between a scientist, a technician and a robot (2). The number of papers and the journals in which they are published often becomes a matter of chance, available workforce, availability of funds and collaborations which in turn depends on politics, influence and umpteen other factors decreasing the overall importance of intellect on scientific publication. It is difficult to assess individual contributions of the authors-who contributed more for the concept and who did most of the (technician) work-from a research article. Needless to say that who contributed towards the development of the concept should be given more credit. But this is rarely practiced (2).

The future of Biology

We are still taking the same cereals, pulses, milk and meat, which existed thousands of years before! We have yet not created any new plant or animal! Currently in biology, we move in a top to bottom fashion i.e.; explore the existing biological systems and reveal the science behind them and copy it, re-engineer it, according to our need. For example, find out a gene, find its importance, function, the protein coded, structure, interactions etc But I feel biology mature enough to think moving the other way i.e.; design a gene according to our need-plan its structure function, interactions etc according to our need design it. If I extend this view we should be able to engineer and produce totally new proteins or organisms rather than building or modifying from an existing (natural) platform (2).

Other major advancements will be in creating brain-computer interfaces and computer assisted thinking, electronic immortalization of personalities (individuals), planned generation of citizens of varying functions and capabilities for the better service of the society etc. For all this to happen the limiting step is the development of basic sciences which could then be easily translated to appropriate technologies.

1) Alberts B.Creativity at the interface. Science. 2012 Apr 13;336(6078):131. 2) Sanal MG Where are we going in science? Publish and perish! Current Science 2006 3) Maher B. Nature.Tissue engineering: How to build a heart. 2013 Jul 4;499(7456):20-2