NATURE is full of surprises. When atoms were first proved to exist (and that was a mere century ago), they were thought to be made only of electrons and protons. That explained a lot, but it did not quite square with other observations. Then, in 1932, James Chadwick discovered the neutron. Suddenly everything made sense””so much sense that it took only another 13 years to build an atomic bomb.
It is probably no exaggeration to say that biology is now undergoing its “neutron moment”. For more than half a century the fundamental story of living things has been a tale of the interplay between genes, in the form of DNA, and proteins, which the genes encode and which do the donkey work of keeping living organisms living. The past couple of years, however, have seen the rise and rise of a third type of molecule, called RNA.
The analogy is not perfect. Unlike the neutron, RNA has been known about for a long time. Until the past couple of years, however, its role had seemed restricted to fetching and carrying for DNA and proteins. Now RNA looks every bit as important as those two masters. It may, indeed, be the main regulator of what goes on in a cell””the cell’s operating system, to draw a computing analogy””as well as the author of many other activities (see article). As important, molecular biologists have gone from thinking that they know roughly what is going on in their subject to suddenly realising that they have barely a clue.
That might sound a step backwards; in fact, it is how science works.
Many of the big problems facing humanity are biological, or are susceptible to biological intervention.
When I read that my heart sank. The brave new world still beckons? Surely some mistake. Yes, the advances of science are awesome, but somehow human frailty continues to turn advances in knowledge into ambivalent achievements. We can use science for good or for bad; for progress or retrogression; to heal or to harm. Science is never value free and the post-modern belief that society ought to be value free has been terribly destructive. Scientists, like the rest of us, have to acknowledge the reality of sin.
“As important, molecular biologists have gone from thinking that they know roughly what is going on in their subject to suddenly realising that they have barely a clue. That might sound a step backwards; in fact, it is how science works.”
If theology really is Queen of the Sciences (although some say mathematics wears that crown), then theologians should take note.
Deaer DC – I am afraid that the quotation about theology as the queen of the sciences is based on a mistranslation from the Latin original. In this case regina scientiae would mean ‘queen of knowledge’. So your call (as I read it) for a theology which is always open to falsification (the standard procedure of scientific advance) does not fit. You might be calling for theology to be tentative, humble and open to criticism. I would be inclined to agree – as long as that came from a realization that theology speaks of truths that come to us from the divine mystery.
And to think it’s all accidental and in the end comes to nothing.