1/3rd of New Biology Studies Are in Genetics

by on March 7th, 2015
Share Button

I tried in vain to find the source of this statistic of 1/3rd genetic linkage, and branch out from there. I could not find it. I don’t see the numbers of genetic papers declining, yet I wonder how much of it was skewed by the GENOME release. Thomas Reuters showed the top-cited articles in the past four years, 2 related to stem cells and three related to the federally funded genome project. Ionnaidis (2009) points out the sheer amount of review articles published in the life sciences, I’m unsure if these were included in the 1/3rd figure.

Dobhzansky warns that even though nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, he himself said evolution requires additional input such as cultural influence (Ayala and Fitch 1997). Profits from evolutionary biology are innumerable, including advances in pharmacogenomics that provide potential individualization in the administration of drugs. Understanding how microbes evolve defenses will help contribute to their demise, or give rise to deadlier nosocomial infections? Mapping their genome can reveal susceptible targets against bacterial resistance.

Now that genotype evolution may be cheaply defined, researchers may run the risk of drawing phenotypical conclusions operating on an insufficient timescale. Microevolutionary studies are not frequently replicated, and focus on basic morphology rather than behavior or psychology (Kingsolver et al. 2001).

Unifying theories is common throughout discliplines, and is necessary for Manhattan projects of humankind. If every aspect of biology is subject to the hypothetico-deductive method in the future, how will we discover new species in the jungle and exploit their insides?

Disadvantages of evolutionary understanding: could in the future affect your insurance premiums despite previously passed laws. Plus eugenics!


Prev Article: »
Next Article: «

Related Articles