午夜福利1000集合

IN HIS research for this book, David Ewing Duncan interviewed several scientists on the front line of the life sciences revolution. As far as I can make out he must have spent an average of a few hours talking to each of them. His aim is to explain some key aspects of modern biogenetics which, he says, revolve around the personalities of these people. The question he asks is can we trust them with our genes: will they cure disease or create a nightmare world of monsters and superbugs? His underlying theory seems to be that whether or not we should fear the biological future depends on the personalities of these pioneers, each of whom is compared to some mythical hero, such as Moses or Zeus.

The book, then, is pretty daft. Aside from the paucity of method, our safety is not going to have much to do with the personalities of a few scientists. It will not be long before gene science can be done anywhere, the gen(i)e is out of the bottle. That is not to say the book is entirely uninteresting; if you are a biology ignoramus like me it will give you valuable insights into the debates within genetic science and some intriguing snatches of history.

For example, I learned good stuff about the science of ageing and about the two approaches to the decoding of the human genome: the publicly funded one spearheaded by Francis Collins and John Sulston, and the private one funded by Craig Venter. There is enough here to indicate that the race between these two teams is a truly fascinating story.

However, it is hard to tell what Duncan鈥檚 scientists actually contribute. Are they working at the laboratory bench, thinking up brilliant ideas, or are they entrepreneurs and grant-swinging science politicians? Doubtless everyone represented on these pages has made at least one brilliant breakthrough, but Duncan gives little idea of what bioscience really is today, what sort of hours people in the field work, and where the boundary lies between scientific insight and entrepreneurial flair.

Actually, it鈥檚 a good job that we don鈥檛 have to rely on Duncan鈥檚 chosen few because most of them appear to have oversize egos 鈥� though this could be journalistic licence. Furthermore, what these people really express is the style of our epoch. Try imposing their gung-ho attitudes on a previous era and you鈥檒l see what I mean: 鈥淎lbert Michelson, hearing of Einstein鈥檚 theoretical confirmation of his findings, strode into the Royal Society in a tight black T-shirt printed with the legend 鈥楳ichelson Rocks鈥�. Contrary to rumour, Michelson has not made a fortune from his shares in Interferometers-R-Us.com, though others have. He sold too late and made only 鈥榓 few million鈥�, he told me, just enough to buy his famous 90-foot yacht.鈥�

We need to worry less about the substance of science and more about the corrosive effect on our values of scientists who imitate rock stars, hard-nosed capitalists and religious icons, or assume quirky personalities for the sake of popular appeal. In so far as one can judge from Duncan鈥檚 first impressions, I liked Douglas Melton, who wants to genetically engineer a cure for his son鈥檚 diabetes, and Nathaniel David, who in spite of the fact that he has already founded one venture capital company and is involved in another, knows where his duty lies: 鈥淭he scientific method is by its nature encouraging of behaviour that is not evil鈥�It鈥檚 all about testability, accountability and hope.鈥�

In our secular age, we need to hold onto this story about scientific method, whether or not it fits the facts. More than ever we need science and scientists to show us that it is still possible to be driven by a search for truth that has nothing to do with being a bad-boy hedonist or Thatcherite entrepreneur.