Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | October 25th 2008 03:56 PM | 4 comments

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist... Full Bio

More from Michael White

All
Since Palin's comments on fruit fly research are getting some commentary, it's a good time to review the value of model organisms in basic research.

One of the things budding geneticists, biochemists and cell biologists learn very quickly when they enter grad school is that studying humans is usually not the best way to successfully tackle the most interesting research questions. You can ask questions about human biology, but to answer them you generally turn to an elite club sometimes called the Security Council of biology: the bedrock group of five model organisms.

Fruit flies, baker's yeast, roundworms, E. coli, and mice make up the core membership this elite club - the vast majority of major breakthroughs in modern biology has come from work on these organisms. You can also include a few other organisms like the mustard weed, zebrafish, and the frog Xenopus laevis (actually, mainly frog eggs), but model organisms aren't just picked at random, and potential new members go through a long vetting process. It takes a significant investment of time and resources to turn a wild organism in to an experimentally tractable system, so scientists generally try to get the most mileage out of the model organisms we already have.

If you're interested in understanding more about the crucial role these critters play in biology research, check out this review (free PDF here).

Comments

At this point, shouldn't we also add Ciona intestinalis to the canonical model organism list?

adaptivecomplexity's picture
You're right - you could expand the small list I gave with some other model organisms - the sea squirt, as you mention, Dictyostelium (slime mold), Chlamydomonas (a green alga), planaria, bees, etc. These are certainly useful.

All of these, however, have so far had limited applicability when compared with the 'Security Council 5', in terms of understanding our own basic biology, and I doubt that any model organism will come to have the same broad influence wielded by E. coli, yeast, worms, flies, and mice.

You can study a small topic extremely well or you can study a big topic not so well. Both have their places. I think the basic mechanistic questions are really only addressable in model organisms (there may be exceptions like tumor research or other areas I'm not an expert in) but at the end of the day what we really want to know is what is going on in human biology. No one really wants to cure mouse autism, they want to cure human autism. Patient-oriented research as defined by the NIH is perhaps the best way to find out if model organism research was successful or not. Which brings me to the reason I write this, it is a response to your statement "successfully tackle the most interesting research questions." I can think of no more interesting a question than trying to find out is mechanisms are actually relevant to humans or not.

All that being said, you are right in that model organisms are vital to understanding human biology and should not be under-rated, but we should be mindful as a scientific community not to underrate clinical and patient-oriented research either.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
I can think of no more interesting a question than trying to find out is mechanisms are actually relevant to humans or not.

That interest drives a lot of scientists, and it's a great motivation for doing research.

What I mean by successfully tackling research questions is this: people like me, who are interested in learning new things about basic, near-universal biological processes, tend to achieve more success using experimentally tractable systems. Of course I'm biased in what I think the most interesting questions are.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.