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).
By Michael White | October 25th 2008 03:56 PM | 4 comments
Comments
Anonymous (not verified) | 10/25/08 | 23:35 PM
- Reply to This »
- Link
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.
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.
Michael White | 10/26/08 | 13:33 PM
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.
Chris Bartlett (not verified) | 10/27/08 | 11:48 AM
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.
Michael White | 10/27/08 | 16:45 PM




