Sierra West- Interview Reflection

1.      Describe your feelings about or response to the interview.

         The nature of the hypothesis for the RNA World had perhaps led to more philosophical questions on the nature of life itself.  I did not personally realize the difficulty in which we encountered in receiving responses from experts in the biological sciences.  Perhaps few are willing to stand by a hypothesis that can be considered untestable.  This is to say, no one was present in the time in which such events may have occurred.  Aside from hypothetical situations, I suppose that even the research of workers such as Cech cannot ultimately support one way or the other, that the pre-DNA material of life involved RNA and ribozymes.  Ultimately, we are faced with our own opinions and philosophy on how we define life and the origins of life itself.  Though much research, and the grid-computing project we became involved in, has provided many compelling arguments supporting the RNA World hypothesis, we may not fully understand the implications for the hypothesis in our modern view, known as the Central Dogma of Biology.  We may define life as an organism capable of self-replication, but it does not provide enough substance to hypotheses which posit that pre-DNA forms existed as RNA and ribozymes.  I may feel that there are few better explanations, but until our modes of inquiry improve concerning this subject, we may always refer to the RNA World view as a hypothesis.

2.      What changes occurred for you as a result of your interview?

         I feel that I now have a greater appreciation for the work of researchers in this field, and also for the impact that may be brought about for these scientists if they were to definitively conclude that the RNA World hypothesis is supported.  Perhaps, for some who we interviewed, it was a matter of their namesake not being attached to such an inquiry from biology majors on a topic which raises more questions than are answered.  In any case, I respect the views of these individuals and their organizations in promoting ideas which they can specifically support using their own research.  In the future, however, I would hope that views on understanding the origin of genetic material will relax as more information pours in to substantiate hypotheses on the RNA World.  In much the same way people refer to the Big Bang Theory as a theory, perhaps a day could come which provides more relevant evidence for the RNA World and becomes a theory as well.  A theory, in the scientific mode of inquiry, should always be substantiated with many years of data and independent analysis from well- qualified, authoritative individuals and organizations which dedicated the whole of their work to understanding and not merely hypothesizing.

3.      Did anything about the interview disturb you?

         Perhaps one implication that I did not have the foresight at the beginning of the semester on was how this hypothesis would ultimately meld together with philosophical beliefs on the origin of life, the nature of life and how we define life.  Scientists constantly struggle to find out how phenomena occur, how mechanisms of life processes occur.  But it is not often asked why.  Why would genetic material evolve into DNA if RNA had been sufficient, given that the RNA World hypothesis is accurate?  One may say that DNA is more stable than RNA and allows for greater complexity within an organism, but it still does not answer a more general question of why.  Furthermore, upon exploration into the possible origin of life on the Earth, we may find it relevant to consider whether life could or is evolving in a similar manner elsewhere in the universe.  Perhaps the best way to understand the origin of life on Earth is to actually investigate other planets similar to ours for even the smallest and simplest semblance of life imaginable. 

4.      Describe the connections you found between the interview and your research & classwork.

Within this study of the RNA World, it becomes ever more apparent the value of evolution as a mechanism of change in life forms on Earth.  There is no doubt that evolution and adaptation heavily influenced the outcome of life and how life replicates genetic material and subsequently produces the proteins that are the ultimate building blocks of life itself.  Within our class, we talked about many changes due to evolution, which itself is defined for our purposes as the change in allelic (and for some, genotypic) in a population over time.  HIV, for example, is a rapidly evolving virus that infects many humans all over the world.  Though, in a strict sense, viruses are not considered living because they depend on the machinery of a host cell in order to replicate its genetic material and ultimately produce more viruses.  But if you look at the genetic material of HIV, single stranded RNA, it becomes interesting as to why HIV would maintain RNA instead of having its genetic material converted to DNA for what might be considered as more efficient in the utilization of the host cell, which itself houses its genetic information as double stranded DNA. More questions like this may be raised as to how and, more importantly in my opinion, why organisms have evolved the way they are now and what exactly were the precursors to the current status of these organisms.  Also, these questions are all relevant to those more philosophical questions that are ultimately raised when one endeavors to research a topic and complex and hypothetical and the RNA World hypothesis.

I would also like to mention how much I appreciate the opportunity for our class to participate in grid-computing projects and to endeavor into biological topics that may not be otherwise covered in a class such as ours.  In the future I hope that more students push themselves to work diligently to find a biological topic of their own choosing.