Grace Kim

Advanced College Essay

The Book of Gene-sis

In a museum exhibition in London, the library of the human genome inside every cell of
a human is depicted as one striking ceiling-to-floor bookshelf. The white bookshelf is packed to
capacity with uniform white books, each as wide as my palm and labeled with one number (1 to
22) or letter (X or Y) corresponding to a chromosome. On the thin page of every book, small
black letters spell out boundless permutations of four letters: A, T, G, and C. Variations of these
four letters account for all the diversity we see not only among individuals, but also across
species, separating algae from elephants. It is impossible not to feel a sense of wonder at the
sheer volume of information in our cells, especially when it is contrasted with the simplicity of
the four letters that compose all DNA. As Francis Collins, one of the directors of the Human
Genome Project, said, How marvelous and intricate life turns out to be! How deeply satisfying
is the digital elegance of DNA! (Collins 105). The experience of amazement is integral to
human curiosity. Even in scientific pursuits, researchers can work to produce impartiality with an
awed, or even spiritual, perception. However, the slope of reverence is a slippery one that, when
enforced upon others to a dogmatic degree, can leave large gaps of knowledge in entire
populations of people. In turn, the general public becomes uninformed on the nuanced issues
such as genetic modification that significantly influence the food people eat at every meal and
damage the natural biodiversity of ecosystems.
In essay A Fist in the Eye of God, author Barbara Kingsolver illustrates the
disconcerting nature of the general ignorance of U.S. populations about who controls global
agriculture and an entire generation of studentsunprepared to comprehend or pursue good
science (Kingsolver 281, 275). Specifically, the widespread denial of Charles Darwins theory
of evolution as anything less than the most robust unifying explanation ever devised in
biological science is alarming, especially because Darwins simple logical construct continues
to explain and predict perfectly the existence and behavior of every earthly life form we have
ever studied (275). In other words, understanding evolution is understanding the underlying
context of all biological beings (including humans) and the reciprocal relationships among them,
their offspring, and the environment. Without this foundational knowledge, people cannot
understand the pitfalls of genetic modification, such as predatory superresistant mutants and a
lack of biodiversity that leaves entire fields of crops vulnerable to mass extinction from one
disease, as was the case in [t]he infamous potato famine (280, 278). Moreover, when people do
not comprehend the multilayered arguments in favor of genetic biodiversity, their uninformed
doctrine fills the gaps where facts ought to be. Their answers to todays pressing political
questions in genetics, such as What about the business of patenting and owning genes?...Does it
seem safeto give up self-sustaining food systems in favor of dependency on the global
marketplace?, are not guided by scientific evidence, but by the misleadingly simple arguments
in the discourse (280). In order for people to engage in complicated scientific topics and decrease
scientific illiteracy, they must change what is taught (and what is not) in science classrooms.
According the Kingsolver, the censorship of the curricula leaves many science teachers
nostalgic for at least one aspect of the Cold War days, when Sputnik riveted us to the serious
business of training our kids to real science, instead of allowing it to be diluted or tossed out to
assuage the insecurities of certain ideologues (275). However, in 1970, professor Thomas P.

1
Evans observes that even with more federal money allocated to science and math education, It
is becoming increasingly clear that the American people are still not scientifically literate--not
even the young people who have just finished one of the new programs (Evans 80). In his paper
Scientific Literacy: Whose Responsibility?, Evans explores the roles teachers, students, and
scientists play in improving the populations scientific literacy. He establishes that the
scientifically literate person realizes that science is conducted by men[]distributed over the
whole spectrum of human folly and wisdom much as other men (81). The scientist is guided
by a morality. He has the responsibility to make his work public, and he is constantly aware that
his product will be examined by other scientists, and therefore, subjective ethics are interwoven
into the very process that strives for objectivity (81). To remedy bias, the double-blind test is
held as the gold standard for studies, but as Kingsolver points out, its not possible to double-
blind the scientists approach to the taskor [the] way results will be used (Kingsolver 282).
Evans observations underscore the inseparable nature between the human and the scientist. By
emphasizing a persons responsibility in developing an awareness of the moral factors that
influence scientific studies, Evans shows how scientific literacy stretches far beyond fact-based
scientific knowledge. When people understand why scientists might embark on a study and how
the results of the study are actually applicable to the world, they will understand that science can
be a smoke and mirrors game, infused with corporate interests and human politics. A general
public that is unaware of the facets of research, interpretation, and application cannot, in the
same breath, demand strict objectivity from its scientists.
Scientists may have biases ranging from benign to troubling, but in the case of religion,
Kingsolver advocates for the separation of church and science classroom. She considers mans
religious zeal as a hindrance to scientific literacy, but the reverent perspective is not useless--just
misplaced. If people were to bring awe without the dogma into the scientific conversation, a
well-informed mass could be the impetus for changes on the planetary scale. In a similar vein, in
his book Unweaving the Rainbow, scientist Richard Dawkins does not attempt to cleave a love of
art or a sense of wonder from science, saying, We have an appetite for wonder, a poetic appetite,
which real science ought to be feeding but which is being hijacked, often for monetary gain, by
purveyors of superstition, the paranormal and astrology (Dawkins xii). That is not to say that
scientists should incorporate poetry into the scientific process, as Charles Darwins grandfather
Erasmus attempted, because simple, sober clarity will do nicely, letting the facts and the ideas
speak for themselves. The poetry is in the science (18). Reverence sparks interest, inquiry, and
can certainly lead one down the path to comprehending the complexities of dense subjects such
as genetics. For example, Dawkins looks at DNA and sees, a coded description of the worlds in
which our ancestors survived. And isn't it an arresting thought? We are digital archives of the
African Pliocene, even of Devonian seas; walking repositories of wisdom out of the old days.
You could spend a lifetime reading in this ancient library and die unsated by the wonder of it
(256). Dawkins reverence is a means for exploration, exemplified in how Kingsolver, a
biologist, enters science with the reverence humankind has traditionally summoned for entering
places of worship (Kingsolver 283). For many, the moment of awe is the impetus for further
exploration in a search that lessens their ignorance. However, people enter precarious territory
when their reverence is revealed exclusively in a religious realm. While the experience of
learning about something extraordinary can ignite passion for the subject, a single-minded
passion can also blind people from the complex facts of natural phenomena. Furthermore,
allowing fundamentalism to impede progress through enforcing uninformed ideas onto curricula
is a disservice to prosperity. A generation that could irreparably damage, as Kingsolver puts it, a

2
world created by a billion years of natural selection acting utterly without fail on every single
life-form cannot afford widespread ignorance on the scientific realities (274). When many of
the citizens of one of the words leading producers of genetically modified crops reject the theory
of evolution or even gene modification without understanding why, it exposes a lack of value in
education, truth, and progress.
Scientists are only beginning to unearth the wealth of research opportunities held in lifes
instruction manual, ranging from the history of human migration to genetic diseases. Surely
many of these scientists see the artistry of chromosomal mechanisms and the beauty of
storytelling in the lines of a book composed of just four letters. In this scientific process, awe and
impartiality are not mutually exclusive, because, after all, what could be more awe-inspiring than
what is unbelievably true? Scientific literacy will not take the mysterious magic of phenomena
away, but rather displace fanaticism with an informed respect for the intricate processes
occurring behind the scenes of nature. Without scientific comprehension, people cannot direct
change in any way, but rather have consequences forced upon them. Humans, who are all over
99% genetically identical, have a responsibility to each other, the ecosystems, and the
environment to care for the earth as if it was divinely bestowed.

Works Cited

Collins, Francis S. The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. New York:
Free, 2006. Print.

Dawkins, Richard. Unweaving the Rainbow : Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder.
Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 10
February 2016.

Kingsolver, Barbara. A Fist in the Eye of God. Advanced College Essay. Ed. William M.
Morgan and Beth Boyle Machlan. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2015. 273-283.

Thomas P. Evans. Scientific Literacy: Whose Responsibility?. The American Biology Teacher
32.2 (1970): 8084. Web.