The beliefs of researchers have played a huge role in the development of science. As the examples of Faraday and Dirichlet show, beliefs can have a positive or negative impact on scientific discoveries. Epigenetics replaced preevolutionary theory and emphasizes the interaction between heredity and environment.
Throughout the history of science, there has been a close relationship between the beliefs of researchers and the advancement of science. These beliefs stemmed from a belief in the wonder and beauty of nature. For example, Michael Faraday’s discovery of electromagnetic induction. Faraday’s belief in the symmetrical beauty of nature led him to be the first to identify induction by electric currents, which is the opposite of magnetization. Faraday’s discovery was not an accident, but an inevitable result of his faith. Beyond the phenomenon of electromagnetic induction, the personal beliefs of researchers have also had a major impact on the development of science.
Even for researchers with a value-neutral attitude, it’s natural for personal beliefs to influence decision-making when choosing a research method or topic. In Faraday’s case, this was a positive influence. But the problem arises when choosing between epigenesis, the theory that genes contain everything about an individual, and epigenesis, the theory that environmental factors influence an individual. Epigenesis sees development as a simple process of growth, while epigenesis sees development as a creative process. Most people tend to lean toward the former. This is for two reasons. First, the belief that organisms are complex and that such complexity is unlikely to arise by chance and must exist from the genetic level. Second, they believe that there is a blueprint in the genes that allows them to arise as intact individuals. These beliefs are strongly associated with religion. While we can’t blame them, it’s undeniable that these beliefs have had a negative impact on genetics research.
A good example of this is the experiments on the development of sea urchins in Drosophila. Drishu intervened in the first stages of cell division right after fertilization, separating sea urchin embryos into two and eight cells. According to the theory of meiosis, the cells separated at the cell stage have half of all chromosomes and should therefore form half a sea urchin, but the experiment proved the theory wrong as they grew into full adults. This was evidence against the theory, but Dirichlet was unable to reconcile the discrepancy between this result and his beliefs and abandoned his biology research in favor of philosophy. Despite these findings, panspermia remained in the academic mainstream, but recent advances in epigenetics have given way to epigenesis. (Richard C. Francis, 2011)
In my opinion, belief in God has greatly influenced the way researchers think. Belief in God is often helpful in personal life, but not in research. In the case of Einstein, his belief in God as a creator led him to reject the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, leading him to say, “God does not play dice,” but it is now widely accepted that this interpretation is correct. While you can’t blame him for this belief, advances in science, especially genetics, require a revision of the presuppositional view.
Epigenetics has been widely studied and disproved. Epigenetics is the theory that environment and genes interact equally, as opposed to the traditional idea that genes are the blueprints that make us who we are. The concept of epigenetics has been thoroughly debunked in several popular books. Richard Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene, which changed the way many people think about genes, is a prime example. The book argues that genes are the drivers of evolution and that all living things are built for the self-replication of genes. However, the book’s thesis has been rendered irrelevant by the discovery of evidence from epigenetics that environment and genes interact equally. Although The Selfish Gene was written in 1976, it still appears on many recommended reading lists and is a staple in college liberal arts classes. It instilled genetic determinism in many people, and if you were exposed to it at a young age, it probably had a profound effect on your thinking.
Surveys show how ingrained genetic determinism is in society. The fact that 21.8% of people in the survey said they would accept someone with a cancer-predisposing gene as a spouse shows that many people accept the gene as fate. From a genetics research perspective, this is detrimental to the development of a mindset conducive to genetics. It is necessary to improve the public’s awareness and mindset formation process by publishing a good book on epigenetics as soon as possible, and Richard C. Francis’s book “Epigenetics Made Easy” can be a starting point.
Public understanding of epigenetics is essential not only for the advancement of genetics, but also for society. The public has an appetite for cutting-edge science. They tend to seek out books about cutting-edge fields such as nanotechnology or quantum mechanics out of interest and admiration. However, there are some people who take advantage of this psychology. Many products are touted as “silver nanoproducts” when they are actually unproven. Epigenetics is another example of this psychology being exploited. Cults use epigenetics as a basis for their beliefs, for example, or promote the false belief that meditation or prayer can change your genes. In fact, New Age evangelist Deepak Chopra has made claims about changing your genes and changing your destiny through lifestyle changes, misrepresenting the nature of epigenetics and equating genes with destiny (Adam Rutherford, 9 July 2015), despite the fact that epigenetics is diametrically opposed to these beliefs. If a clear explanation of epigenetics is disseminated to members of society, it will benefit many members of society, not just future genetic researchers.
Humanity’s belief in epigenesis may be innate. However, genes are influenced by the environment, and it is unlikely that the environment does not play a role in shaping the way we think. Only by removing the persuasive explanations of the primeval theory from public view and promoting epigenetic thinking will we be able to prevent future generations of genetic research or propaganda and fraud using epigenetics. While propaganda and fraud in the name of cutting-edge theories have been around for a long time, epigenetics is a field that needs to be explained to the public before other fields because it affects research advancement. The role of a scientist includes not only research, but also explaining the results of research to the public in an understandable way. Books and lectures explaining epigenetics need to appear sooner rather than later. The spread of epigenetics will change the way we see the past and the future, which will have a positive impact on human development. Although there are some bioethical issues with epigenetics research, the potential of this field is so enormous that it’s worth exploring. For this to happen, epigenetics needs to be made accessible to the public.
