0
Ahn Posted 19 years ago
Open any catalogue of the human genome and you will be confronted not with a list of human potentialities, but a list of diseases, mostly named after pairs of obscure central-European doctors. This gene causes Niemann-Pick disease; that one causes Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. The impression given is that genes are there to cause diseases. ...........................................................
Yet to define genes by the diseases they cause is about as absurd as defining organs of the body by the diseases they get: livers are there to cause cirrhosis, hearts to cause heart attacks and brains to cause strokes. It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read. It is literally true that the only thing we know about some genes is that their malfunction causes a particular disease. This is a pitifully small thing to know about a gene, and a terribly misleading one. It leads to the dangerous shorthand that runs as follows: `X has got the Wolf-Hirschhorn gene'. Wrong. We all have the Wolf-Hirschhorn gene, except, ironically, people who have Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome.
I wrote some of the paragraph to show the context but the problem is just a purple colored sentence.
'It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read.'
Can 'that' in this sentence mean 'if' ? Can I read it like 'If this is the way the genome catelogues read, it is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance.'
Grammar
I don't understand what this sentence means.
Open any catalogue of the human genome and you will be confronted not with a list of human potentialities, but a list of diseases, mostly named after pairs of obscure central-European doctors. This gene causes Niemann-Pick disease; that one causes Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome. The impression given is that genes are there to cause diseases. ...........................................................
Yet to define genes by the diseases they cause is about as absurd as defining organs of the body by the diseases they get: livers are there to cause cirrhosis, hearts to cause heart attacks and brains to cause strokes. It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read. It is literally true that the only thing we know about some genes is that their malfunction causes a particular disease. This is a pitifully small thing to know about a gene, and a terribly misleading one. It leads to the dangerous shorthand that runs as follows: `X has got the Wolf-Hirschhorn gene'. Wrong. We all have the Wolf-Hirschhorn gene, except, ironically, people who have Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome.
I wrote some of the paragraph to show the context but the problem is just a purple colored sentence.
'It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read.'
Can 'that' in this sentence mean 'if' ? Can I read it like 'If this is the way the genome catelogues read, it is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance.'
Top answer
Hello Ahn, 1. It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read. Your "if" version makes a hypothesis of a statement, but is (I think) essentially correct.
- Hello Ahn, 1.
- It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read.
- Your "if" version makes a hypothesis of a statement, but is (I think) essentially correct.
- I would paraphrase #1 as: 2.
- The fact that genome catalogues are written in this way demonstrates the degree to which we are ignorant, not the degree to which we are knowledgeable.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
Hello Ahn,
1. It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read.
Your "if" version makes a hypothesis of a statement, but is (I think) essentially correct. I would paraphrase #1 as:
2. The fact that genome catalogues are written in this way demonstrates the degree to which we are ignorant, not the degree to which
1. It is a measure, not of our knowledge but of our ignorance, that this is the way the genome catalogues read.
Your "if" version makes a hypothesis of a statement, but is (I think) essentially correct. I would paraphrase #1 as:
2. The fact that genome catalogues are written in this way demonstrates the degree to which we are ignorant, not the degree to which
00
0
You're welcome!
(I liked the "diseases mostly named after pairs of obscure central-European doctors".)
MrP
(I liked the "diseases mostly named after pairs of obscure central-European doctors".)
MrP
00
Hi, Ahn,
I just read that book myself. Let me know how you liked it when you finish!
CJ
(The fact that we know genes only by the diseases they cause when they don't function properly is a sign of our ignorance -- not a sign of our knowledge. -- It's unfortunate that this is all we know about many genes.)
I just read that book myself. Let me know how you liked it when you finish!
CJ
(The fact that we know genes only by the diseases they cause when they don't function properly is a sign of our ignorance -- not a sign of our knowledge. -- It's unfortunate that this is all we know about many genes.)
00
Hello, CalifJim. Thank you for your clear answer 
Actaully I'm not reading the book 'Genome' now.
I'm just pract
Actaully I'm not reading the book 'Genome' now.
I'm just pract
00
Well, excerpts from that book should be good translation practice. I can sympathize, because unless you are already familiar with the ideas of molecular biology, I imagine it might be difficult to translate.
I enjoyed the book. It's quite a novel approach to build each chapter around one particular chromosome of the genome, but Ridley manages it well by straying from the topic from t
I enjoyed the book. It's quite a novel approach to build each chapter around one particular chromosome of the genome, but Ridley manages it well by straying from the topic from t
00
It seems the book is worth reading though I don't know about molecular biology well.
I'm quite interested in the mysteries of life so knowing biological knowledge will be also attractive.
I'm quite interested in the mysteries of life so knowing biological knowledge will be also attractive.
0
Related Questions