Junk DNA in Scientific American

Would I write about junk DNA? No. Never. Not me. Not even when Scientific American publishes sub par articles on junk DNA. Well, they're at it again.

The most recent junk DNA article describes a study by Gill Bejerano of Stanford University which I can't find published anywhere (neither can ERV). Is Scientific American describing unpublished research on their website? Either way, they're doing it poorly. The study described in the article identified non-coding sequences that were conserved across all sequenced mammalian genomes but missing from the chicken genome. Five percent of the sequences resemble known transposable elements, and the rest are of unknown origin. The Scientific American article said so much in nine paragraphs, and included the (unnecessary) word "junk" nine times (including twice in the headline and twice in a figure caption which is just a picture of a landfill).

Once again, I'll say that I don't mind the term "junk DNA" so long as it's used appropriately. Throwing it around willy-nilly like every popular science writer seems to do is not the appropriate usage. Also, claiming that we have absolutely no freakin' idea what non-coding DNA does is highly misleading. We know a fair bit about the function of non-protein coding DNA, including how it regulates transcription, how it encodes non-translated RNAs, and many studies have identified conserved non-coding elements. That said, a lot of it probably is junk. There are a ton of DNA sequences in any eukaryotic genome that serve absolutely no function, but they're not deleterious enough to be purged from the population. So they're just there, and that's all there is to it.

More like this

My little screed on junk DNA elicited some good feedback, including a comment from Dan Graur. In a somewhat ill-thought out rant, I implied that anyone who uses the term 'junk DNA' should be ostracized from the scientific community (or something along those lines). I restated my opinion in a far…
No. It's the same tired junk DNA argument from the ID creationists. But I find this one particularly funny - you'll see why. Luskin says: It's beyond dispute that the false "junk"-DNA mindset was born, bred, and sustained long beyond its reasonable lifetime by the neo-Darwinian paradigm. As one…
We've discussed the incompetence of cranks in their critical reasoning skills, and their inability to think about science in a lucid or productive fashion. But have we tried to help them? Have we moved beyond caddy criticisms and actually bothered to extend a hand to our fellow man? Clearly not…
I just knew it. The second I read this abstract I just knew that the Uncommon Descent cranks would dust off their old "Junk DNA" harangue and suggest that if it wasn't for them, no one would believe that all that non-coding DNA had a purpose. Sal Cordova obliged, and it's the usual embarrassing…

I know about Haussler's work, but is there a new paper that they're reporting on? It seems like the SA article is totally disconnected from any scientific publication.

Yeah I found those too-- but neither of those publications contain the word 'junk.'

Almost all of the ID Creationist 'quotes' on scientists talking about 'junk DNA' have originated from bad science reporting, not actual journal articles.

It used to be that any DNA that didn't code for a protein was considered "junk." I don't think the actual word is necessary.

And I agree it would be nice if SA were to include references to the original articles.

Hey Genomicron is putting together a Q&A on 'Junk DNA'-- if you all have any questions or ideas, send them his way!

HAHAHAHA! HI ANDRAS!

Gee I cant help but wonder why he didnt say hello on my blog :( Im going to go cry now. ROFL!!

Hi RPG and folks,

I'm surprised my story elicited such a strong reaction. The photo was a bit weak, I grant you. And I forgot to cite the journal: PNAS online before print (doesn't seem to be a public link yet). I have fixed that.

As for the word/info ratio, I'm writing for a popular audience that may not have much science background, so a bit of hand holding is often warranted.

Which of course leads to your primary objection--my use of "junk" to refer to noncoding but conserved DNA. According to one of your comments in an earlier post, "my problem with the term junk DNA is that it has been hijacked by the popular media to mean any non-coding DNA."

Fair enough. But your post implies that I got something wrong, as opposed to using terminology that might not pass muster in a thesis defense, which is not my venue. (Double standard on my part? You decide.)

My story states that 95 percent of the genome has no obvious role, which is true as far as I know. As further context, I could have mentioned that only a third of the remainder is coding DNA, but that seemed like splitting hairs at the time.

That said, I don't like to give readers wrong impressions on weighty scientific subjects, given that I'm supposed to be telling them what's what. I intend to move this discussion to our blog, where interested readers can benefit.

JR, I wouldn't take any of it as a personal attack on you, but you may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. In my opinion, you could have written the entire article sans the term "junk DNA" and presented the story clearly to a lay-audience (of course, you're the professional science writer, and I'm the scientist in training, so you may know better than I what works in popsci writing). I'm bothered by the overuse of the term in the popular science media, and I'd like to see the coverage of findings showing constraint/function of non-coding DNA reported without the words "junk DNA".

Hi, I hear what you're saying. This is your subject and the way it's portrayed to the outside world can be annoying. One physics blogger has complained that popular coverage of quantum computers essentially invalidates his life's work. In cases like that, and this, it can mean there's something we journalists aren't getting. That might 1) be a story; and 2) have real consequences for the respect and funding a field gets.

I like to think that I always try to find some happy medium of precision that satisfies researchers and readers alike, within reason, so in the end I'm glad to get the feedback.

I certainly dont mean this as an attack either, JR-- I grew up on SciAm and Discover. But I would be happy as a clam if no one used the term 'junk DNA' again. I wouldnt use it in a publication any more than I would use 'MT tropic HIV'-- At one point in time it was a perfectly acceptable word, but today it is archaic. There are better words.

Perhaps you can keep the excitement and readability with something like 'stretches of sequenced genomes are still left unexplored' 'pioneers of this nucleotide landscape have discovered' etc. (meh I cant write, you pretty it up! lol!)

I admit I do have a personal stake in the death of 'junk DNA'-- I study 'junk' (endogenous retroviruses, ERVs). And Creationists and other anti-science communities never miss an opportunity to latch onto 'junk' for 'evidence' to 'support' their respective world views. (example) It gets obnoxious. :)

In case you haven't seen them, I have a couple of posts on "junk DNA" at Genomicron, part of a series I am working on:

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/04/word-about-junk-dna.html

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/04/junctional-dna.html

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/04/onion-test.html

Junk DNA is a popular buzzword, and many of my colleagues continue to use it as such, but it no longer carries its original meaning and has lost all precision. It therefore is no longer useful as a scientific descriptor for noncoding DNA.

Glad to see a journalist actually soliciting feedback on this, I must say.