Skip to main content

Signing

While I am pretty confident that we are far from being on a majority in our household, I am also sure that we are not unduly exceptional. We sit down to lunch each day at 1230 so that we can simultaneously masticate and educate. The first refuelling the body. The latter refuelling the intellect.

And the source of brain food? The daily press conference on the pandemic from the Government. The traditional being from fridge and food cupboard.

It's a bit like the family sitting around the radio 75 plus years ago to hear news of the battles against the nazis. Today is remarkably similar. Not a single front of battle but many. Not just fought by those on the front line, but supported by the actions of those on the home front.

Even more than then, the home front is a critical part of the front line. Each citizen's actions, or inaction, directly contributing to or hindering our ability to eliminate COVID-19 from our country.

For me, with an interest in DNA as a tool in my family history research, the deployment of genome sequencing to understand the source of each variant of the virus is particularly interesting. It's proving a vital tool in the Test, Trace, Isolate, Support strategy to quickly shutdown each flareup, understand where it came from, and stop the virus sub-type which was responsible from moving on to infect others.

This tool depended on the Watson-Crick partnership in the early 1950s which discovered the double-helix structure of DNA and through that, an understanding of how it replicates itself. And more fundamentally where the opportunities for change took place.

In a sense, with DNA we are back in the pre-Gutenberg age. Before the invention of the moving type printing press in the early 1400s, books were produced by the laborious manual copying of an original manuscript. All done by hand and eye. Both organs were capable of error, together with the potentially corrupting influence of mental distraction or inattention.

Some copying errors in the newly created book would be benign; leaving meaning unchanged even while the representation of it had been amended. Indeed the monks, the intellectual footsoldiers of their day and who made up the majority of the transcribers, were not averse to deliberately introducing changes to the script. They corrected what they thought were errors, and sought to improve the expression of the ideas. Some ideologues would also deliberately change the message.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus which is causing such a problem just now is not a particularly complex piece of material. Unlike some higher-order viruses, it only has a single strand of RNA not a double strand of DNA.

But the reproduction of the virus can only take place in a host cell. As a standalone item, the virus does not live. The multiplication of the virus carries the potential for change to the genetic material within it. Some will have no effect on its function. Other changes may enhance or attenuate its effects.

Like research into my family tree where I increasingly depend on seeing the evolution of DNA as a way of confirming my personal lineage, our public health teams are building up knowledge of the ancestry of each infection.

The language of DNA is deceptively simple. It has only four letters; G, C, A and T (abbreviating the chemicals guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine). A "G" will always be linked to a "C" and an "A" to a "T". So should be simple? No. It took thirteen years (1990 to 2003) for the Human Genome Project to determine our species genetic map. Read more at https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project.

I am a layperson in this area of scientific knowledge, albeit one with some training in the use of DNA matching for family tree research. And I have a long list of reading on this whole subject as it relates to the genetic material in viruses. Roll on a few wet days so I may make a start. If you want to follow me, you may wish to start with clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR), as I plan to. But let's leave that for now.

It's all a classic whodunnit. The criminal, in this case, our nasty pandemic virus, leaves its fingerprints at the scene of the crime. A personal signature to identify its authorship of our misery.

In politics, the elected will find themselves using their signature for rather more benign purposes. Letters to constituents. Documents of one sort or another. As a Government Minister, I signed 4,990 letters during my time in office. So one's signature as an MSP becomes publically available. There's a potential danger in that.

I have a signature that I use in my role as an elected member. It's significantly different from the one I use for personal purposes, such as signing my will. Thus was it ever to be copied for unapproved purposes, we can work out where it has come from.

How we write has changed over the generations. And I suspect that we are not far off ceasing to use pens at all. With the advent of better and better voice recognition, even the keyboard my disappear.

I have always said that the final triumph of computer technology will come when we no longer know we are using one.

We are getting close to that point.

But we shall still be proving signatures in one form or another for generations to come.

But it might simply be our DNA.

It is who we are.

And speaks to where we're from.



2020-07-15 Correction: Reference to "SARS-CoV-19" virus has been amended to be "SARS-CoV-2 virus".

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Advice to the new MSPs

A contribution made to Portland PR 's weekly briefing on Holyrood A new job is a time to look in the mirror and undertake a self-assessment about what one can contribute in a new role. And what weaknesses one may have that could inhibit success. Being elected an MSP is no different in that respect. But very different in many others. One has become public property and every action, or action thought to be by you, will be open to public comment, often unfairly. Silence is often your best response. When one comments on criticism one lengthens the “war” and widens the knowledge of it. Set your own agenda rather than respond to that of others. Who can you trust among your fellow Parliamentarians? Make contact with as many as you can as quickly as you can. And make it a priority to interact with political opponents. The first substantive decision in the new Parliament is the election of a new Presiding Officer and it will be a secret ballot. Understanding the dynamic of other partie

End of an Era 2016-2021

Written for  Holyrood magazine's "The End of an era 2016-2021"  published 07 April 2021.    Neil Findlay is the man who loves you to hate him. As he rises from his habitual place in a distant corner of the Parliamentary Chamber, a snarl as firmly attached to his face as he is disconnected to any symbol of middle-class values such as a tie, tension flows as he selects his target for the day. Is it dapper John Scott? The record-holder for the shortest time between his being sworn in and making his first speech in Parliament; a mere twenty hours. Does Willie Rennie attract his ire? Confession; we went to the same school. Almost anything liberal is bound to attract this Labour very-back-bencher’s contumely. Greens rarely attract his attention but he should remember that John Finnie, another member of this year’s escape committee, can efficiently direct a canine arrest. Now of course, I have sought to avoid any engagement with the fellow. I never, just never, even acknow

Clutter

When big things go wrong, and one feels powerless to do much about them, small things in one's life can become surrogates for one's anger. And there are quite a few big things around at the moment; COVID-19, No-Deal Brexit; A US Presidential Election where the incumbent leads with racist statements. As the end of the current session rushes towards us, many of my colleagues are concluding that they will not be putting themselves forward at the forthcoming election. A couple of our younger colleagues are placing their families first. But most are looking at being in their eighth decade, as I already am, at the end of the next session. When the two leading candidates for the US President are both older than I am - seventy-four in five week's time - it may seem surprising that retirement may be beckoning for me and others a lustrum younger than I am. But it illustrates the profound differences between being a back-bencher in our Parliament and the political life of a US Senator