For some time, scientists searched for cases of reverse translation. For some, it served as a promising hypothesis to explain genetic changes that did not lean on random mutation as a mechanism.[ii] Since then, scientists abandoned hope of finding evidence for reverse translation. A testament to the once-promising idea takes the form of an April Fool’s prank on a science blog. Others have laid the theoretical foundation for an equilibrium between amino acid and nucleic acid chains, which may have been important during earliest stages of life on Earth.[iii] Despite a theoretical possibility, no experimental evidence for reverse translation exists. Or perhaps it is just hiding in plain site.

During one of our departmental coffee breaks, Professor Paul Hamel strolls in and asks the students present to explain the central dogma. For reasons discussed above, we were all wrong. He brought our attention to Crick’s original definition, and asked us if there are any exceptions. After some time, we reasoned that the central dogma remains intact to this day. Paul asked us to think about outside the box. What about the reverse translation that we do as scientists? Any university student in biology can deduce a complimentary DNA sequence from any given protein sequence. Of course. Reverse translation does exist. A simple google search will reveal multiple webservers that can take an amino acid sequence and spit out a complementary nucleotide sequence. There are a few tricks involved. There is a degeneracy when a nucleic acid sequence is translated into protein. There are sixty-four permutations of the four nucleic acids when arranged into triplet codons but only twenty amino acids. As a result, multiple codons often encode the same amino acid. For example, GAG (guanine-adenosine-guanine) and GAA both encode glutamic acid. When reverse translation occurs in silico, the most frequent codon is chosen. So here is the question — does this reverse translation violate the central dogma?

The impulse of most people is no. As quoted on at least one tutorial page, “reverse translation is not a biological process.” Although obsessed over by scientists, no one has discovered a cellular mechanism by which an amino acid sequence serves as a template to produce a corresponding nucleic acid sequence. However, the transfer of information from protein to DNA is possible with human intervention. And humans are biological. Any denial of reverse translation requires treating human activity as technological and not natural. Hence, we need to address the divide between society and nature.

Binary thinking on nature and society bubbled to the surface during the Enlightenment. Scholars interested in studying physics, chemistry, and biology argued that these ‘natural’ phenomena are separate and external to humans and their societies and are best studied in an objective and dispassionate manner. Thus, scientists and researchers construct what is ‘natural’ and define with a razors edge the phenomena they wish to interrogate. Because this distinction simplifies the research process does not mean it is apolitical. It is ideological.

The classic example used to illustrate the arbitrary divide between nature and technology is the beaver dam. A beaver dam is a sophisticated construction that provides shelter and modifies the local hydrology. If beavers did not exist, would we claim that dams do not exist in the natural world despite our own constructions? Many other examples exist to highlight the absurd distinction between technology and nature. What is the difference between a chimp using a rock to smash a nut and a human using a nutcracker? Or a spider using a web to snatch flies and a human using a net to catch fish? I contend that the difference is one of degree but not of kind. More and more, scholarship aims to entrench the human experience the natural world.[iv] The rapid emergence of extinction rebellion, a group demanding the halting of biodiversity loss and continued greenhouse gas emissions, exemplifies popular support for dismantling the society/nature divide. The era of human exceptionalism is coming to an end, whether you like it or not.

Humans are biological. Everything humans do is biological. As athletic competitions are illustrative of human biology so to is human engineering and scientific inquiry. We pioneered reverse translation and broke the central dogma. If you still cannot wrap your head around that, imagine yourself an alien visitor to the planet Earth. Would you differentiate humans from other fauna? No. You would identify humans as apex predators or keystone species, but your study of humans would be reminiscent of how humans study chimps or other ‘higher’ organisms. As the alien Jane Goodall, you might even astonish members of your scientific institution with evidence of biological reverse translation.

[i] Crick, Francis HC. (1958). On protein synthesis. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 12,138-63.

[ii] Cook, N. D. (1977). The case for reverse translation. Journal of theoretical biology, 64(1), 113-135.

[iii] Nashimoto, M. (2001). The RNA/protein symmetry hypothesis: experimental support for reverse translation of primitive proteins. Journal of theoretical biology, 209(2), 181-187.

[iv] Goldman, M., & A. Schurman, R. (2000). Closing the “great divide”: New social theory on society and nature. Annual review of sociology, 26(1), 563-584.