Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!jyamato
From: jyamato@cory.Berkeley.EDU (YAMATO JON AYAO)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Nature Articles. Anyone read them?
Message-ID: <4256@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu>
Date: 5 Jul 88 17:22:27 GMT
References: <1628@runx.ips.oz>
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu
Reply-To: jyamato@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (YAMATO JON AYAO)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 30

In article <1628@runx.ips.oz> jon@runx.ips.oz (Jonathon Seymour) writes:
>I'm after issue dates for two issues of Nature which have been referred
>to recently in the Sydney Morning Herald. 
>The first article is about a discovery made by Prof. Paul Schimmel, a
>professor of biochemistry and biophysics at MIT. It centres around what
>Schimmel thinks is a second, more primitive genetic code which performs some
>of the functions of DNA. It was referred to in an article in the SMH on May
>17th this year as "appearinging in this week's issue of ... Nature ". Given
>the media's propensity for distorting reality in order to squeeze it between
>the cigarette advertisements I wouldn't be at all suprised if the article is
>a few months old. 
>jon.

I don't have the magazine in question, but I suspect that the work
referred to may be the discovery of the part of the tRNA molecule
which determines which amino acid it picks up.  The media likes to
refer to this as "the second genetic code", for no particularly good
reason that I can see.  It has actually been established only for one
tRNA, by mutating parts of it until it loses/gains specificity, and
may not be the same for others.

A lot of people said "New genetic code!" to me, and then pointed me
to articles which proved to discuss exactly this.

As for the homeopathy, I wouldn't get too upset until you actually see
the reference.  I'll look for it this afternoon.

Mary Kuhner
genetics, UC Berkeley
(but my opinions are my own)