American Scientist

In models of DNA, the molecule is shown as a precise collection of its parts, always the same and unmoving. But DNA is not a clean, static molecule. It’s surrounded by water molecules, changing all the time, morphing and shifting shapes and forms. Caryn Babaian advocates for using art to gain a better understanding of DNA in its many iterations. The recent 70th anniversary of Rosalind Franklin’s iconic DNA image, which first uncovered the double-helix structure, prompted Babaian to look closely at the molecule. In “Deconstructing DNA Beyond the Helix,” Babaian argues that artistic approaches can help us reexamine Franklin’s process and can provide new insights into DNA’s activities.

Almost incomprehensibly vaster in scale than tiny genetic codes are the gigantic stars from which solar and stellar winds emanate. Models of these winds owe a lot to Eugene Parker, who generated insightful predictions about the solar wind in the late 1950s, and for whom the current Parker Solar Probe mission to the Sun is named. In “Gas Dynamics of Solar and Stellar Winds,” Bhimsen Shivamoggi tells us that new refinements to these models take into account factors that Parker’s model didn’t include. Such updates can provide insights into remaining mysteries, such as where in the solar corona the wind originates. The new models can also explain the role of stellar winds in stabilizing young stars as they form, when they are spinning at such high rates that they will destroy themselves if they don’t shed their angular momentum quickly.

New data led to updates of these stellar wind models, and new information must always be considered, especially when examining conflicts, as David Shiffman points out in “When Sharks Eat An Angler’s Haul.” In this case, fishers increasingly report that shark depredation is on the rise. They blame the increase on shark overpopulation. However, data do not support that claim—some of the shark populations are recovering modestly, but no shark species has significantly increased in numbers over the past few years. Researchers don’t know why depredation seems to be increasing, and they’re trying to find out. But in the meantime, researchers need to work with the community to find ways to ensure that both sharks and fishers are treated fairly.

All scientific research relies on evidenced-based reasoning, and it’s not good science for researchers to simply drop data from inclusion in an analysis because it doesn’t conform to what they hope to find, or doesn’t fit into neat boxes. As Kate Clancy and her colleagues point out in “Biology Is Not Binary,” data show that sex has never fit into two categories, which might make it messier and more complicated to study, and more difficult to understand. But excluding data on the range of sex categories ignores evidence of biological variation and marginalizes people who do not fit into those categories. Definitions of sex are not static and are difficult to standardize across fields, the researchers say, so the definition used may have to vary, depending on the research question.

In this issue’s inaugural Science and Engineering Values column, “The Call of Science,” Robert T. Pennock points out that science became a formalized practice when it developed an evidentiary imperative. Data must be obtained reliably and interpreted reproducibly, but if the data are clear, scientists have a responsibility to include all of it in their studies.

Scientific research works well because it is dynamic and shifting all the time, and new discoveries can be exciting and surprising. Embracing all the evidence is central to good science.