Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Claudiu Bandea
What is a virus Dr. Weiss?
I have yet to read Carl Zimmer?s book A Planet of Viruses. Based on his previous writings and on secondary readings, such as this book-review by Robin Weiss (1), I would expect what is expected from an acclaimed science writer: a highly interesting, inspiring and educational book. However, when it comes to a seasoned virologist like Weiss (in his own words), I would expect that he understands the nature of viruses, at the most fundamental level. I would expect he would know what a virus is.
But Weiss doesn?t. And, he?s not at fault. The culprit is the dogma of viruses as virus particles, probably the most enduring misconception in the history of biology, if not in the entire field of science. For over a century, viruses have been conceptually identified with their viral particles and defined based on the physical, biochemical and biological properties of these particles; that is the dogma of viruses as virus particles.
Imagine the world of birds being conceptually reduced to plain eggs and their properties. No wings, no feathers, no beaks, no legs; basically, no birds, just eggs. Unacceptable! Unscientific!
Similar to birds and all other cellular organisms, viruses have a life cycle. The virus particles are highly specialized forms in the life cycle of (some) viruses, which are used for their transmission to new host cells. Because of their particular role, the virus particles have unique characteristics. For example, the virus particles usually contain only a fraction of the molecular repertoire of viruses and, similar to the transmissible forms in the life cycle of many cellular species, they appear as inert entities, although, as sensibly described by Weiss, they are Potent tiny packages.
I have discussed at length the scientific aspects and arguments exposing the shortcomings and the problems with the dogma of viruses as virus particles (2-5). As compelling as these arguments and scientific evidence might be, they pale in comparison to the obvious, common sense rationale: the virus particles and their physical, biochemical and biological properties cannot represent viruses because many viruses do not even produce virus particles in their life cycle. Period!
For those with attention to detail, and by definition scientists should be in this group, all organisms, including viruses, are represented by their entire life cycle. For the others, and from a conceptual perspective, they are usually represented by their mature, reproductive stage in their life cycle. For viruses, and for many parasitic or symbiotic cellular species, this stage occurs within their particular environmental niche, the host cells. The problem with viruses is that, during this stage of their life cycle, their molecules are dispersed, literarily, within their particular environment, the host cell. Symbolically, I called this structure a _molecular structure_ and labeled viruses as _molecular organisms_ (3). So, what is the significance of this radical paradigm change about the nature of viruses?
As discussed in the recent series of articles and comments, the scientific, academic, and practical ramifications of this new paradigm about viruses are enormous (3-5). Obviously, from an academic perspective, the dogma of viruses as virus particles has dumbed down (to make use of an epithet employed by Weiss to characterize Zimmer?s book) the science of biology. As remarked by Jean-Michel Claverie (6), a member of the research group that discovered the giant mimiviruses (the subject of Zimmer?s best essay, according to Weiss), identifying viruses with their virus particles might be a case of, quote: when the finger points to the stars, the fool looks at the finger.
Indeed, due the dogma of viruses as virus particles, thousands of scientific articles and books written during the last century contain embarrassing errors that border the pseudo-science realm. Take for example, the following quote (7), which is highly representative of the modern, scientific description of viruses: all viruses differ fundamentally from cells, which have both DNA and RNA, in that viruses contain only one type of nucleic acid, which may be either DNA or RNA. Despite the common knowledge, that within their host cells, the so called DNA viruses have both nucleic acids, even James Watson, the eminent scientist who arguably knows the nucleic acids better than anyone, has failed victim to this dogma.
However, this dogma is guilty of much worst, as it has constrained progress in many biological fields, including some that are of very high medical and public health relevance. In the field of neurodegenerative diseases, which affect tens of millions of people worldwide, the dogma of viruses as virus particles has lead to the formulation of the prion hypothesis that, as a leading working hypothesis, has misdirected the thinking and the research in these fields for almost three decades (4,8,9).
So, what is a virus Dr. Weiss? As hard as it might be for you and for other seasoned virologists, who love and respect their field, to acknowledge this question, I hope you?ll consider the advice of one of your most admired scientists and essayists, Peter Medawar (10): The scientific method is a potentiation of common sense, exercised with a specially firm determination not to persist in error.
Claudiu Bandea
What is a virus Dr. Weiss?
I have yet to read Carl Zimmer?s book A Planet of Viruses. Based on his previous writings and on secondary readings, such as this book-review by Robin Weiss (1), I would expect what is expected from an acclaimed science writer: a highly interesting, inspiring and educational book. However, when it comes to a seasoned virologist like Weiss (in his own words), I would expect that he understands the nature of viruses, at the most fundamental level. I would expect he would know what a virus is.
But Weiss doesn?t. And, he?s not at fault. The culprit is the dogma of viruses as virus particles, probably the most enduring misconception in the history of biology, if not in the entire field of science. For over a century, viruses have been conceptually identified with their viral particles and defined based on the physical, biochemical and biological properties of these particles; that is the dogma of viruses as virus particles.
Imagine the world of birds being conceptually reduced to plain eggs and their properties. No wings, no feathers, no beaks, no legs; basically, no birds, just eggs. Unacceptable! Unscientific!
Similar to birds and all other cellular organisms, viruses have a life cycle. The virus particles are highly specialized forms in the life cycle of (some) viruses, which are used for their transmission to new host cells. Because of their particular role, the virus particles have unique characteristics. For example, the virus particles usually contain only a fraction of the molecular repertoire of viruses and, similar to the transmissible forms in the life cycle of many cellular species, they appear as inert entities, although, as sensibly described by Weiss, they are Potent tiny packages.
I have discussed at length the scientific aspects and arguments exposing the shortcomings and the problems with the dogma of viruses as virus particles (2-5). As compelling as these arguments and scientific evidence might be, they pale in comparison to the obvious, common sense rationale: the virus particles and their physical, biochemical and biological properties cannot represent viruses because many viruses do not even produce virus particles in their life cycle. Period!
For those with attention to detail, and by definition scientists should be in this group, all organisms, including viruses, are represented by their entire life cycle. For the others, and from a conceptual perspective, they are usually represented by their mature, reproductive stage in their life cycle. For viruses, and for many parasitic or symbiotic cellular species, this stage occurs within their particular environmental niche, the host cells. The problem with viruses is that, during this stage of their life cycle, their molecules are dispersed, literarily, within their particular environment, the host cell. Symbolically, I called this structure a _molecular structure_ and labeled viruses as _molecular organisms_ (3). So, what is the significance of this radical paradigm change about the nature of viruses?
As discussed in the recent series of articles and comments, the scientific, academic, and practical ramifications of this new paradigm about viruses are enormous (3-5). Obviously, from an academic perspective, the dogma of viruses as virus particles has dumbed down (to make use of an epithet employed by Weiss to characterize Zimmer?s book) the science of biology. As remarked by Jean-Michel Claverie (6), a member of the research group that discovered the giant mimiviruses (the subject of Zimmer?s best essay, according to Weiss), identifying viruses with their virus particles might be a case of, quote: when the finger points to the stars, the fool looks at the finger.
Indeed, due the dogma of viruses as virus particles, thousands of scientific articles and books written during the last century contain embarrassing errors that border the pseudo-science realm. Take for example, the following quote (7), which is highly representative of the modern, scientific description of viruses: all viruses differ fundamentally from cells, which have both DNA and RNA, in that viruses contain only one type of nucleic acid, which may be either DNA or RNA. Despite the common knowledge, that within their host cells, the so called DNA viruses have both nucleic acids, even James Watson, the eminent scientist who arguably knows the nucleic acids better than anyone, has failed victim to this dogma.
However, this dogma is guilty of much worst, as it has constrained progress in many biological fields, including some that are of very high medical and public health relevance. In the field of neurodegenerative diseases, which affect tens of millions of people worldwide, the dogma of viruses as virus particles has lead to the formulation of the prion hypothesis that, as a leading working hypothesis, has misdirected the thinking and the research in these fields for almost three decades (4,8,9).
So, what is a virus Dr. Weiss? As hard as it might be for you and for other seasoned virologists, who love and respect their field, to acknowledge this question, I hope you?ll consider the advice of one of your most admired scientists and essayists, Peter Medawar (10): The scientific method is a potentiation of common sense, exercised with a specially firm determination not to persist in error.
References
1. Weiss R. Virology:Potent tiny packages. Nature. 2011; 474: 279?280.
2. Bandea CI. A new theory on the origin and the nature of viruses. J Theor Biol. 1983; 105:591-602.
3. Bandea CI. The origin and evolution of viruses as molecular organisms . Nature Precedings. 2009.
4. Bandea CI. Endogenous viral etiology of prion diseases . Nature Precedings. 2009.
5. Bandea CI. A unifying scenario on the origin of and evolution of cellular and viral domains . Nature Precedings. 2009.
6. Claverie JM. Viruses take center stage in cellular evolution. Genome Biol. 2006; 7:110.
7. Watson, JD. Molecular Biology of the Gene. Benjamin-Cummings. Menlo Park. 1976.
8. Bandea CI. From prions to prionic viruses. Med Hypotheses. 1986; 20:139-142.
9. Bandea CI. Comment on: Reimagining Alzheimer's Disease-Time for Bright New Ideas . 2011.
10. Medawar PB. Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought. London: Methuen. 1969.