In 1956, Tjio and Levan( might strike a chord in victims of a still ongoing PMT hangover) published a classic paper questioning the authority regarding‘ 48’. People responded to this with a“ very interesting, but what difference will it make?” sort of a response. Formal genetic analysis and a good deal of molecular studies are independent of chromosome number. Sounds legit, right? Moreover, the field of yeast genetics grew by leaps and bounds in the 1960s and 1970s, but the correct chromosome number in yeast was not known until 1985.
But here, that was not the case. The Tjio and Levan report would have an important effect on the field. Surprisingly, it did not happen immediately. But in 1959 reports appeared identifying numerical chromosome abnormalities in Down, Turner, and Klinefelter syndromes. Reports of XXX females and XYY males also were soon published; the field of medical cytogenetics had just been born.
Observation is something everyone often does instinctively. It is more than simply noticing something. It involves perception and the recognition of the subject’ s importance or significance in the grander scheme of things. Observation, indeed, plays a major role in the scientific method. It is required in two major steps – not only when actively making observations of the natural phenomenon under consideration but also while testing your hypothesis using a study.
Before the advent of modern observational and experimental science about five hundred years ago, science consisted of merely repeating what the ancient Greeks and Romans wrote. Science lacking observation is plain mysticism.
What we report should be what we see or perceive. Anything else would be a simple contradiction to and a reversal of the basic scientific method. Some might argue over how something as insignificant as you or me reporting observations faithfully in practical classes would make the slightest difference. It’ d be juvenile to even ponder over such a question. Is it always rational to think of utility? Did Tjio or Levan even remotely expect that their revolutionary finding could help in discovering the cytogenetic association for Down’ s? They had just reported their observation devotedly and painstakingly( well, they counted 261 preparations).
Honesty in recording observations and documenting data are fundamentals of Good Scientific Practice and as students of science( firstly, and then medicine), we should try our best to inculcate them in our professional practice. It is only then that we can consider being safe from mysticizing science. Let alone a cure for Down’ s!
P. S. While the cause for the disparity in the chromosomal count as a consequence of mere discrepancy in honest reporting and observation, is exaggerated in this article, it was in fact, technology that played a major limiting factor in getting to‘ 46’. Although newer preparation techniques and advances in photomicrography paved the way to the present count, it must not be forgotten that the tendency to overcount by 2 too nonetheless, did play a significant role.
Vasishta Polisetty 3148, Batch of‘ 14