Juan Valcarcel (Lugo, 63 years old) is a molecular biologist specializing in RNA regulation: a pioneer in the study of alternative splicing. He has just been honored with a Carmen and Severo Ochoa Foundation Award for his discovery of the functional map of the human spliceosome. He picks up the phone in Barcelona, where he lives and works as a group leader at the Center for Genome Regulation (CRG).
I ask. José Luis Garcé told Severo Ochoa that he once asked him about our true identity, and whether there is something more after life. Severo Ochoa told him: “Don’t be fooled, we are physics and chemistry.” Garci argued that no: physics and chemistry, but also a drop of mystery that we will never understand.
answer. I’m with Severo Ochoa: physics and chemistry, nothing more. But very sophisticated and elegant chemistry. Can you let me tell you something?
S. please.
R. Keats, poet, Newton was cursed. He said that Newton stole the magic of the rainbow by turning it into a prism. For Keats, science robbed things of their magic by interpreting them as objective truth. But when you understand the process that generates the rainbow, described in the beautiful book by Richard Dawkins (Deconstruct the rainbow(A line from Keats in his accusation of Newton) You notice that reality is much more interesting than what poetry said about the rainbow. Even if there is nothing more than physics and chemistry, the beauty of what we have can satisfy you even from an aesthetic or spiritual point of view.
(In one passage of his book, Dawkins says: “Science does not destroy the rainbow: it reveals it as something infinitely more beautiful. By unraveling the secrets of the spectrum of light—how raindrops turn a sunbeam into a fan of color—we discover that this phenomenon is no less magical but more profound. Understanding the true nature of the rainbow—its physical origin, its laws of optics, and its changes with rain and sun—allows us to truly admire what we are capable of perceiving. It makes us realize the splendor of existence in a world governed by Beautiful laws.
S. You’re talking about the complexity of chemistry. Is life an inevitable consequence, or are we just a statistical accident of the universe that sometimes defends itself dreamily?
R. Carl Sagan said that life reproduces in the universe: There are thousands, millions, and perhaps even billions of civilizations with whom we have not communicated, and we have not coincided in time and space. I believe that, under the right conditions, sophisticated chemistry will produce increasingly complex components that will begin to organize in a way that can give rise to elements that reproduce and, ultimately, contemplate nature itself. Like us. It will be a completely different chemistry, and it will be very interesting for us to have another example of life other than our own.
S. It all started for you with a microscope.
R. My father brought it to me from the Canary Islands. But what surprised me was reading in a textbook about the molecular basis of heredity. It is the way four chemical compounds are organized into DNA molecules that determines whether that DNA molecule is from a human or an onion. That seemed unbelievable to me. We realize that the double helix structure of DNA also holds the key to reproduction. They are able to produce two copies of a single copy: the basis of life, and produce more identical beings from a single copy. It changed my view of the world. Because that, from a physical and chemical standpoint, even explains the process of evolution. It still amazes me how it can be the arrangement of four chemical compounds that determines how an organism is organized, how cells are organized, how they change when they change in disease, and how the brain is organized to produce thoughts. Everything, absolutely everything. Behind them are four chemical compounds: ATCG (adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine are the bases of the DNA molecule).
S. Evolution.
R. Everything that works moves forward and develops. Some beings find simplicity useful. For others, complexity. The ability to think has helped us: to do abstract thinking. It allowed us to predict where the catch might be to when we would have to plant for the harvest. This ability has given us an evolutionary achievement: the ability to cooperate with each other through language and abstract thought.
S. Cooperation and language This also happens inside us, with cells. They even know when to commit suicide.
R. For example, when you have an infection. There are cells in the immune system that must expand to fight infection. But once the infection is neutralized, those cells no longer do anything there. If they remain, they can cause autoimmune diseases. The cell knows when to sacrifice itself, so it commits suicide.
S. It’s hard to die.
R. Organisms are highly resistant, even inside cells. Sometimes you think a gene is very important, so you remove this transcendent gene from the mouse and nothing happens. Because there are compensation mechanisms. Genes are constantly talking to each other. They regulate each other. If you touch one, others notice and react. The mechanisms of life are built in a robust way. They compensate for shortcomings, and look for other ways if one fails.
S. Frequently asked question, excuse me: To what extent do genes determine who we are, and how much space do they leave for the experience of life?
R. Doctors examine thousands of patients and confirm that there is a significant genetic component to many diseases. By performing population analysis, it can be verified that many psychological characteristics are determined by our genes. Of course, there is an impact of environmental conditions and the interactions carried out by individuals. In some types of breast cancer, genetics is such that a preventive mastectomy may be recommended. In other cases, such as lung cancer, the probability is much higher if you smoke than if you do not smoke.
S. And in personality.
R. There are studies that indicate that up to 50% of personality traits are inherited. Naturally, they are complex personalities that arise from the combined functioning of many genes.
S. If we could look at the genomes of two people falling in love, would we see any patterns of compatibility?
R. Oh (laughs).
S. I put it in complex gardens.
R. Genetically, I don’t think there were major differences, but epigenetically (in changes in proteins that bind to DNA, or in changes in the DNA itself) there very likely were. But come on: It’s a 20-year question.
S. Will we see creatures designed from scratch without natural ancestors?
R. This has not been achieved, but from synthetic DNA or RNA you can generate an organism that combines different components from other organisms to produce something that works. A fully artificial life form has not yet been produced, as far as I know, but there is no reason why it should not be.
S. Is this scary?
R. Yes, of course. Especially if one were to generate pathogenic variants of the organisms. Genetic engineering used for war purposes, for example, would be extremely dangerous.
S. Revolutionary scientific progress always comes at a cost. Sometimes it is unbearable.
R. Consensus and clear legislation are needed. For example: capturing carbon dioxide more efficiently to reduce global warming. Or improve crops with plants that are more resistant to drought or climate change. They are desirable things that we can assume. There is nothing mysterious about the design of living organisms. With reasonable assurance, we can generate organisms that can be very useful. Through which we can, for example, understand the processes of organisms increasingly better through these modifications in the genome. It’s inevitable, and it’s a very good thing.
S. Why is there no consensus?
R. Because it should be clear what we should and should not do.
S. Human cloning.
R. Something we shouldn’t do, even though it’s almost a natural process: there are cloned twins and triplets. But we should not actively seek it. We should not confuse this with preventing research and manipulating sufficient safeguards to produce useful organisms that help us treat diseases or solve pressing problems.
S. Animals are cloned.
R. Yes yes. But as far as humans are concerned, the more diversity there is in a community (genetic diversity, diversity of all kinds), the greater the guarantee that the community will perform better, will be able to explore new spaces, and find new solutions. Each of us is a unique experience. We know we’re going to die, and that makes us lucky. Many other combinations could have happened, but they never happened and never will. We are unique, and through that, we have great value. What is the benefit of generating clones?
S. Can science be closer to treating all diseases, or to modifying the genome to prevent the emergence of these diseases?
R. Closer to treating diseases. In many diseases whose origin is clear, it is actually possible to genetically modify cells so that they can work where they are needed, and this has been proven and is great. But editing the genome to prevent disease is more complex. You have to be sure that you’re not going to modify other regions of the genome of which we have two copies, each containing three billion components. It is very difficult to be sure that there are no other influences. But in addition, many diseases are so complex and can be generated in so many different ways, that it is illusory to think that we will ever have a perfect genome. We have very great diversity: what is highly pathogenic in one person may not cause symptoms in another. There is no perfect genome, and no perfect reference.
S. Genes and memory.
R. A part of the Neanderthal genome that gave us an advantage at some point in our evolution has been linked to an increased risk of suffering from severe Covid-19 disease. It was selected thousands of years before this virus appeared. The meaning of our genes changes with changes in the circumstances in which we live. Our genome does not evolve uniformly toward perfection, far from it. It’s all a process of drift, adapting to circumstances and what allows us to survive. In our species, we long ago overcame the selective pressure regarding reproductive ability. Our genome no longer determines our survival. Now anyone suffering from a serious illness can live their lives and live a normal life, and even find a cure for that or another illness themselves. The evolutionary process that got us here is very important, but our culture and way of communicating trumps it.
S. Imagine what extraterrestrial life might look like.
R. This would change history. Especially to try to understand what two different ways of life have in common. Perhaps we will reach a consensus about what life is.
S. What is life for you?
R. I have fun with my family, try to understand nature by working with members of my lab and reading Vicente’s column on Sundays.