CT IN DV

Moneth Claire B. Ibay

BS Biology 4B

In order to fully understand the complex process, one must seek first the very beginning.
Some of us tend to go take the straight line, trace the ongoing forward process, but without even
realizing all the diverse questions will only be answered if one would have gone back to the origin,
to where it has come from.
Stated in Scott F. Gilbert’s recently published article in PLoS Biology entitled
“Developmental biology, the stem cell of biological disciplines,” that developmental biology is
proposed to be as the “stem cells of biology.” In other words it also means that developmental
biology is the root of biological disciplines such as genetics, cell biology, oncology, immunology,
evolutionary mechanisms, neurobiology, and systems biology. For me, it is true that each or some
these, has its own ancestry in developmental biology, and until the present time, it still
continuously thrives to bud off more disciplines. According to this article, I have observed that the
author strongly suggests the concepts of developmental biology can be correlated and defined by
the discipline itself. The essay was quite fascinating and interesting especially to the author’s
account regarding to his ideas about developmental biology, that this discipline has remained to
be as vigorous, pluripotent and relatively undifferentiated which I could compare to a developing
zygote. Although, according to Gilbert, developmental biology is not as well regarded as it should
be and continues to “seek justice” for it does not get the credit it deserves for its contributions to
understanding the natural world and its phenomenon. I would definitely agree to these profound
ideas, and indeed, this revelation may help lead this integrative field, developmental biology to its
rightful sovereign.
It was mentioned in the article that development was originally seen as motor of evolution
and evolution was explained before through the use of embryology. Although genetics arose out
of embryology and eventually, evolution came to be seen as a proper subset of population genetics.
Developmental biology starts to become displaced because researchers always draw their attention
to the newly discovered outbreaks and disciplines. Developmental biology later even become
overpowered and dominated by genetics in terms of cancer research. Although in a different
perspective, the statement “developmental biology is less confined than genetics” is to miss the
essence of genetics as the language and underpinning of all biology.
Going back to the applications in the cancer research, Gilbert stated that Boveri seems to
hold the founding document of the genetic (somatic mutation) theory of cancer through his relation
with the anomalies of cancer caused by polyspermy and by chromosome elimination during
nematode development, noting that chromosomal rearrangements might be cause of cancer. That
is why developmental biology helped to establish oncology and has continued to help mold it.
Contrariwise, a typical definition of cancer nowadays is more of a genetic approach like for
example, “cancer is a genetic disease that is certain changes to genes controlling the way cells
function, especially on how they grow and divide” (National Cancer Institute, 2017). Also
according to Bishop (1987), cancer has myriad causes, but many of these may act in a common
way-by damaging DNA. But there is a study about development of cancer linking both
environmental factors as well as genetics with the interactions of multiple modifier genes with
various environmental factors (Wilson, Jones, & Couseens, 2002). Hence, these two biological
disciplines, whether genetics may have “differentiated” from developmental biology, are
associated with each other and they work hand in hand.
Furthermore, there were three main messages posed at the end of the essay. First, it says
that “developmental biology is not a confined, specified discipline”, and that “the descendants of
developmental biology- cell biology, genetics, immunology, neurobiology- are more differentiated
and their potency are much more restricted.” These two statements were somewhat confusing as
Brown (2018) perceived developmental biology as more confined to cell biology and even genetics
would span a broader area than development. Moreover, Gilbert also said that “developmental
biology is not confined to any level of organization and can be studied in any species, organ system
or biome,” and here, I definitely agree at some of his claims. He also continually argued with the
second message stating that “developmental biology remains a vital generative science.” As the
third message of the essay says that many disciplines come from developmental biology are
returning to development framework, even if they don’t call it “developmental biology.” This
argument may sound plausible, but in some other disciplines of biology, they may also claim the
same thing.
As a young person of Science, I appreciate Gilbert’s claims and proposition on stating that
developmental biology is an uncredited stem cell of biological disciplines. I even respect his ideas
and insights knowing that he is one of the contributing developmental biology textbook authors
today. I also see and understand that what he is really pointing out in his article is that he wants
developmental biology to be recognized for its contributions particularly in terms of how
embryologists of 19th and 20th centuries become very instrumental in the birth and growth of so
many specialized and “differentiated” fields of biology. Even an example of this was Thomas Hunt
Morgan, one of the founding fathers of modern genetics, was firstly an embryologist. Nowadays,
applications of developmental biology has gone far beyond biomedical research. For example,
understanding plant development provides a means to speed up breeding processes, such as
optimizing root systems, plant size, or flowering time, thus contributing to the efforts of achieving
sustainable food security in times of overpopulation (Prokop, 2018). Again, Gilbert wants this field
to have recognition for the importance of developmental biology’s contributions. I do not want to
argue with that but I just wanted to end this reflection paper with a message about a perspective
on the Darwinian’s theory of Natural Selection. If developmental biology could have really be the
“embryonic stem cell of biological disciplines,” in order for it to evolve and survive, it has to adapt
and take a change.

References
Bishop, J. (1987). The molecular genetics of cancer. 305-311.
Brown, K. (2018, January 10). Developmental biology: 'not a confined, specified discipline'? Retrieved
February 28, 2018, from The Node: thenode.biologists.com/developmental--biology-not-
confined-specified-discipline/discussion
National Cancer Institute. (2017, October 12). The Genetics of Cancer. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from
National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics
Prokop, A. (2018, January 22). What is developmental biology and why is it important? Retrieved
February 28, 2018, from Open Access Government:
www.openaccessgovernment.org/developmental-biology-important/41386
Wilson, S., Jones, L., & Couseens, C. (2002). The links between environmental factors, genetics and the
development of cancer. Cancer and the Environment: Gene-Environment Interaction.