Making up Science = Bad Science = Angry Post

Steaming pile of tripe

While you sit at the doctor's office waiting for the nurse to call your name you might pickup a Health & Wellness magazine.  Inside you will find articles about diet, exercise, why to use sunscreen and the occasional research highlight.  Unfortunately, thinking that the editor, Angela S. Hoover, writes something accurate is far beyond the truth.  A colleague of mine told me about this article, The Different Genetic Code of Men and Women, which he saw in the June 2011 issues, while waiting in a doctor's office.  I might normally type, "Go look at it, and then come back," but this article is just a steaming pile of tripe.  Don't bother looking at it.  I will summarize the funnies here.

Angela is referencing this paper, from 2005, about the evidence for gene expression from the inactivated X chromosomes of females.

•  "The first comprehensive study of gene activity in the X chromosome of women reveals an unexpected level of variation among individual females. This extensive variation means there is not ONE human genome, but TWO – Male and Female."

Where do you get the male genome from?  The extensive variation must be about females because the study deals with the "levels of variation among individual females".  This study shows that females have different, possibly unique, levels of gene expression on their inactivated X chromosomes.  In other words, the inactive X chromosome is not inactive.  And second there is variation in the gene expression, or activity, from the inactive X - making possibly billions of unique expression patterns.  This is the cool stuff, and the reader completely misses it.

• "Chromosomes are the set of genetic instructions that guide the creation of an organism. Every human embryo begins with two X chromosomes, but in order to be a male, one of the X chromosomes turns into a Y chromosome."  

Wow... really, Angela?  Instead of guiding the creation of an organism how about the development of the organism.  Creation is quite a strong and wrong word to use.  Also, Y chromosomes are NOT X chromosomes that decide to change.  It actually is an ancient chromosome, about 166 million years old, that likely came from a chromosome similar to the X chromsome, see here.  Lastly, it is not that hard to be genetically male, actually it is quite simple... combine a sperm with a Y chromosome with any egg. 

• "Depending on the gene, having two active copies can matter very little or very much. When genes on the second X chromosome that escape inactivation are expressed, this can create a stronger overall concentration of particular genes."

Shame on Angela, trying to confuse her readers.  The concentration of the gene does not change... two per female cell.  This should state protein, or RNA instead of "genes" at the very least.

• "Scientists had also implicitly assumed that the X chromosomes in all women were identical."

Hah, I don't think even Ken Ham would say something like this.  Wait is he even a scientist...?

The rest of the article goes through a interview with the main author and is mostly correct.  My issue?  First of all, Angela, you are resurrecting a study from 2005.  Yes, this is interesting that the inactive X-chromosome is not completely inactive, but this old.  How about telling your readers a thing or two about chromosome neighborhoods or the three-dimensional gene expression profiles.  My second issue is why tell lies to your readers?  My grandma probably read this article and will tell me about it the next time I see her... then I'll be upset again.  Please stop writing bad science