There are exceptions, however. Among humans, some males are born two Xs and a Y ("XXY", see  Klinefelter syndrome ), one X and two Ys (see  XYY syndrome ). Some females have three Xs ( Trisomy X ), and some have a single X instead of two Xs ("X0", see  Turner syndrome ). There are other variations in which, during  embryonic development , the  WNT4  gene [ 7 ]  is activated and/or the SRY gene is damaged leading to birth of an  XY female   (Swyer syndrome [ 7 ] ). A Y chromosome may also be present but fail to result in the development of a male phenotype in individuals with  androgen insensitivity syndrome , instead resulting in a female or ambiguous phenotype. In other cases, the SRY gene is copied to the X, leading to birth of an  XX male . [ 8 ]


Many  ectothermic   vertebrates  have no sex chromosomes. [ 9 ]  If these species have different sexes, sex is determined environmentally rather than genetically. For some species, especially  reptiles , sex depends on the incubation temperature. [ 10 ]  Some vertebrates are  hermaphrodites , though hermaphroditic species are most commonly  sequential , meaning the organism switches sex, producing male or female  gametes  at different points in its life, but never producing both at the same time. This is opposed to  simultaneous  hermaphroditism, where the same organism produces male and female gametes at the same time. Most simultaneous hermaphrodite species are invertebrates, and among vertebrates, simultaneous hermaphroditism has only been discovered in a few  orders  of fish. [ 11 ]


The X and Y chromosomes are thought to have evolved from a pair of identical chromosomes, [ 12 ] [ 13 ]  termed  autosomes , when an ancestral animal developed an allelic variation (a so-called "sex locus") and simply possessing this  allele  caused the organism to be male. [ 14 ]  The chromosome with this allele became the Y chromosome, while the other member of the pair became the X chromosome. Over time, genes that were beneficial for males and harmful to (or had no effect on) females either developed on the Y chromosome or were acquired by the Y chromosome through the process of  translocation . [ 15 ]


Until recently, the X and Y chromosomes in mammals were thought to have diverged around 300 million years ago. [ 16 ]  However, research published in 2008 analyzing the  platypus  genome [ 17 ]  suggested that the XY sex-determination system would not have been present more than 166 million years ago, when  monotremes  split from other mammals. [ 18 ]  This re-estimation of the age of the  therian  XY system is based on the finding that sequences that are on the X chromosomes of  marsupials  and  eutherian  mammals are not present on the autosomes of platypus and birds. [ 18 ]  The older estimate was based on erroneous reports that the platypus X chromosomes contained these sequences. [ 19 ] [ 20 ]


Most chromosomes  recombine  during meiosis. However, in males, the X and Y pair in a shared region known as the  pseudoautosomal region  (PAR). [ 21 ]  The PAR undergoes frequent recombination between the X and Y chromosomes, [ 21 ]  but recombination is suppressed in other regions of the Y chromosome. [ 14 ]  These regions contain sex-determining and other male-specific genes. [ 22 ]  Without this suppression, these genes could be lost from the Y chromosome from recombination and cause issues such as infertility. [ 23 ]


The lack of recombination across the majority of the Y chromosome makes it a useful tool in studying  human evolution , since recombination complicates the mathematical models used to trace ancestries. [ 24 ]


By one estimate, the human Y chromosome has lost 1,393 of its 1,438 original genes over the course of its existence, and  linear extrapolation  of this 1,393-gene loss over 300 million years gives a rate of genetic loss of 4.6 genes per million years. [ 25 ]  Continued loss of genes at the rate of 4.6 genes per million years would result in a Y chromosome with no functional genes – that is the Y chromosome would lose complete function – within the next 10 million years, or half that time with the current age estimate of 160 million years. [ 14 ] [ 26 ]   Comparative genomic  analysis reveals that many mammalian species are experiencing a similar loss of function in their heterozygous sex chromosome. Degeneration may simply be the fate of all non-recombining sex chromosomes, due to three common evolutionary forces: high  mutation rate , inefficient  selection , and  genetic drift . [ 14 ]


With a 30% difference between humans and chimpanzees, the Y chromosome is one of the fastest-evolving parts of the  human genome . [ 27 ]  However, these changes have been limited to non-coding sequences and comparisons of the human and  chimpanzee  Y chromosomes (first published in 2005) show that the human Y chromosome has not lost any genes since the divergence of humans and chimpanzees between 6–7 million years ago. [ 28 ]  Additionally, a scientific report in 2012 stated that only one gene had been lost since humans diverged from the  rhesus macaque  25 million years ago. [ 29 ]  These facts provide direct evidence that the  linear extrapolation  model is flawed and suggest that the current human Y chromosome is either no longer shrinking or is shrinking at a much slower rate than the 4.6 genes per million years estimated by the linear extrapolation model. [ citation needed ]


The human Y chromosome is particularly exposed to high mutation rates due to the environment in which it is housed. The Y chromosome is passed exclusively through  sperm , which undergo multiple  cell divisions  during  gametogenesis . Each cellular division provides further opportunity to accumulate base pair mutations. Additionally, sperm are stored in the highly oxidative environment of the  testis , which encourages further mutation. These two conditions combined put the Y chromosome at a greater opportunity of mutation than the rest of the genome. [ 14 ]  The increased mutation opportunity for the Y chromosome is reported by Graves as a factor 4.8. [ 14 ]  However, her original reference obtains this number for the relative mutation rates in male and female germ lines for the lineage leading to humans. [ 30 ]


The observation that the Y chromosome experiences little  meiotic   recombination  and has an accelerated rate of  mutation  and degradative change compared to the rest of the  genome  suggests an evolutionary explanation for the adaptive function of  meiosis  with respect to the main body of genetic information. Brandeis [ 31 ]  proposed that the basic function of meiosis (particularly meiotic recombination) is the conservation of the integrity of the genome, a proposal consistent with the idea that meiosis is an adaptation for  repairing DNA damage . [ 32 ]


Without the ability to recombine during  meiosis , the Y chromosome is unable to expose individual  alleles  to natural selection. Deleterious alleles are allowed to "hitchhike" with beneficial neighbors, thus propagating maladapted alleles into the next generation. Conversely, advantageous alleles may be selected against if they are surrounded by harmful alleles (background selection). Due to this inability to sort through its gene content, the Y chromosome is particularly prone to the accumulation of  "junk" DNA . Massive accumulations of retrotransposable elements are scattered throughout the Y. [ 14 ]  The random insertion of DNA segments often disrupts encoded gene sequences and renders them nonfunctional. However, the Y chromosome has no way of weeding out these "jumping genes". Without the ability to isolate alleles, selection cannot effectively act upon them. [ citation needed ]


A clear, quantitative indication of this inefficiency is the  entropy rate  of the Y chromosome. Whereas all other chromosomes in the  human genome  have entropy rates of 1.5–1.9 bits per nucleotide (compared to the theoretical maximum of exactly 2 for no redundancy), the Y chromosome's entropy rate is only 0.84. [ 33 ]  From the definition of  entropy rate , the Y chromosome has a much lower information content relative to its overall length, and is more redundant.


Even if a well adapted Y chromosome manages to maintain genetic activity by avoiding mutation accumulation, there is no guarantee it will be passed down to the next generation. The population size of the Y chromosome is inherently limited to 1/4 that of autosomes: diploid organisms contain two copies of autosomal chromosomes while only half the population contains 1 Y chromosome. Thus, genetic drift is an exceptionally strong force acting upon the Y chromosome. Through sheer random assortment, an adult male may never pass on his Y chromosome if he only has female offspring. Thus, although a male may have a well adapted Y chromosome free of excessive mutation, it may never make it into the next gene pool. [ 14 ]  The repeat random loss of well-adapted Y chromosomes, coupled with the tendency of the Y chromosome to evolve to have more deleterious mutations rather than less for reasons described above, contributes to the species-wide degeneration of Y chromosomes through  Muller's ratchet . [ 34 ]


As has been already mentioned, the Y chromosome is unable to recombine during  meiosis  like the other human chromosomes; however, in 2003, researchers from  MIT  discovered a process which may slow down the process of degradation.
They found that human Y chromosome is able to "recombine" with itself, using  palindrome   base pair  sequences. [ 35 ]  Such a "recombination" is called  gene conversion .


In the case of the Y chromosomes, the  palindromes  are not  noncoding DNA ; these strings of nucleotides contain functioning genes important for male fertility. Most of the sequence pairs are greater than 99.97% identical. The extensive use of gene conversion may play a role in the ability of the Y chromosome to edit out genetic mistakes and maintain the integrity of the relatively few genes it carries. In other words, since the Y chromosome is single, it has duplicates of its genes on itself instead of having a second, homologous, chromosome. When errors occur, it can use other parts of itself as a template to correct them. [ 35 ]


Findings were confirmed by comparing similar regions of the Y chromosome in humans to the Y chromosomes of  chimpanzees ,  bonobos  and  gorillas . The comparison demonstrated that the same phenomenon of gene conversion appeared to be at work more than 5 million years ago, when humans and the non-human primates diverged from each other. [ 35 ]


Gene conversion  tracts formed during  meiosis  are long, about 2,068 base pairs, and significantly biased towards the fixation of G or C nucleotides (GC biased). [ 36 ]   The  recombination  intermediates preceding gene conversion were found to rarely take the alternate route of crossover recombination. [ 36 ]   The Y-Y gene conversion rate in humans is about 1.52 x 10 -5  conversions/base/year. [ 37 ]  These gene conversion events may reflect a basic function of meiosis, that of conserving the integrity of the genome.


According to some theories, in the terminal stages of the degeneration of the Y chromosome, other chromosomes may increasingly take over genes and functions formerly associated with it and finally, within the framework of this theory, the Y chromosome disappears entirely, and a new sex-determining system arises. [ 14 ] [ neutrality  is  disputed ] [ improper synthesis? ]


Several species of  rodent  in the sister families  Muridae  and  Cricetidae  have reached a stage where the XY system has been modified, [ 38 ] [ 39 ]  in the following ways:


Outside of the rodents, the  black muntjac ,  Muntiacus crinifrons , evolved new X and Y chromosomes through fusions of the ancestral sex chromosomes and  autosomes . [ 45 ]


Modern data cast doubt on the hypothesis that the Y-chromosome will disappear. [ 16 ]  This conclusion was reached by scientists who studied the Y chromosomes of rhesus monkeys. When genomically comparing the Y chromosome of rhesus monkeys and humans, scientists found very few differences, given that humans and rhesus monkeys diverged 30 million years ago. [ 46 ] [ clarification needed ]


Outside of mammals, some organisms have lost the Y chromosome, such as most species of Nematodes. However, in order for the complete elimination of Y to occur, it was necessary to develop an alternative way of determining sex (for example, by determining sex by the ratio of the X chromosome to autosomes), and any genes necessary for male function had to be moved to other chromosomes. [ 16 ]  In the meantime, modern data demonstrate the complex mechanisms of Y chromosome evolution and the fact that the disappearance of the Y chromosome is not guaranteed.


Fisher's principle  outlines why almost all species using  sexual reproduction  have a  sex ratio  of 1:1.  W. D. Hamilton  gave the following basic explanation in his 1967 paper on "Extraordinary sex ratios", [ 47 ]  given the condition that males and females cost equal amounts to produce:


Many groups of organisms in addition to therian mammals have Y chromosomes, but these Y chromosomes do not share common ancestry with therian Y chromosomes. Such groups include monotremes,  Drosophila , some other insects, some fish, some reptiles, and some plants. In  Drosophila melanogaster , the Y chromosome does not trigger male development. Instead, sex is determined by the number of X chromosomes. The  D. melanogaster  Y chromosome does contain genes necessary for male fertility. So XXY  D. melanogaster  are female, and  D. melanogaster  with a single X (X0), are male but sterile. There are some species of Drosophila in which X0 males are both viable and fertile. [ citation needed ]


Other organisms have mirror image sex chromosomes: where the homogeneous sex is the male, with two Z chromosomes, and the female is the heterogeneous sex with a Z chromosome and a W chromosome. [ 48 ]  For example, the ZW sex-determination system is found in  birds ,  snakes , and  butterflies ; the females have ZW sex chromosomes, and males have ZZ sex chromosomes. [ 48 ] [ 49 ] [ 50 ]


There are some species, such as the  Japanese rice fish , in which the XY system is still developing and cross over between the X and Y is still possible. Because the male specific region is very small and contains no essential genes, it is even possible to artificially induce XX males and YY females to no ill effect. [ 51 ]


Monotremes like  platypuses  possess four or five pairs of XY sex chromosomes, each pair consisting of sex chromosomes with homologous regions. The chromosomes of neighboring pairs are partially homologous, such that a chain is formed during  mitosis . [ 19 ]  The first X chromosome in the chain is also partially homologous with the last Y chromosome, indicating that profound rearrangements, some adding new pieces from autosomes, have occurred in history. [ 52 ] [ 53 ] : fig. 5


Platypus sex chromosomes have strong sequence similarity with the avian  Z chromosome , indicating close  homology , [ 17 ]  and the SRY gene so central to sex-determination in most other mammals is apparently not involved in platypus sex-determination. [ 18 ]


The human Y chromosome is composed of about 62 million  base pairs  of  DNA , making it similar in size to  chromosome 19  and represents almost 2% of the total DNA in a male  cell . [ 54 ] [ 55 ]  The human Y chromosome carries 693  genes , 107 of which are  protein-coding . [ 56 ]  However, some genes are repeated, making the number of exclusive  protein-coding  genes just 42. [ 56 ]  The  Consensus Coding Sequence (CCDS) Project  only classifies 63 out of 107 genes, though CCDS estimates are often considered lower bounds due to their conservative classification strategy. [ 57 ]  All single-copy Y-linked genes are  hemizygous  (present on only one chromosome) except in cases of  aneuploidy  such as  XYY syndrome  or  XXYY syndrome . Traits that are inherited via the Y chromosome are called  Y-linked  traits, or holandric traits (from  Ancient Greek  ὅλος  hólos , "whole" + ἀνδρός  andrós , "male"). [ 58 ]


At the end of the  Human Genome Project  (and after many updates) almost half of the Y chromosome remained un-sequenced even in 2021; a different Y chromosome from the HG002 (GM24385) genome was completely sequenced in January 2022 and is included in the new "complete genome" human  reference genome  sequence, CHM13. [ 56 ]  The complete  sequencing  of a human Y chromosome was shown to contain 62,460,029 base pairs and 41 additional  genes . [ 56 ]  This added 30 million base pairs, [ 56 ]  but it was discovered that the Y chromosome can vary a lot in size between individuals, from 45.2 million to 84.9 million base pairs. [ 59 ]


Since almost half of the human Y sequence was unknown before 2022, it could not be screened out as contamination in microbial sequencing projects. As a result, the NCBI RefSeq bacterial genome database mistakenly includes some Y chromosome data. [ 56 ]


The human Y chromosome is normally unable to recombine with the X chromosome, except for small pieces of  pseudoautosomal regions  (PARs) at the  telomeres  (which comprise about 5% of the chromosome's length). These regions are relics of ancient  homology  between the X and Y chromosomes. The bulk of the Y chromosome, which does not recombine, is called the "NRY", or non-recombining region of the Y chromosome. [ 68 ]   Single-nucleotide polymorphisms  (SNPs) in this region are used to trace direct paternal ancestral lines.


More specifically, PAR1 is at 0.1–2.7 Mb. PAR2 is at 56.9–57.2 Mb. The non-recombining region (NRY) or male-specific region (MSY) sits between. Their sizes is now known perfectly from CHM13: 2.77 Mb and 329.5 kb. Until CHM13 the data in PAR1 and PAR2 was just copied over from X chromosome. [ 59 ]


The following are some of the gene count estimates of human Y chromosome. Because researchers use different approaches to  genome annotation  their predictions of the  number of genes  on each chromosome varies (for technical details, see  gene prediction ). Among various projects, CCDS takes an extremely conservative strategy. So CCDS's gene number prediction represents a lower bound on the total number of human protein-coding genes. [ 69 ]


In general, the human Y chromosome is extremely gene poor—it is one of the largest  gene deserts  in the human genome. Disregarding  pseudoautosomal  genes, genes encoded on the human Y chromosome include:


Diseases linked to the Y chromosome typically involve an  aneuploidy , an atypical number of chromosomes.


Males can lose the Y chromosome in a subset of cells, known as  mosaic  loss. Mosaic loss is strongly associated with age, [ 79 ]  and smoking is another important risk factor for mosaic loss. [ 80 ]


Mosaic loss may be related to health outcomes, indicating that the Y chromosome plays important roles outside of sex determination. [ 80 ] [ 81 ]  Males with a higher percentage of  hematopoietic   stem cells  lacking the Y chromosome have a higher risk of certain  cancers  and have a shorter life expectancy. [ 81 ]  In many cases, a cause and effect relationship between the Y chromosome and health outcomes has not been determined, and some propose loss of the Y chromosome could be a "neutral  karyotype  related to normal  aging ". [ 82 ]  However, a 2022 study showed that mosaic loss of the Y chromosome causally contributes to  fibrosis ,  heart risks , and mortality. [ 83 ]


Further studies are needed to understand how mosaic Y chromosome loss may contribute to other sex differences in health outcomes, such as how male smokers have between 1.5 and 2 times the risk of non-respiratory cancers as female smokers. [ 84 ] [ 85 ]  Potential countermeasures identified so far include not smoking or  stopping smoking  and at least one potential drug that "may help counteract the harmful effects of the chromosome loss" is under investigation. [ 86 ] [ 87 ] [ better source needed ]


Y chromosome microdeletion  (YCM) is a family of genetic disorders caused by missing genes in the Y chromosome. Many affected men exhibit no symptoms and lead normal lives. However, YCM is also known to be present in a significant number of men with reduced fertility or reduced sperm count. [ citation needed ]


This results in the person presenting a female  phenotype  (i.e., is born with female-like genitalia) even though that person possesses an XY  karyotype . The lack of the second X results in infertility. In other words, viewed from the opposite direction, the person goes through  defeminization  but fails to complete  masculinization . [ citation needed ]


The cause can be seen as an incomplete Y chromosome: the usual karyotype in these cases is 45X, plus a fragment of Y. This usually results in defective testicular development, such that the infant may or may not have fully formed male genitalia internally or externally. The full range of ambiguity of structure may occur, especially if  mosaicism  is present. When the Y fragment is minimal and nonfunctional, the child is usually a girl with the features of  Turner syndrome  or  mixed gonadal dysgenesis .


Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY) is not an  aneuploidy  of the Y chromosome, but a condition of having an extra X chromosome, which usually results in defective postnatal testicular function. The mechanism is not fully understood; it does not seem to be due to direct interference by the extra X with expression of Y genes. [ citation needed ]


47, XYY syndrome (simply known as XYY syndrome) is caused by the presence of a single extra copy of the Y chromosome in each of a male's cells. 47, XYY males have one X chromosome and two Y chromosomes, for a total of 47 chromosomes per cell. Researchers have found that an extra copy of the Y chromosome is associated with increased stature and an increased incidence of learning problems in some boys and men, but the effects are variable, often minimal, and the vast majority do not know their karyotype. [ 88 ]


In 1965 and 1966  Patricia Jacobs  and colleagues published a chromosome survey of 315 male patients at
 Scotland 's only special security hospital for the  developmentally disabled ,
finding a higher than expected number of patients to have an extra Y chromosome. [ 89 ]  The authors of this study wondered "whether an extra Y chromosome predisposes its carriers to unusually aggressive behaviour", and this conjecture "framed the next fifteen years of research on the human Y chromosome". [ 90 ]


Through studies over the next decade, this conjecture was shown to be incorrect: the elevated crime rate of XYY males is due to lower median intelligence and not increased aggression, [ 91 ]  and increased height was the only characteristic that could be reliably associated with XYY males. [ 92 ]  The "criminal karyotype" concept is therefore inaccurate. [ 88 ]


There are also  XXXY syndrome  and  XXXXY syndrome .


The following Y-chromosome-linked diseases are rare, but notable because of their elucidation of the nature of the Y chromosome.


Greater degrees of Y chromosome polysomy (having more than one extra copy of the Y chromosome in every cell, e.g., XYYY) are considerably more rare. The extra genetic material in these cases can lead to skeletal abnormalities, dental abnormalities, decreased IQ, delayed development, and respiratory issues, but the severity features of these conditions are variable. [ 93 ]


XX male syndrome  occurs due to a  genetic recombination  in the formation of the male  gametes , causing the  SRY  portion of the Y chromosome to move to the X chromosome. [ 8 ]  When such an X chromosome is present in a zygote, male gonads develop because of the SRY gene. [ 8 ]


In human  genetic genealogy  (the application of  genetics  to  traditional genealogy ), use of the information contained in the Y chromosome is of particular interest because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y chromosome is passed exclusively from father to son, on the patrilineal line.  Mitochondrial DNA , maternally inherited to both sons and daughters, is used in an analogous way to trace the matrilineal line. [ citation needed ]


Research is currently investigating whether male-pattern neural development is a direct consequence of Y-chromosome-related gene expression or an indirect result of Y-chromosome-related  androgenic hormone  production. [ 94 ]


In 1974, male chromosomes were discovered in fetal cells in the blood circulation of women. [ 95 ]


In 1996, it was found that male fetal progenitor cells could persist postpartum in the maternal blood stream for as long as 27 years. [ 96 ]


A 2004 study at the  Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center , Seattle, investigated the origin of male chromosomes found in the peripheral blood of women who had not had male progeny. A total of 120 subjects (women who had never had sons) were investigated, and it was found that 21% of them had male DNA in their peripheral blood. The subjects were categorised into four groups based on their case histories: [ 97 ]


The study noted that 10% of the women had never been pregnant before, raising the question of where the Y chromosomes in their blood could have come from. The study suggests that possible reasons for occurrence of male chromosome microchimerism could be one of the following: [ 97 ]


A 2012 study at the same institute has detected cells with the Y chromosome in multiple areas of the brains of deceased women. [ 98 ]


The  ZO sex-determination system  is a system that determines the sex of offspring in  caddisflies  and several  moths . In those species, there is one sex chromosome, Z. Males have two Z chromosomes, whereas females have one Z. Males are ZZ, while females are ZO. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]  The ancestor of  Lepidoptera  and Trichoptera had ZO sex determination, which became a  ZW sex-determination system  in the largest clade,  Ditrysia , as well as in  Tischerioidea . Some of the ZW species later reverted to the ZO system. [ 1 ]


100% English  is a  Channel 4   television programme  shown in November 2006 in the United Kingdom.  It looked at the genetic makeup of  English people  who considered themselves to be ethnically English and found that while all had an  ethnic  makeup similar to people of  European  descent, a minority discovered genetic markers from  North Africa  and the  Middle East  from several generations before they were born.  The presenter was  Andrew Graham-Dixon .  The test results were interpreted by  DNAPrint Genomics , based in  Sarasota ,  Florida , United States.


The concept of the show was to:


Take eight people – all of whom are convinced they are 100% English. Then submit a sample of their DNA to a series of state-of-the-art tests ...  Lord Tebbit ,  Garry Bushell  and  Carol Thatcher  are among the participants who have agreed to place their genetic make-up under the microscope ... [ 1 ]


Garry Bushell , who appeared on the show, later criticised the slant of the programme and the portrayal of English people. On his website he stated: "Only  Nazis , and it appears C4, think of national identity in terms of racial purity ... Besides, you could apply the same tests to the French, Greeks, or Italians and get similar results, but no-one questions their right to nationhood." [ 1 ]


The Blind Watchmaker  is a documentary where  Richard Dawkins  challenges  William Paley's  theories on  creationism  and takes on Paley's descendants. [ 1 ]  It was produced in 1987 by Jeremy Taylor and Richard Dawkins for  BBC Horizon  series and won the Sci-Tech Award for Best Science Documentary of the year. [ 2 ]  It was based on a  book of the same name  written by Dawkins in 1986.


This article about a British documentary film is a  stub . You can help Wikipedia by  expanding it .


Blood of the Vikings  was a five-part 2001  BBC Television   documentary series  that traced the legacy of the  Vikings  in the  British Isles  through a genetics survey. [ 1 ]


The series was presented by  Julian Richards  who has a long-held fascination with the Vikings.


"Considering their huge impact, there's not a lot of archaeological evidence for them. You also have to question some of the history – it was mostly written by their victims. I'm fascinated by the idea of the genetics project and the idea that we may be able to discover the Viking in all of us."


Geneticist Professor  David Goldstein , from  University College London , lead the 15-month study that compared mouth swabs from 2,500 male volunteers from 25 different locations across the country with DNA samples from Scandinavian locals to find out how much Viking heritage remains in the UK.


"Modern genetics has opened up a powerful new window on the past."


The study traced the past movements of peoples to discover how many Vikings stayed after the raids.  The study of history and archaeology alone could not answer this question.


"The question is how Viking are the people of the British Isles and where are the most Viking people of the British Isles."


BBC Two Controller  Jane Root  described the station's work with UCL as a unique, nationwide project.


"This is the kind of thing that the BBC does so well; pooling our expertise in TV and online, in science and education in an endeavour that will enable all of us to find out more about our genetic origins."


The research confirmed that the Vikings did not just raid and retreat to Scandinavia, but settled in Britain for years.  They left their genetic pattern in some parts of the UK population.  Concentrations of Norwegian genetic heritage were found in part of  Cumbria  in northwest England, the area around  Penrith , the  Shetland  and  Orkney Islands  and the far north of the Scottish mainland. [ 4 ]


In addition the research revealed surprising new information about Celtic and Anglo-Saxon heritage on the British mainland.  Men who were tested in mainland Scotland had a percentage of Celtic genetic heritage similar to the population of southern England.  This showed 1) that Celtic heritage persisted among men in southern England after Anglo-Saxon settlement; and 2) that the Scots were not predominantly Celtic. [ 4 ]


The series included clips from  Richard Fleischer 's 1958 film  The Vikings  starring  Kirk Douglas  to illustrate common modern attitudes towards the Vikings.


Code of a Killer  is a three-part [ 1 ]  British police drama television series which tells the true story of  Alec Jeffreys ' discovery of DNA fingerprinting and its introductory use by Detective David Baker in catching the double murderer  Colin Pitchfork . Filming commenced in late September 2014, and the program aired on the  ITV network , on 6 and 13 April 2015. [ 2 ]   Endemol Shine  handled international distribution of the series. [ 3 ]


Set over a nearly four-year period from 1983 to 1987, DCS David Baker leads an investigation into the vicious murders of the two  Leicestershire  teenage schoolgirls, Lynda Mann and Dawn Ashworth. Meanwhile, Alec Jeffreys is an ambitious scientist who has recently discovered a remarkable method to read a person's DNA and, from it, generate a unique  DNA fingerprint . Convinced one local person committed both crimes, Baker approaches Jeffreys to utilise his scientific technique to solve the murders. The first-ever DNA manhunt follows, involving the blood testing of many men — all in the aid of catching the killer.


Code of a Killer  was commissioned by ITV's Director of Drama  Steve November  and Controller of Drama Victoria Fea on 16 May 2014. [ 4 ]  The series was developed with the participation of retired Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys and former Detective Chief Superintendent David Baker. It was written by Michael Crompton, directed by James Strong, produced by Priscilla Parish, and executive produced by Simon Heath for World Productions. Filming began in late September 2014, [ 2 ]  and the episodes were shown on 6 and 13 April 2015 at 9:00 p.m. on the ITV network.


The series premiered in Australia on  BBC First  on 19 September 2015. [ 5 ]


Originally aired in 2015 in the UK and Australia as two 65-minute episodes; [ 6 ]  currently streams online as three 45-minute episodes [ 1 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ]  plus one 28-minute ‘Behind the Scenes’ special. [ 8 ]  The episode descriptions below are for the (current) thee-episode format, while air dates and viewership data apply to the (original) two-episode format.


The drama received a mixed reception. [ 9 ]  The first part was criticised for dramatic sluggishness and a reliance on crime-show clichés in the portrayal of the two main characters. The depiction of Alec Jeffreys as the stereotypical absent-minded "boffin" was cited by several reviewers. Gerard O'Donovan in  The Daily Telegraph  called the show's version of him a "stock obsessive boffin so wedded to his lab instruments that his marriage was permanently on the brink of collapse". [ 10 ]  Julia Raeside in  The Guardian  wrote, "There are obligatory scenes in which Jeffreys misses a school play and receives a phone call from his wife pronouncing, 'Your dinner’s in the dog.' There are only so many times co-workers can remark, 'Don’t work too late' or 'Aren’t you going home?' before the hammering repetition starts to cause a dent in your enjoyment." [ 11 ]  Chris Bennion in  The Independent  concluded that "Sadly this drama had the fingerprints of countless other by-numbers crime thrillers all over it." [ 12 ]


Alex Hardy in  The Times  was less critical, giving the show four stars out of five and saying that "this fact-based drama managed to balance tragedy with optimism", but added that it "inevitably contained elements of soap". [ 13 ] [ 9 ]


A Dangerous Idea: Eugenics, Genetics and the American Dream  is a 2016 documentary film about  genetics ,  eugenics , and  social inequality  in the  United States . The film was directed by  Stephanie Welch  and distributed exclusively by  Bullfrog Films . [ 1 ] [ 2 ]


A Dangerous Idea  claims that contemporary genetics is a resurgence of eugenics, and that the concept of the " gene " will eventually be regarded in the same unfavorable light as concepts such as " royal blood ". [ 3 ]  The film further states that genetic research has been, and still is, misused by powerful groups to justify their mistreatment of the least fortunate, and to resist progress in  racial  and  gender equality . [ 4 ]


The following people appear in the film as "featured experts": [ 5 ]


Ralph Nader  praised  A Dangerous Idea , calling it "...an effective dissection of the genetic determinist worldview, rising again in new garb and aided by the Trump Administration." Sociologist  Barbara Katz Rothman , describing the "gene myth", stated, "Yes, this is a dangerous idea - and if you want to better understand why, watch this film and see the history, development and presentation of this idea that there is a book of life, a program that determines, from the moment of conception, all that we are and can be." [ 4 ]  Molly Ladd-Taylor, writing in  the American Historical Review , described the film as "a lively call to arms against  genetic determinism  and its role in the resurgence of racism and inequality in the Trump era." [ 2 ]  In a more mixed review, John DeFore of  the Hollywood Reporter  criticized the filmmakers for including so many interviews with critics of the scientists the film was criticizing, such as  James Watson  and  Charles Murray . [ 6 ]


DNA Family Secrets  is a British television series which began airing on  BBC Two  in March 2021. [ 1 ]  The programme is presented by  Stacey Dooley  and  geneticist , Professor  Turi King , and uses the latest  DNA  technology to solve family mysteries around  ancestry , missing relatives and  genetic disease .  The second series began airing on 11 May 2022. [ 2 ]


Presented by Dooley and King, the series sees Dooley meeting people "across the UK who want to unlock the mysteries hidden in their genetic code". [ 3 ]  Each episode follows three people – two of these trying to find out about their family history or ancestry, and another who is seeking to find answers about a genetic disease in the family. Dooley and King work with a large team of genealogists, social workers, and doctors to reveal unknown ancestry, find missing relatives and detect genetic disease before it's too late. [ 4 ]


Bill, 75, grew up without knowing his biological father. Born through a love affair between his mother and an African-American GI stationed near Loughborough, Bill’s father went back to the States after the war and she never heard from him again. The only information Bill had about his father is the name written on his birth certificate. Now that his mother has died, Bill wants to find out if DNA analysis can tell him more about his ancestry and if he has any living relatives in the US.


Richard, 53, [ 5 ]  was very close to his father. It came as a complete shock when someone contacted him after his father’s death, claiming to be his real dad. A DNA test shows Richard and his sister have different fathers, so Richard wonders if this person may be his biological father. Richard hopes DNA testing will be able to solve this mystery and show if he has a half-brother, Brendon.


Leicester-born Janine, has lived her entire life never knowing the identity or ethnicity of her birth father. Her white-British mum died taking the secret of who Janine’s biological father was to her grave. Growing up with darker skin. Janine wants to know if DNA can help her to find out anything about her father’s heritage.


Adopted in Southport when she was only six months old, Margaret has never felt brave enough to find out anything about her ancestry. In particular, she would really like to find out about her birth mother and what happened to her all those years ago. Could she have other family out there who she's never met.


Northern Irish triplets, Peter, David and Phillip were adopted as young boys and while they knew about their biological mother who passed away some years ago, they've never known where their father comes from. They have ideas, but when Professor Turi King reveals what is hidden in their DNA, it changes everything they thought they knew about their ancestry.


Tink didn't find out she was a sperm donor child until she was 17 years old and pregnant with her first child. Tink would like to know what DNA can tell her about her biological father and if she has any half donor siblings. With 45,000 donor conceived people on the registers in the UK she will only be able to find a half brother or sister if they're looking for her as well.


Stacey is in Liverpool to meet 52 year-old Richard, who is on a life-long mission to discover the identity of his father. With his mum never revealing the truth while she was still alive, Richard has hit a number of dead ends researching on his own. When Professor Turi King and the team test his DNA, they deliver far more than Richard expects - and he’s blown away when finally learning the truth.


Sixty two year-old Janet has spent her life wondering if a rumour is true that she might have a secret sister. When her father returned as a British prisoner of war during World War Two, she had heard that he may have fathered a child while in Austria. She now wants to know if there is a half-sister on the continent looking for her as well...


Liverpool-born Maureen is wondering if her father was an African-American GI who fell in love with her mother during the Second World War - which could mean she has family in the US. She’s also curious why her three sons are so musically talented and if the secret may lie in her DNA.


Forty six year-old Mel only found out as a teenager that she was conceived using a sperm donor. Now she wants to see if she can find her biological father’s identity by decoding her DNA… and discovers far more than she ever expected.


When mother-of-six Fi looked into her adoption as an adult she made a horrific discovery: that her birth mum was murdered by her birth father, a few years after she was adopted. Fi now wonders if this man was really her biological father or if it might be someone else, which was rumoured at the time. She’s also concerned that, if this man is indeed her father, that she might have passed down a 'murder gene' to one of her six children.


Thirty eight year-old Clare was always told by her mum that Clare’s father was a British soldier stationed in Belfast during  the Troubles . But she began to doubt her mum’s story when family friends believed it was another man… making Clare mixed race. Now Clare wants to solve the mystery of her father’s identity.


Leigh only discovered that he might have a secret sister after his mum passed away. He now wants to know if this is true and if so, whether she’s still alive.


Georgina was conceived during a holiday romance 34 years ago when her mum fell for a Portuguese waiter. She now wants to know if her father is still alive and, if so, let him know he has a daughter.


Matthew grew up in foster care never knowing where his father came from. He now wants to discover his ancestry and if he is actually Caribbean.


Stacey meets five sisters in Lancashire who only found each other as adults. They know they all share the same mum, but want to find out if they also have the same father.


Luke was a sperm donor as a university student in the late 1980s. He’s now come forward to find out if any potential children might be looking for him.


The series has received positive reviews both on social media and in print. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ] [ 12 ] [ 13 ] [ 14 ]   Stuart Jeffries of  The Guardian  praised the series, calling it “a touching, timely portrait of mixed-race Britain”, saying the “show doesn't need celebrities to gild its drama". [ 15 ]


Rachael Sigee of  Inews  wrote "you'd have to be cynical not to be moved by this reunion series", and that "Stacey Dooley’s new genealogy series was no less heartwarming for having to take place over Zoom". [ 16 ]


Sara Wallis of  The Mirror  gave it a positive review, writing that “it makes for gripping TV”, “emotional, with fascinating DNA facts”, with results delivered by King with “wonderful empathy”. [ 17 ]


Lucy Lethbridge of  The Tablet  praised the show, saying "If I were going to rattle the skeletons in my family's closet on primetime television, there are few people I would rather do it with than Stacey Dooley". [ 18 ]


Paul Whitelaw of  The Courier  called it a "poignant genealogy series" before going on to say "Dooley is a good choice of host, she's likeable and empathetic, but the star of the show is Professor Turi King, who explains the science and gently guides the contributors through the entire process. She radiates kindness". [ 19 ]


Jane Rackham of the  Radio Times  said the series has "an interesting twist that taps into our fascination with our past". [ 20 ]


Faces of America  is a four-part  Public Broadcasting Service  (PBS)  Public television   television series  hosted by Professor  Henry Louis Gates Jr. . [ 1 ]  The series originally aired February 10 to March 3, 2010 from 8–9 p.m. ET. [ 2 ]  In  Australia , this program aired on  SBS One  each Sunday at 7:30pm from 9 -30 January 2011. [ 3 ]


It uses genealogical research and genetics to find the family history of 12 Americans:  Elizabeth Alexander ,  Mario Batali ,  Stephen Colbert ,  Louise Erdrich ,  Malcolm Gladwell ,  Eva Longoria ,  Yo-Yo Ma ,  Mike Nichols ,  Queen Noor of Jordan , Dr.  Mehmet Oz ,  Meryl Streep , and  Kristi Yamaguchi . [ 1 ]


In the series finale, Gates explored the emerging use of  full genome sequencing  to understand personal ancestry and health, by learning what might be inferred from his whole genome sequence, and that of his father, through in-depth analysis by a personal genomics company ( Knome ) and the  Broad Institute .


In 2012, PBS aired  Finding Your Roots , also examining questions of genealogy and genetics, hosted by Gates. [ 4 ]  This program became a ongoing series. As of 2022 it was still in production, and will present new episodes in early 2023.


Dave Walker of  New Orleans Times-Picayune  wrote "Surprising, fascinating, ultimately uniting." [ 6 ]


Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates, Jr.  is a  documentary television series  hosted by  Henry Louis Gates Jr.  that premiered on March 25, 2012, on  PBS . In each episode, celebrities are presented with a "book of life" that is compiled with information researched by  professional genealogists  that allows them to view their ancestral histories, learn about familial connections and discover secrets about their lineage.


All episodes air on Tuesdays. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]  Season 10 began airing on January 2, 2024, and ended on April 9. [ 3 ]


The series uses traditional genealogical research (written records) and  genetics (DNA testing)  to discover the family history of well-known people. Genetic techniques include  Y-chromosome DNA ,  mitochondrial DNA , and  autosomal DNA  analyses to infer both ancient and recent genetic relationships. The show's professionals typically spend hundreds of hours researching each guest. [ 4 ] [ 5 ]


Each celebrity guest is given a 'book of life', which contains all the information discovered about the guest's genealogy by researchers. Included in or within the book are comprehensive genetic results, a family tree that is as complete as paper research allows, copies of historical records used to assemble each tree and photos of newly found family members. In some episodes, particularly ones in which original  DNA profiling  research must be used to establish a past ancestor's parental link, guests are reunited with long lost relatives. However, in most episodes, each guest is predominantly shown seated opposite Gates as he guides them through their book of life. To show correlations between the guests' family stories, each episode cuts back and forth between two or three guest stories. To draw further correlations, Gates uses examples from his own genealogy quite frequently. Examples of this would be a grandmother of his having multiple children with a  white  man whose name she had never revealed, as well as Gates's membership into the  Sons of the American Revolution .


In addition to celebrity guests, everyday people are sometimes featured in an episode to create a third or fourth story line. The non-celebrity guests are usually a group of peers. One example of this would be the episode in which Gates has his friends at his local barbershop take a DNA test to determine their ethnic makeup, with each friend betting on their percentages of  African ,  European , and  Native American  genetic heritage. Another episode uses a similar guessing game with students at a local school. Singular secondary guests include  Robert Downey Sr.  and Margarett Cooper, the latter being a friend of Gates's. [ 6 ]  The finale of Season 10 featured three ordinary people who wanted to solve mysteries. [ 7 ]


The series has seen two past incarnations on PBS, both of which were hosted by Henry Louis Gates Jr. In 2006 and 2008, the series  African American Lives  aired. Both seasons of the series consisted of a season-long storyline as well as an all  African American  cast. In 2010,  Faces of America  aired. Though it continued to use the season-long plot from the prior installment, it was the first installment to be hosted by Gates which included Americans of all ethnic and racial backgrounds. Starting with  Finding Your Roots  in 2012, the series changed from a season-long plot to having plots extending only within a single episode. In doing so, it has allowed the series to extend its number of episodes each season to ten, as opposed to the prior four episodes a season. [ 8 ]


The show's third season was postponed by  WNET  after it was discovered that actor  Ben Affleck  had persuaded Gates to omit information about his slave-owning ancestors. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] [ 11 ]  The series returned on January 5, 2016, [ 12 ]  although "Roots of Freedom", the second-season episode featuring Affleck, was pulled from all forms of distribution by PBS. [ 13 ]


In 2016,  Cal Thomas  of  The Baltimore Sun  wrote that the show was "The most compelling television you will ever see." [ 14 ]  In 2015, it was nominated for an  NAACP Image Award for Outstanding News/Information – Series or Special . [ 15 ]  Lauren Sarner of  New York Post  wrote, " Finding Your Roots  has become a phenomenon." [ 16 ]


Growing Up in the Universe  was a series of  televised   public lectures  given by British  evolutionary biologist   Richard Dawkins  as part of the  Royal Institution Christmas Lectures , in which he discussed the  evolution of life  in the universe. [ 1 ]
The lectures were first broadcast on the  BBC  in 1991, in the form of five one-hour episodes.


The  Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science  was granted the rights to the televised lectures, and a  DVD  version was released by the foundation on 20 April 2007.


Dawkins' book  Climbing Mount Improbable  (1996) was developed from the ideas presented in the lectures, and the title itself was taken from the third lecture in the series.


To start off part one, Dawkins discusses the amazing capabilities of the  human body  and contrasts these with the limited capabilities of computers and other man-made machines. He uses a small  totem pole  (which is used in  ancestor worship ) to illustrate the importance of studying our ancestors to understand how we've evolved. To contrast ease of reproduction with the difficulty of becoming an ancestor, Dawkins uses the example of paper folding to explain  exponential growth . Dawkins then tells the audience that exponential growth does not generally happen in the real world – natural factors come into play which control the population numbers, meaning that only an elite group of organisms will actually become distant ancestors. To be in this elite group, the organism must "have what it takes" to survive and pass on their genes to offspring.


The long chain of successful ancestors means that the probability of our existence is very small, and we are lucky to be alive. By turning down the lights and shining a small spotlight on a large ruler in front of him, Dawkins illustrates the darkness of the distant past and of the unknown future.


After expounding on how lucky we are to be alive, and urging us not to waste the precious time that we have, Dawkins brings up the usefulness of science in aiding our understanding of the universe. He mentions the reply that  Michael Faraday  gave to  Sir Robert Peel  when asked about the use of science. Faraday's response was "What is the use of a baby?" Dawkins explains that Faraday was either referring to the vast potential of a baby, or to the idea that there must be something more to life than growing up, working, getting old, and dying. There must be a point to it all; Perhaps science can uncover the answers to our biggest questions.


To shake off the "anesthetic of familiarity," Dawkins shows the audience a number of strange terrestrial organisms which he humorously nicknames "By-Jovians," playing off a term we might use to refer to living organisms from another planet, for instance Jupiter. He uses a  scanning electron microscope  to look at small organisms including mites, mosquitoes, and a bee being parasitized by a  strepsiptera . Using a model of a  eukaryotic  cell, he discusses the  mitochondria  and presents the audience with a complicated diagram of the  metabolic pathways .


Dawkins suggests that we can also shake off the familiarity by stepping backwards in time. By using a single pace to represent going back 1000 years, he starts at year zero and takes four steps in front of his desk, going back to 4000 BCE. Pointing to a portrait of  Homo habilis , he states that to go back to the time of habilis, he would have to walk about two kilometers. He has audience members hold up portraits of other human ancestors, telling them how far he would have to walk to get back to the time of each one.


By imagining what an advanced alien species would think of humans if they were to arrive on Earth, Dawkins suggests that their science would be similar to ours. They would know about  pi , the  Pythagorean theorem , and the  theory of relativity . However, Dawkins explains that the alien anthropologists would most likely scoff at our local, parochial religious beliefs. He then contrasts evidence-based beliefs with revealed, tradition-based, and authority-based beliefs.


To explain the problem with beliefs in the supernatural, Dawkins conducts a small experiment with the audience to "find the psychic." Using a coin, he assigns half the audience to will it to land on heads, and assigns the other half to will it to land on tails. After each flip, the section of the audience that was wrong is eliminated from the experiment, and he repeats the experiment using the remainder. After eight coin flips, only one boy in the audience remains. Dawkins then asks the question "Is he psychic?" Obviously, because of how the experiment was set up, one person was bound to have been correct about the result of each coin flip. Dawkins argues that this is exactly how seemingly supernatural events occur in the real world, especially when the "audience" is the entire population of the planet.


To conclude the lecture, Dawkins claims that there is nothing wrong with having faith in a proper scientific prediction. To illustrate this, he takes a cannonball which has been suspended from the ceiling with a rope, pulls it aside and touches it to his forehead. He announces that he is going to release the cannonball, letting it swing away from him, and that when it comes back to him, he is going to ignore his natural instinct to run because he has faith in his scientific prediction of what will happen – the cannonball should stop about an inch short of his forehead. He releases the cannonball, and his prediction is proved correct.


Dawkins' second lecture of the series examines the problem of design. He presents the audience with a number of simple objects, such as  rocks  and  crystals , and notes that these objects have been formed by simple laws of physics and are therefore not designed. He then examines some designed objects – including a  microscope , an electronic  calculator , a  pocket watch , and a clay pot – and notes that none of these objects could have possibly come about by sheer luck. Dawkins then discusses what he calls "designoid objects", which are complex objects that are neither simple, nor designed. Not only are they complex on the outside, they are also complex on the inside – perhaps billions of times more complex than a designed object such as a microscope.


Dawkins then shows the audience a number of designed and designoid objects, including the  pitcher plant , megalithic mounds built by the compass termite, and pots made by  trapdoor spiders ,  potter wasps , and  mason bees . He examines some designoid objects that use  camouflage , such as a  grasshopper  that looks like a stone, a  sea horse  that looks like sea weed, a  leaf insect , a green snake, a  stick insect , and a collection of  butterflies  that look like dead leaves when their wings are closed. Dawkins notes that many animals share similar types of camouflage or protection because of a process called  convergent evolution . Examples of such designoid objects include the  hedgehog  and the  spiny anteater  (both of which evolved pointed spines along their back) and the  marsupial wolf  (which looks like a dog but is actually a marsupial). He illustrates the reason why convergent evolution occurs by using two small models of commercial aircraft. The reason they look similar isn't due to industrial espionage, it is due to the fact that they are both built to fly, so they must make use of similar design principles.


Using a camera and a model eye, Dawkins then compares the designed camera with the designoid eye. Both are involved in similar processes – using a lens to direct light onto a film or a retina. Both the camera and the eye also have an iris, which is used to control the amount of light which is allowed in. Using a volunteer from the audience, Dawkins demonstrates the contraction of the human iris by shining a light into her right eye.


The lecture then moves into an explanation of  natural selection , which brings forth designoid objects. To explain natural selection, Dawkins first explains  artificial selection  by discussing the evolution of  wild cabbage  into  broccoli ,  cauliflower ,  cabbage ,  red cabbage ,  kohlrabi , and  Brussels sprouts . He continues the discussion of artificial selection by explaining the evolution of the ancestral wolf into the many varieties of modern dog. Starting with the ancestral wolf, Dawkins imagines that everyone on one side of the room is breeding for small wolves, while everyone on the other side is breeding for big wolves. By selectively breeding the smallest or largest of each litter for a number of years, you may eventually end up with something like the  Chihuahua  on one side of the room, and something like a  Great Dane  on the other side of the room.


Dawkins then introduces an Arthromorphs computer program (similar to the Biomorphs program [ 2 ] ), explaining how it works while a volunteer uses the computer to selectively breed more and more generations.


At this point, Dawkins switches from explaining artificial selection to explaining natural selection. To demonstrate natural selection in a computer program, Dawkins uses a program written by Peter Fuchs to simulate the evolution of the  spiderweb . The program builds "genetic" variations of a parent web, as if the web was actually being built by a child spider. For each generation, a simulation is run which randomly generates flies – some of which will hit the web, and others that will miss it. The child web that is able to capture the highest number of flies is selected as the parent for the next generation of webs. Dawkins shows the audience the "fossil record" that the program recorded after simulating a large number of generations overnight. The web starts off very simple and inefficient, but by the end it has evolved into a web that is highly efficient and highly complex. This is the same process that has led to the existence of all designoid objects.


Dawkins now discusses the most popular alternative to natural selection, which is known as  creationism . He explains that creationists mistakenly believe designoid objects to be designed objects created by a divine being. Quoting from  William Paley 's  Natural Theology , Dawkins discusses the  argument from design  using the example of the watch and the watchmaker. Even though designoid objects appear to be designed,  Darwin  proved that this is not the case. Although Darwin's theory was discovered well after Paley developed his watchmaker argument, Dawkins explains that the argument of a divine watchmaker was still a bad argument, even in Paley's day. Paraphrasing  David Hume , Dawkins explains that anything capable of creating humans must itself be highly complicated. Thus, the argument from design actually explains nothing – "shooting itself in the foot." While it is true that designoid objects cannot come about by chance, evolution provides a non-random method of creation – namely, natural selection.


After developing the argument against a divine creator, Dawkins examines a number of designoid objects that contain imperfections, which is something you would not expect to find in an object that is supposedly created by a divine being. Showing the audience a  halibut  flatfish, he explains how they evolved from an upright swimming ancestor with one eye on each side of the head into a bottom-hugging flatfish with a distorted set of eyes on one side of the body. Dawkins claims that this is poorly designed, as any proper engineer would design an organism more like a  skate , which flattened out on its belly instead of on its side. This is an example of something you would expect from an evolved/designoid object, but not something you would expect from a created/designed object.


Using labeled building blocks, Dawkins shows the audience how designed objects came to be. He starts off by placing the simple block on the bottom, and explaining that you don't have to start with a complex being, but can start with a very simple foundation. If you have a simple foundation, you can place the next block on top – the designoid block. From this block, you can get complex organisms. Only after complex designoid objects come to be can you get the final building block of design (microscopes, clay pots, etc.).


Dawkins starts the lecture coming in with a  stick insect  on his hand. He describes with how many details such a being imitates its environment, its almost like a  key  that fits a  lock . He then shows another insect, namely a  Leaf Insect , which basically looks exactly like a dead leaf. He gives some more examples for this amazing imitation of the surrounding, e.g. a  Potoo , which looks like a branch of tree and a  thorn bug , which gains protection by looking like a  rose   thorn .


He, once again, makes the point that you can compare these beings with a key, which they represent themselves, whereas nature is the lock. Professor Richard Dawkins then explains that a key has to fit a lock exactly, and demonstrates this with a model of a lock. He mentions that a key is something very improbable. However it is hard to measure the probability of such a key, therefore Dawkins takes a  bicycle lock  for illustration, where you can calculate how likely it is to open the lock, because there is a fixed number of dials with a fixed number of positions. In Dawkin's case we have 3 dials, with 6 positions each, so the probability that you open the lock by sheer luck is one in 216.


Dawkins then shows the mechanism of the lock with a big model: Each dial has to be in the correct position in order to open up the lock. The model is then adapted to demonstrate a staged or gradualist solution to finding the right combination to open the lock. The probability of unlocking the combination in three separate phases falls to one in eighteen.


In this illustration, Dawkins identifies the role of sub-stages in Darwinian evolution. It is to increase the efficiency of mutation without affecting the probability of evolutionary success. The single stage requires 216, while the series of sub-stages requires only 18 non-random mutations at 100% probability of evolutionary success. That is an efficiency factor of 12 for mutations due to sub-staging without any change in probability. Similar efficiencies are achieved with random mutation without any change in probability.


After addressing the claim by  Fred Hoyle  that probability alone could not produce the complexity of a typed text by Shakespeare, Dawkins introduces the notion of inherited improvements over a number of generations. Nature proceeds through small evolutionary steps, rather than large leaps. This idea is illustrated by a model of the ascent of Mount Improbable, which provides the title for this lecture.


Dawkins then illustrates the difference between the reproduction of inanimate phenomena, such as fires spread through sparks, with the inter-generational transmission of DNA in living structures. The gradual evolutionary adaption of these organisms is demonstrated through the examples of the eye, varieties of wings and protective camouflage.


The example of the gradual emergence of the eye is first shown: starting with a simple light sensitive flat surface and demonstrating the evolutionary benefits of a cone shaped proto-eye for detecting shadows and shapes. Dawkins then relates this model to the simple pinhole eye structure of a  nautilus   mollusc .


The benefit of wing structures is illustrated by way of body flattening behaviour in tree snakes, the web like skin of flying squirrels and similar adaptions to be found on flying lizards.


Dawkins begins by relating the story of asking a little girl "what she thought flowers were 'for'." Her response is anthropocentric, that flowers are there for our benefit. Dawkins points out that many people throughout history have thought that the natural world existed for our benefit, with examples from Genesis and other literature. Author  Douglas Adams , who is sitting in the audience, is called to read a relevant passage from his novel  The Restaurant at the End of the Universe .


Dawkins then asks his audience to put off the idea that the natural world exists for our benefit. He considers the question of flowers seen through the eyes of bees and other pollinators, and performs a series of demonstrations which use ultraviolet light to excite fluorescence in various substances.


Dawkins opens by talking how organisms "grow up" to understand the universe around them, which requires certain apparatus, such as a  brain . But before brains can become large enough to model the universe they must develop from intermediate forms. Dawkins then discusses the  digger wasp  and the set of experiments conducted by  Nikolaas Tinbergen  of how the digger wasp models the local geography around its nest. He then talks about the limitations of the digger wasps' brain and concludes that only the human brain is sufficiently developed to model large-scale phenomena about the world. He then shows an  MRI  scan of a human brain (later revealed to be his own brain) and describes how an image develops from the eye onto the  visual cortex .


Dawkins discusses how the image on the  retina  is upside-down and in two dimensions but the overlapping images from each of the eyes are  composited  to form a three-dimensional model in the brain. He shows this by asking the audience to focus on him while holding their hand at eye level which causes them to see two images of their hand; one from each eye. He then describes how using his finger to wriggle his  eyeball  that the outside world appears to move because he is moving the image on his retina. However this does not happen when he voluntary rolls his eyes from side to side. This is due to the brain using the internal model to compensate for the relative change in position of images on the retina. Dawkins gets someone to wear a  virtual reality  headset and move around in a 3-D computer generated world and draws an analogy between the model of the universe developed in one's head with the virtual reality universe developed in the  computer .


He then goes on the show that the brain uses models to describe the universe by looking at how the brain interprets various optical illusions, such as the  hollow-face illusion  using a rotating hollow mask of  Charlie Chaplin , the "impossible" geometry of a  Penrose triangle , the shifting interpretations of the  Necker cube  and the ability of humans to find  faces in random shapes .


Dawkins then begins to discuss the evolution of the human brain. He shows an animation of the increasing skull size from  Australopithecus  to  Homo habilis  to  Homo erectus  and then finally to modern day  humans .


The ability of a brain to run complex simulations is a powerful evolutionary advantage. Dawkins talks about how this ability to model future events by showing a painting suggesting a hypothetical situation in which a female  Homo erectus  uses a mental model of a tree fallen across a gorge as a possible solution to crossing the gorge. The group then burns a tree so that it would create a bridge over the gap. He goes on to describe how the complex modelling ability of the brain may have developed due to this imaginative simulation of various possible scenarios or by the development of  language , which would allow ideas to be passed from generation to generation, or by technology, which is an extension of human hands and eyes; or, indeed, if it is a combination of all three.


Dawkins concludes that purpose has arisen in the  Universe  due to human brains. The simulations developed in our brain allow us to develop intent and purpose; and over time our collective understanding of the Universe will improve as we continue to study and exchange ideas.


Life makes the wonders of technology seem commonplace. So where does life come from? What is it? Why are we here? What are we for? What is the meaning of life? There's a conventional wisdom which says that science has nothing to say about such questions. Well, all I can say is that if science has nothing to say, it's certain that no other discipline can say anything at all. But in fact, science has a great deal to say about such questions. And that's what these five lectures are going to be about. Life "grows up" in the universe by gradual degrees – evolution – and we grow up in our understanding of our origins and our meaning.


The present century is a tiny spotlight, inching its way along a gigantic ruler of time. Everything before the spotlight is the darkness of the dead past. Everything after the spotlight is in the darkness of the unknown future. We live in the spotlight. Of all the 200,000,000 centuries along the ruler of time, 199,999,999 centuries are in darkness. Only one is lit up, and that is the one in which we happen – by sheer luck – to be alive. The odds against our century happening to be the present century are the same as the odds against a penny tossed out at random on the road from London to Istanbul happening to fall on a particular ant.


We do of course, have an ordinary life to get on with. We do have a living to earn. We've got to earn our living being a solicitor or a lavatory cleaner or something like that. But nevertheless, it is worthwhile also from time to time shaking off the anaesthetic of familiarity and awakening to the wonder that is really all around us all the time.


Natural selection – nature – is constantly choosing which individual shall live, [and] which individual shall breed. And the result, after many generations of natural selection, is much the same as the result after many generations of artificial selection.


In any case, all creation, all design, all machines and houses and paintings and computers and airplanes, everything designed and made by us, everything made by other creatures, is only made possible because there are already brains put together as designoid objects – and designoid objects come about only through gradual evolution. Creation, when it does occur in the universe, is an afterthought. When creation appeared on this planet it came locally, and it came late. Creation does not belong in any account of the fundamentals of the universe. Creation is something that, rather late in the day, grows up in the universe.


Human Ape [ 1 ]  is a 2008  National Geographic   documentary film  on the genetic and evolutionary origins of  human behavior , and covers the genetic and behavioural similarities and differences between humans and other  great apes .  Pioneer Productions  of London was commissioned by National Geographic Channels International to produce  Human Ape .  Human Ape  was executive produced by Stuart Carter and directed by Martin Gorst. distributed by National Geographic Channel and  Granada International .


The show was aired on both the US and internationally on National Geographic Channel beginning in March 2008.


Human Ape  includes brief footage of  human  and  ape  activities in  controlled experiments , as well as state-of-the-art computer-generated imagery ( CGI ) to examine the relationship between humankind and their  simian  cousins, who share 99% of their genetic material. It also tracks the progress of a human and a non-human ape from the  womb  to early development and beyond, analysing how both develop  cognitive abilities , communicate through emotions and language, use  violence  and  sex , and utilise  tools  to manipulate their environment.


Bonobos  and  orangutans  living at  Great Ape Trust  of  Iowa  are prominently featured in the documentary film. Bonobos  Kanzi  and  Panbanisha  and orangutans Knobi and  Azy  are extensively shown in the film, with detailed inputs from the Great Ape Trust scientists, Dr. Rob Shumaker, director of orangutan research, and  William Fields , director of bonobo research.


The Pioneer Productions crew filmed at Great Ape Trust in April 2007, where footage included mirror  self-recognition  exercises. It also includes experiments like the apes  counting  and identifying the numbers from 1 to 10 with accuracy. Whereas the human child is shown to be imitating the steps taken by one researcher to open a box and get a reward, the apes quickly eliminate the redundant steps. Such experiments are  counter-intuitive  and offer insight into the inner wiring and workings of human and simian brains.


The film also briefly touches upon the relationship between the modified  FOXP2  gene and the human language development. It documents a  British family  with a mutated FOXP2 gene which severely affects speech of its members. [ citation needed ]


Human Nature  is a 2019  documentary film  directed by Adam Bolt and written by Adam Bolt and Regina Sobel. Producers of the film include Greg Boustead, Elliot Kirschner and  Dan Rather . [ 1 ]


The film describes the  gene editing process  of  CRISPR  (an acronym for "Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats"), [ 4 ]  and premiered in  Austin, Texas  at the  South by Southwest  film conference and festival on March 10, 2019. [ 5 ] [ 4 ]


Human Nature  is a film documentary which presents an in-depth description of the gene editing process of  CRISPR , and its possible implications. The film includes the perspective of the scientists who invented the process, and of the  genetic engineers  who are applying the process. The CRISPR process, a 2013 breakthrough in biology, provides a way of controlling the basic  genetic processes of life .


In addition, the film documentary considers several relevant questions including, How will this new gene-editing ability change  our relationship with nature ? and, What will this new gene-editing ability mean for  human evolution ? The film, in beginning to answer such questions, presents a review of the distant past and takes an educated look into the future.


The film features the story of David Sanchez, a young man with  sickle cell disease . [ 6 ]  He is first featured in the hospital, sharing his experience as he gets a red blood cell transfusion. This treatment is currently one of the only available for people with sickle cell to help manage severe pain crises. Geneticists  Tshaka Cunningham , Ph.D. and Matt Porteus, M.D. discuss the prospect of using CRISPR to treat sickle cell disease at its genetic source. Porteus is set to start a clinical trial at Stanford University using CRISPR to treat sickle cell disease. [ 7 ]  At the end of the film, Sanchez speaks specifically about the role that sickle cell has had in shaping who he is today, stating “I don’t think I’d be me.”


The documentary film includes the following notable participants (alphabetized by last name):


According to film reviewer Devindra Hardawar, writing in  Engadget , the film is "a fascinating primer about what led to the discovery of the [CRISPR] tool, and an exploration of the role it may have in our society. It's hopeful about CRISPR's ability to help us fix diseases that have plagued humans for millennia, while also questioning if we're ready to make genetic changes that'll affect us for generations to come." [ 1 ]  Reviewer Danielle Solzman writes, "There’s a lot of science involved here.  I can't stop but grow cautious when it comes to the  Jurassic Park  [film] comparisons.  At the same time, I also want scientists to push for finding cures to  cancer ,  MS ,  sickle cell anemia , etc.  Maybe gene editing is one possible solution as  Human Nature  shows." [ 8 ]  Film reviewer Sam Machkovech of  Ars Technica  asks, "[Does this film describe] the future of health? The future of a ... nightmare? By anchoring both of those extremes with a funny, human touch,  Human Nature  made me feel comfortable with a landing point somewhere closer to the middle." [ 4 ]  Reviewer Sean Boelman notes, "Overall,  Human Nature  [is] an interesting and effective documentary. If you are a fan of science-oriented films, this is not one you will want to miss." [ 9 ]


In My Genes  is a Kenyan 2009  documentary film  directed, written, produced and edited by  Lupita Nyong'o  in her directing debut.


How does one live as a pale person in a dominantly black society? What does one feel being one of the most visible persons and, probably, one of the most ignored? Agnes, an  albino  woman in Kenya, feels it daily. Ever since she was born, she has had to deal with the prejudices that surround albinos.  In My Genes  bears witness to the lives of eight people who suffer discrimination due to a simple genetic anomaly.


This article related to a Kenyan film is a  stub . You can help Wikipedia by  expanding it .


This 2000s documentary film-related article is a  stub . You can help Wikipedia by  expanding it .


The Investigators  is an  Irish  scientific television series broadcast on  RTÉ One . The series examines some of the most interesting projects being worked on by leading Irish scientists across the globe and assesses what potential impact they may have in the future. The selection of projects is diverse, ranging from the identification of a protein which may help to arrest and even reverse the onset of  Alzheimer's disease  to the design of a camera which can capture an extraterrestrial event that happened billions of years ago. Each programme focuses on a specific area of life such as  Ireland in Space , Ageing,  Sensors ,  Climate Change , Crops of the Future and the  Nano  Revolution. [ 1 ]  The series airs each Thursday at 23:05.


Series one was broadcast on RTÉ in seven parts from 8 November 2007. [ 2 ]


Series two began broadcasting on 6 November 2008. It featured researchers from  UCD  in five of its episodes. [ 10 ]


Make People Better  is a 2022  documentary film  about the use of  genetic engineering  (called  CRISPR gene editing ) to enhance two twins girls to be immune to HIV. Directed by Cody Sheehy of Rhumbline Media, it was originated by  Samira Kiani , a biotechnologist then at  Arizona State University . [ 1 ]  It focuses on the circumstances involving Chinese biologist  He Jiankui  who created the first  genetically modified humans  in 2018. Featured experts included Antonio Regalado, senior editor for biomedicine of  MIT Technology Review , who first discovered and revealed the secret experiment, [ 2 ]  and Benjamin Hurlbut, a bioethicist at the Arizona State University. [ 3 ]


The film was released on 13 December 2022 by Gravitas Films and Internationally by Cats & Docs. It premiered at  Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival , [ 4 ]  and simultaneously launched on  iTunes Store  and  Amazon Prime Video . The title was taken from  James Watson 's reply as He asked him, "Do you think that that's [genetically modifying babies is] a good thing to do?" [ 5 ]


The Make People Better Podcast released in March of 2023.  https://makepeoplebetterfilm.com/podcast/


CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) gene editing is a scientific method by which DNA molecules are cut using an enzyme, CRISPR associated protein 9 ( Cas9 ) so that specific genes can be removed or replaced. The technique, independently developed by  Emmanuelle Charpentier  and  Jennifer Doudna , had been used to make genetically modified organisms and better genes in genetic diseases. [ 6 ] [ 7 ]  Samira Kiani was a researcher on CRISPR gene editing at  Arizona State University  and teamed up with Cody Sheehy of the Rhumbline Media to make a documentary film on the revolutionary technique. They started a project called  Code of the Wild: The Nature of Us  in 2018 . [ 8 ] [ 9 ]


They first approached expert in the field,  George Church  at Harvard University, who was popularly known as the "Founding Father of  Genomics ", [ 10 ] [ 11 ]  and Antonio Regalado, senior editor for biomedicine of  MIT Technology Review , who had been well-versed in the development of the technique. Regalado hinted them that CRISPR gene-edited babies would be born in China "very soon". They further learned from Kiani's former acquaintance Ryan Farrell who was working as a public relations specialist to He Jiankui, associate professor in the Department of Biology of the  Southern University of Science and Technology (SUSTech) in  Shenzhen , China, that He was running a human  germline-editing  experiment. They visited He for an interview but received no information on the forthcoming genetically modified babies. [ 12 ] [ 13 ]


On 25 November 2018, Regalado posted on  MIT Technology Review  website that He Jiankui was making CRIPSR babies. [ 14 ] [ 2 ]  As it was publicised, He was prompted to announce his experiment and posted the news of the birth of twins, nicknamed Lulu and Nana, on  YouTube  in five videos the same day. [ 15 ] [ 16 ]  He formally presented the experiment at the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing organized at the  University of Hong Kong  on 28 November 2018. He explained that the experiment was to make the babies resistant to  HIV  infection as they were (as embryos) obtained from an HIV-positive father. [ 17 ]  He specifically used a mutant gene named  CCR5-Δ32  that is known to confer  innate resistance to HIV . [ 18 ] [ 19 ]  The twins were born in secrecy in October 2018, [ 20 ]  and a third baby (revealed in 2022 as Amy [ 21 ] ) was then almost born, as He reported. [ 22 ]


Although the  People's Daily  announced the experimental result as "a historical breakthrough in the application of gene editing technology for disease prevention," [ 23 ]  the news was met with criticisms from scientists. The  Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences  publicly condemned the experiment as violation of medical regulations and ethical norms. [ 24 ]  A group of 122 Chinese scientists jointly issued a statement that the experiment was unethical, "crazy" and "a huge blow to the global reputation and development of Chinese science". [ 23 ]  He's university, local authorities, and the Chinese government made a series of investigations, and He was found guilty of violating academic ethics and national laws on the use of human embryos. [ 25 ]  On 21 January 2019, He was fired by SUSTech and all connections were terminated. [ 26 ]  On 30 December 2019, the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court sentenced He to three years in prison and with a fine of 3 million  RMB  (US$430,000). [ 27 ] [ 28 ]


The film was based on the involvement of the following people: [ 1 ] [ 29 ]


Courtney Small on  Point of View Magazine  gives a positive review, remarking: "A necessary conversation starter,  Make People Better  is an intriguing examination of a scientist who was hung out to dry by a community who helped elevate him in the first place." [ 4 ]  Liz Whittemore on  Reel News Daily  agrees, commenting that it "does an excellent job of putting scientific advances into perspective." [ 30 ]  Chris Jones on  The Atlanta Mail  commented it as "an excellent film for anyone interested in" the understanding of scientific development. [ 31 ]


However, the film received mostly critical reviews. Beandrea July on  The New York Times  criticised the film, saying that "a glut of animations and B-roll footage makes the film's visuals feel convoluted, and a flat narrative structure further muddies the waters." She also wrote that the way Sheehy presented the story was clumsy and "deflating the films dramatic tension with so little fanfare that the information’s premature landing barely registers." [ 3 ]  She also criticised the film for omitting the news that He was released (in April 2022 [ 32 ] ) while the film was being made. [ 3 ]  Christopher Cross on  Tilt  said that the documentary is a narrow-sighted view as the case is not just for scientists, and argues that Sheehy "ignores some of the most glaring facets of a hugely impactful breakthrough. As a thriller,  Make People Better  is solid, but as a documentary, it's better enjoyed as a Wikipedia article." [ 33 ]


G. Owen Schaefer, a biomedical ethicist at the  National University of Singapore  said, "The documentary does not reflect critically on its own title. The origin of the phrase "make people better" is surprising and the film's most clever narrative moment, so I won't spoil it. But does heritable gene editing really make people better? Perhaps instead, it makes better people." [ 29 ]


Meet the Izzards  is a 2014 two-part  BBC One  documentary in which actor and comedian  Eddie Izzard  uses genetics to trace Izzard's distant ancestry.


The first part, titled "The Mum's Line", uses Izzard's  mitochondrial DNA  to trace the maternal line. Izzard thus travels to the  Kalahari Desert  in Africa, then on to the Middle East, Turkey, Italy, Denmark and finally, England. [ 1 ]  Prior to traveling to Denmark, Izzard's mitochondrial haplogroup is identified as  T 2f1a1. [ 2 ]


In the second part, titled "The Dad's Line", Izzard's  Y-chromosomal DNA  lineage is traced. In this episode, Izzard travels to  Cameroon , and again returns to England via Saxony, Germany. [ 3 ]  This episode reveals that Izzard belongs to the Y haplogroup  I-M223 . [ 4 ]


This article relating to a television programme from the UK is a  stub . You can help Wikipedia by  expanding it .


Playing God  was a 2012 BBC documentary in the  Horizon  series, hosted by  Adam Rutherford . The documentary discusses  synthetic biology , the potential of science "breaking down nature into spare parts" and then rebuilding it back up as we wish. [ 1 ]


Adam Rutherford has been studying the emerging field of synthetic biology for the past 10 years and believes that this sort of genetic tinkering is the most effective way to pass along traits between different organisms, given that this result cannot be easily obtained through typical mating of certain species. In  Playing God , he discusses the creation of the spider-goat by American researchers. It is a part goat, part spider hybrid, whose genetic code has been altered to be able to produce the same proteins found in spider silk. The milk produced by these goats can be used to create an artificial spider's web. [ 2 ]  Typically this silk is produced in small quantities by spiders but with the genetic modification of the goats, it may be mass produced. The goats are easier to handle in large groups than spiders and thus this could potentially increase the efficiency of silk production and consumer cost. [ 2 ]


This technology is also being used to make bio-diesel to power cars. Biotech company, Amyris, in Emeryville, California, has applied synthetic biology to yeast. Instead of producing alcohol through the fermentation of sugar, this yeast produces diesel. [ 2 ]  The amount of diesel that is produced by this method is substantially greater than that of the conventional method and can exponentially increase the rate of production. This diesel has already been implemented in actual cars, in Brazil. [ 2 ]


Other researchers are looking at how we might, one day, control human emotions by sending 'biological machines' into our brains. [ 1 ]  MIT professor Ed Boyden leads a group in synthetic neuroscience. This team utilizes the genetic code for molecules that convert light into electrical energy and inserts it in a virus or cassette that may be installed into various organisms. Because the brain works on electrical impulses, this technology may be applied to neural circuits, in order to treat various neurological disorders. [ 1 ]  With this technology, the direct control of various light sensitive and electrical functions in the brain would be enabled.


MIT professor, Ron Weiss, has worked extensively in this field and has been leading a team in incorporating the concepts of computer programming and engineering to biology. [ 2 ]  "I decided to take what we understand in computing and apply that to programming biology. To me, that's really the essence of synthetic biology." [ 2 ]  Weiss' team published a study that discusses how they combined computer circuit elements with BioBricks parts. The way this works is that the computer circuit is able to distinguish between a healthy and mutated cell by utilizing a set of five criteria. Any cells that satisfy these conditions are deleted, similar to the way code could eliminate certain functions in computer programming. The ability to target individual cells could make this an alternative to treatments that may have harmful effects on healthy cells, such as chemotherapy. [ 2 ]


The area of synthetic biology is extensively discussed in  Playing God . This is considered to be a relatively new field that incorporates elements of engineering into biology. [ 3 ]  It involves the blending and manipulation of natural molecules and unnatural molecules to obtain a specific outcome. [ 4 ]  Through this mean, scientists may use biology as a base for the development of synthetic life and genetic coding. [ 3 ]  This area of study has been noted with the potential to increase the efficiency of the production of certain biomolecules and naturally occurring materials, such as enzymes. [ 3 ]


Playing God  and presenter, Adam Rutherford, have been subject to criticism following the release of this documentary. As plainly stated by  Andrew Marszal  of  The Telegraph , "Rutherford overcooked it, particularly in his opening gambit – the revelation that scientists have developed a new hybrid breed of 'spider-goats'... we were left a little disappointed as Freckles, Pudding and Sweetie chomped and grazed around the farm looking for all the world like, well, goats." [ 5 ]  The portrayal of the applications of synthetic biology in this documentary appeared to be exaggerated and their importance not adequately stressed. The Alliance for Natural Health International (ANHI) wrote a reaction piece in which it expressed concern about the overwhelmingly positive tone the documentary as a whole had towards the development of this technology. "The programme was almost wholly positive about the new technology, even though it has many serious potential consequences for humans and the planet... Dr Rutherford reacts like a kid in a sweetshop at each new technological marvel.  Not once does he question whether creating spider-goats is necessary, or whether the 'trickle-down' of genetic engineering into the community is a step too far." [ 6 ]


Unnatural Selection  (or stylized as,  " un natural selection" ) is a 2019 American documentary television series. It presents an overview of  genetic engineering , particularly the  DNA-editing technology  of  CRISPR , from the perspective of scientists, corporations and  biohackers  working from their home. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]  The series was released on  Netflix  on October 18, 2019.


The first season consists of 4 episodes. It became available for streaming on October 18, 2019.


The documentary TV series includes the following notable participants (alphabetized by last name):


According to reviewer Megan Molteni, writing for  Wired  Magazine , " Unnatural Selection  chronicles the ambitions and struggles of scientists, doctors, patients, conservationists, and  biohackers  as they seek to wrest control of  evolution  from nature itself. They are all navigating the profound ethical dilemmas of a world where it’s possible to rewrite the  code of life  inside any  organism , including  human  ... If you were looking for a  Schoolhouse Rock!  explanation of how  Crispr  works or a deep dive on the history of its discovery,  Unnatural Selection  won’t deliver ... All the requisite references will be made [in the series]—to  Gattaca , to  Huxley , to “life, uh, finds a way.” ... After watching  Unnatural Selection  you might not have a better understanding of how  Crispr-Cas9  differs from  Crispr-Cas12e, a, or b , but you’ll definitely have something to talk about on the subway." [ 1 ]


According to reviewer Dream McClinton, writing for  The Guardian , "For the [film-makers], the series had to tell the broader, more intricate story of  genetic engineering , a story filled with great risk, benefits, consequences, emotions, sentiments and future, to better illuminate the field and further the discussion on the technology ... The series is haunted by feelings of ambivalence from the scientists who are cautious about tipping the scales towards a possible dystopian future ..  Unnatural Selection  demonstrates the worry of many, and the hope of others, threaded into a huge tapestry of possibility of a more perfect future ... While [one of the film-makers] doubts the series will change the minds of the public about genetic engineering, [he] hopes it will educate some about both the benefits and risks of genetic engineering." [ 2 ]


There are other reviews of the series, including reviews from the  TheReviewGeek [ 3 ]  and  ReadySteadyCut . [ 4 ]


What Darwin Didn't Know  is a documentary show on  BBC Four  presented by  Armand Marie Leroi  which charts the progress in the field of  evolutionary theory  since the original publication of  Charles Darwin 's  On the Origin of Species  in 1859.


The theory of evolution by natural selection is now orthodoxy, but when it was unveiled it caused a storm of controversy, from fellow scientists as well as religious people. They criticised it for being short on evidence and long on assertion and Darwin, being the honest scientist that he was, agreed with them. He knew that his theory was riddled with "difficulties", but he entrusted future generations to complete his work and prove the essential truth of his vision, which is what scientists have been doing for the past 150 years.


The evolutionary biologist Professor  Armand Marie Leroi  charts the scientific endeavour that brought about the triumphant renaissance of Darwin's theory. He argues that, with the new science of  evolutionary developmental biology  (evo devo), it may be possible to take that theory to a new level – to do more than explain what has evolved in the past, and start to predict what might evolve in the future. [ 1 ]


What Darwin Didn't Know  at  BBC Online


Why Men Don't Iron  is British three-part documentary series shown on  Channel 4  in June 1998, about  sex differences in cognition , caused by differences in male-female  neurochemistry , and elementary  reward systems  in the human brain.


The series was produced by Jim Meyer and Anne Moir, and originated by Bill Moir. The titles were made by  Triffic Films . It was made by Quality Time Television. The series was first broadcast on 23 June 1998. [ 1 ] [ 2 ]


A book on the series was published in 1999 by Anne Moir,  ISBN   0007468911 .


Learning the Difference


Amanda Smith, and her husband, tried to overcome biological sex differences with her children, but it never took hold; boys chose mechanical toys, girls chose painting; girls, from an early age, were more conscientious when learning; neurobiologist  Roger Gorski  conducted sex difference  developmental biology  experiments with rodents; the  congenital adrenal hyperplasia  (CAH) condition; a teenage girl has a concentration span of fifteen minutes, a teenage boy has five minutes; a comprehensive secondary school in north  Essex , where teenagers are given a  psychological test  by psychologist  Ernie Govier  of the  University of East London ; doctor Bennett Shaywitz and his wife  Sally Shaywitz ; psychologist Michael O'Boyle of  Iowa State University ; psychologist  Gina Grimshaw  and pre-natal  testosterone  differences; at school, eight times as many boys than girls are expelled; four times as many girls than boys study foreign languages at A-level; former headteacher Alan Davison believed that boys learned differently; teacher Sue Moss; English teacher Jenny Fincken.


The Brain at Work


The two sexes tend to choose much different jobs; the British engineering industry had a fifteen-year campaign to recruit women, with limited, if any, success; engineer Carolina Bartram; her parents nor her teachers scarcely approved of her wanting to become an engineer; nine out of ten nurses are women; Canadian  Helen Fisher (anthropologist)  believed that women had better people skills; the  dichotic listening  test; two out of three dentists were men, but nearly all dental nurses are women; 99% of all electricians are men; the UK Giant Vegetable Championships in  Spalding, Lincolnshire ; only one woman takes part; the  Westminster Warriors  compete in men's basketball against the  Solent Stars ; all of the world's top chess players, except one, were men;  Fulham F.C.  loses to  Grimsby Town F.C.  2–0; stock trader Peter Matthews, who raced cars; some men became neurologically addicted to seeking danger,  sensation seeking ; psychologist Prof  Marvin Zuckerman  and the  neurotransmitters   dopamine , linked to direct pleasure seeking, and  serotonin , which inhibited recklessness and impulsiveness; men had lower levels of enzyme  MAO  than women, which biochemically inhibited risk-taking, by regulating the amounts of dopamine and serotonin.


A  geneticist  is a  biologist  or  physician  who studies  genetics , the science of  genes ,  heredity , and  variation  of  organisms . [ 1 ]  A geneticist can be employed as a  scientist  or a  lecturer . Geneticists may perform general research on genetic processes or develop genetic technologies to aid in the pharmaceutical or and agriculture industries. [ 1 ]  Some geneticists perform experiments in model organisms such as  Drosophila ,  C. elegans ,  zebrafish ,  rodents  or  humans  and analyze data to interpret the  inheritance  of biological traits. A basic science geneticist is a  scientist  who usually has earned a  PhD  in  genetics  and undertakes research and/or lectures in the field. A  medical geneticist  is a  physician  who has been trained in  medical genetics  as a  specialization  and evaluates, diagnoses, and manages patients with  hereditary conditions  or  congenital malformations ; and provides  genetic risk calculations  and  mutation analysis .


Geneticists participate in courses from many areas, such as  biology ,  chemistry ,  physics ,  microbiology ,  cell biology ,  bioinformatics , and  mathematics . They also participate in more specific genetics courses such as  molecular genetics , transmission genetics,  population genetics ,  quantitative genetics ,  ecological genetics ,  epigenetics , and  genomics .


Geneticists can work in many different fields, doing a variety of jobs. There are many careers for geneticists in  medicine ,  agriculture ,  wildlife , general sciences, or many other fields.


Listed below are a few examples of careers a geneticist may pursue.


Nadav Ahituv  is the Director for the Institute for  Human Genetics  at the  University of California, San Francisco (USCF) . [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]  He is also a Professor in the Department of  Bioengineering  and Therapeutic Sciences and leads the  Ahituv Lab  at  University of California, San Francisco (USCF) . [ 1 ] [ 4 ]


Ahituv received his  PhD  with distinction in  human genetics  from  Tel-Aviv University , where he worked on  hereditary hearing loss . [ 1 ] [ 3 ] [ 2 ]