Patterns over Dogma
Reimagining Genetics Education for Real-World Application
Throughout my career, I’ve watched many fundamental paradigms of biology fail to stand up to newer methods. Some of my fellow biologists integrate new knowledge and continue to work at the bleeding edge, while others get stuck and find themselves working on a narrower and narrower set of application areas. Why do some get stuck, while others are able to quickly adapt to new knowledge?
I’ve noticed a single distinction between those who stay at the bleeding edge and those who get stuck: adherence to dogma. In short, those with strongly held beliefs about canonical pathways get stuck in this rigid framework. As more and more new discoveries fall outside that framework, they eventually reach a tipping point where their framework can no longer contain the body of knowledge.
Those who are able to thrive at the bleeding edge and continue pushing the envelope of knowledge use a different framework. Rather than being dogma-driven, they are pattern-focused. They recognize fundamental patterns that can be observed across different living systems and use those patterns to inform future exploration.
Guiding principles age better than rigid dogma
To give a concrete example, let’s take the so-called central dogma1. The central dogma states that DNA codes for RNA which codes for proteins, and that this pathway is the central mechanism to how life works. You’ve probably seen it in a diagram that looks something like this:
While this is a pathway of interactions between DNA, RNA, and protein, it is certainly not the only pathway. In fact, it’s hard to make the case that this is the central pathway for these molecules: we have since learned that about 99% of human DNA does not code for proteins, that RNA has many functions other than coding for proteins, and that proteins play a critical regulatory role for both DNA and RNA.
For those with a rigid framework, the central dogma is the foundation of their truth and everything else since has to be memorized as exceptions to this dogma. It’s a large burden to carry. Meanwhile, those who build a foundation by observing patterns across biology have no problem integrating the principles of bio-regulation in the context of nucleic acids and protein.
This pattern-recognition approach naturally aligns with how we experience genetics in our lives. Rather than memorizing rigid pathways disconnected from reality, we encounter genetics as a complex web of interactions between our inherited traits, our environment, and our choices. By teaching genetics through the lens of lived experience, we can help students develop the same mental flexibility that keeps researchers at the cutting edge. What would it look like to introduce genetics in a way that emphasizes the knowledge students will need to navigate their own lives?
A lived-experience approach to introducing genetics
I have a document saved on my computer that my mother-in-law drafted, summarizing the significant medical history of her family. She put it together because she knew that her children could not possibly know or remember all of this information. Many of the diagnoses occurred before her children were aware of medical intricacies, if they had even been born yet. But she knows that their medical care could potentially be radically impacted by this information, and assembled it for her family accordingly.
Thanks to this document, we were able to arrange some additional health screening for my husband. Health screening that, without this knowledge, would likely have never been performed until after a catastrophic event.
This is the first thing that must be accomplished when introducing students to genetics: understanding what you may inherit from your family.Of course, when you think about family, you begin to also think about various aunts and uncles with lifestyles that varied as much as their personalities. We’re inundated with messages about what is or isn’t healthy, and these messages do not align (see: carnivores and vegans). Without an understanding of your personal risk factors, how can you possibly know where to begin or what to monitor for your own health? Without baseline knowledge, it’s extremely difficult for doctors, be they human or AI, to help you make choices that align with your values.
In addition to understanding what you may or may not have inherited, you need to understand how the things you can control in life will have an impact.My mother has multiple sclerosis (MS); was the disease onset triggered by infection with the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV). It’s possible, the connection between EBV and MS is well established. She had a case of mononucleosis, usually caused by EBV, in her late teens, and her first MS symptoms appeared when she was around 20 years of age.
There are many things we navigate in life that are beyond our control, including infections, environmental exposure, and even food packaging. Despite the fact that we cannot control them, they can have radical impacts on our lives.
We are often impacted by things beyond our control; understanding how these factors interact with your genetics is the first step in regaining healthy living.There is perhaps no experience that prompts feelings of having no control more than cancer. This is especially tough because if you are lucky enough to live long enough, you or someone you love will be diagnosed with cancer. This isn’t a scare tactic, the reality is that about 40% of people will be diagnosed with some sort of cancer across their lifespan. Not all of these cases will be fatal, but that will, nevertheless, be a top-of-mind question at the time of diagnosis.
For most people, a cancer diagnosis kicks off a flurry of fear and research. Quickly, you realize that the question of treatment and survival is hyperspecific to the individual, at which point you are thrust into a world of unintelligible acronyms for different mutations and tests. Risk factors, risk scores, mortality, and recurrance-free survival are all terms that quickly become central to your vocabulary.
Having watched geneticists and non-scientists alike face this scenario, I can state honestly that it’s a lot less overwhelming and less scary for geneticists to navigate this process. Not because they know a lot about cancer but because they know how individual each cancer is. Meanwhile, many non-scientists get stuck trying to understand why the treatment plan that worked so well for their neighbor isn’t an option for them, even though the cancer they were diagnosed with has the same name.
You need to be able to understand the individual nature of diagnoses like cancer, and how that influences your treatment options.A lived-experience approach is best for future experts, too
The two-fold trick of introductory education is that you have to find a way to not only meet the needs of the general audience but also to lay the foundation for future specialists. This adds pressure to the importance of presenting topics in such a way that yes, they are simplified, but not to the point of falsehood. By taking a lived-experience approach, we neatly sidestep many of the over simplifications that currently dominate early genetics education.
For example, inheritance. Currently, inheritance is taught using Mendelian inheritance as the primary example. Students are taught that inheritance is purely genetic, with an emphasis on simple dominant and recessive traits. This understanding is reinforced by subsequent assignments to complete countless Punnett squares.
This sounds fine until you consider that not all inheritance is genetic, most genes exhibit non-Mendelian inheritance, and Punnett squares are at best a tool for understanding and not a worthy learning objective in their own right. Even eye color, commonly used as an example of Mendelian inheritance, is, in fact, non-Mendelian when you consider the full spectrum of human eye coloration beyond brown and blue.
Taking away the fact that this is how we’ve been introducing genetics for decades, why are we using such limited, hyperspecific examples as the foundational model in education? Curious students rigorously memorize this system of inheritance only to spend the following decade learning the “exceptions” to this system. This framing is fundamentally incorrect; other modes of inheritance are the norm, not the exception.
In the attempt to simplify, we have taught misperceptions.
By contrast, we could introduce the concept of inheritance and the many modes, genetic and non-genetic, of inheritance. We could explain that because of the interconnected nature of biology, many of the traits we observe have complicated patterns of inheritance - such as skin tone and height.
To help understand examples of how individual genes can be inherited, we can point to the examples of eye color, providing an opportunity to demonstrate epistasis2 and incomplete dominance3 in addition to dominant and recessive traits. Even though you are using the same examples that are so common today, you are presenting a system of variable complexity.
A new paradigm for introducing genetics
Our current approach to genetics education misses the opportunity to prepare students for how they'll actually encounter genetics in their lives. Whether managing family health histories, making lifestyle choices based on genetic predispositions, or navigating complex medical diagnoses, students need conceptual frameworks that can adapt to new information—not rigid dogmas that collapse under the weight of exceptions. What would a curriculum that builds these flexible frameworks look like?
As I espouse the importance of shifting the conceptual introduction, I want to also comment that I am an advocate of strengthening the role of modern methodology in science education. Those who are curious to explore past the introductory level of genetics should do so in courses that are firmly rooted in modern methodology leveraging automation and AI. But before students get there, introductory courses need to deliver powerful conceptual frameworks that are capable of adapting to the new findings that will inevitably occur across students’ lifespans.
What follows is not a new set of curriculum standards, but rather the high-level objectives that I believe must be serviced by any set of curriculum standards.
Genetics is the role of DNA in living systems
Inheritance is the transmission of biological information across generations in living systems. DNA is a major mechanism of inheritance, but not the only mechanism.
Sequence, frequency, and folding are some of the most critical parameters of DNA, and they each influence the others.
Sequence is understood to be the primary mechanism of information storage. It contributes to the regulation of gene expression and encodes for RNA.
Some RNA performs its function directly within the cell, including mRNA, tRNA, rRNA, miRNA, siRNA, and lncRNA4.
Some RNA encodes for protein sequences.
Frequency of DNA sequences is critical for maintaining biological balance and cellular processes.
The frequency of certain DNA sequences alters how the DNA folds and its likelihood of recombination during meiosis.
Frequency can contribute to metabolic resilience, such as in the case of telomeres. In other cases, it contributes to metabolic disruption, as in the case of Huntington’s disease.
Frequency is highly contextual; plants have a high tolerance for polyploidy while animals do not. In all organisms, a balance of chromosomal inheritance is impactful.
Folding of DNA influences gene expression, mutation potential, and the dynamics of recombination.
Although we inherit our DNA sequence once, our genetics are dynamic and responsive to the context of our living systems
Some dynamic genetic elements are so fundamental we often take them for granted.
Reproduction, growth, and development all follow a consistent dynamic process that is intrinsically linked to genetics.
Some dynamic genetic elements are under individual control
Nutrition, exercise, and induced stress (lifestyle, exercise, drugs) can each modulate gene expression, influence genetic responsiveness, and alter genetic interactions.
Some dynamic genetic elements remain beyond individual control
Infections, pollution, and systemic stress can alter genetic mechanisms, responses, and expression.
The dynamism of genetics underpins both its resiliency and vulnerabilities
The robust adaptability based on nutrition, activity, infection, and stress all contribute to homeostasis under a wide range of conditions.
Conditions like cancer emerge from changes in cellular function, often (but not always)5 including genetic changes.
We have a number of tools capable of changing the sequence of DNA.
A comprehensive assessment and understanding of biological context, desired outcomes, and systemic risk determine which method of altering DNA is appropriate.
Preparing students for the uncertainties of the future
In a world where the state of knowledge is evolving at a lightning pace, adaptability is precisely what we should be teaching students. Shifting our educational focus from rigid dogmas to pattern recognition prepares students for both today's understanding of genetics and the discoveries that lie ahead.
Students who understand genetic principles as patterns rather than dogmas will be better equipped to make and integrate new discoveries, whether they become researchers pushing the boundaries of knowledge or citizens making informed health decisions.
They'll avoid the trap that has caught so many brilliant minds: clinging to outdated frameworks even as evidence mounts against them.
I say so-called because the most popular version, first promoted by James Watson and modeled below, is incorrect. However Francis Crick published a different version which technically remains valid. You can read more about both here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology