"There are more general problems, for example logic being incomplete. I could tell you how to fix the tax system so the US could better compete with China and the rest of the world. But maybe the biggest problem in terms of lives lost and money wasted is everyone thinking they know the structure of DNA.
Our DNA reminds me of the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears-
There were three bears We have three types of DNA
Papa bear Highly repetitive DNA
Mama bear Moderately repetitive DNA
Baby bear Single copy DNA
There were three bowls of porridge at Our DNA when heated in water then cooled slowly forms
three different temperatures Bonds at three different temperatures
There were three chairs of three different structures Our three types of DNA form three different structures
There were three beds of three different hardness Our three types of DNA have three different functions
Our DNA more or less line up with three different systems.
The single copy DNA is the Watson-Crick double helix model(candy cane). The moderately repetitive DNA is more like a can of worms(spaghetti). The highly repetitive DNA has the bases rotating in the plane(pancakes).
The system you know about codes for proteins(I call it the encryption system because it has to be deciphered). The second system adjusts how much of the protein is produced(I call it the encoding system because it is a mathematical code which does not have to be deciphered). I figured out the structure of the highly repetitive DNA in November of 2021. The third system is the structural system, it has to do with organizing our DNA, speciation and crossing over.
I remember looking at a textbook example that a genome might have 850,000 copies of a DNA sequence 340 bases long. I could not help but think why? I knew that the highly repetitive DNA had to have a function. For example, the odds of generating a DNA sequence 340 bases long are 4 to the 340th power or 2 to the 680th power or about 5.01 times 10 to the 204th power. Even if we could magically convert all the matter in the theorized universe into DNA sequences 340 bases long, and randomize them every second through theorized time, we would still have about half the zero's left over. So, in order to have the 340 base sequence to exist for 1 second, it would have about the same probability of winning the national lottery 10 times in a row, buying one lottery ticket each time.
Even if you could generate the sequence, how would you select it if it doesn't have a function? Even if you could generate and select for the sequence, it would go to randomness if it didn't have a function.
The bases are rotating in the plane, the ones with the ones, the twos with the twos,.... and the three hundred forties with the three hundred forties. Not all of the 340 base sequences are the same. It may be that 90% of the sequences have a 90% base pair match or 95% of the sequences have a 95% base pair match. There has to be a high base pair match in order to maintain the structure. On the other hand it is not 100% of the sequences having a 100% base pair match or the sequences would not evolve(and they do evolve).
I remember that a crossover problem was the extra credit question on Dr. James F Crow's final. It never crossed my mind as to why. Crossingover is a lot like having your ankles going together and ending up having your left foot on your right leg and your right foot on your left leg. Having the highly repetitive DNA bonding in the plane, the two chromatids just have to match up(become a bigger pancake) and over time the breaking and repairing of strands may cause the ends to go with the opposite chromatid.
President Biden, you said you wanted to do something about cancer (cure cancer). I know this might sound strange, but it might be useful to cure aging. Aside from UV light and radiation, most carcinogens are chemical compounds. Often times, the carcinogens cause cancer years after exposure to the carcinogens. One of two things would have to be true: either the carcinogen damages the chromosome at the time of exposure, or the carcinogen causes the damage years later. If the damages were caused at the time of exposure, we should see the damage, however if the chromosome were damaged, why would it take years for the cancer to show up? If we conclude that the carcinogens have to be proximal to the chromosome years after exposure, then the carcinogens would have to be somewhere. The two DNA resonance structuresare likely to act as carcinogen habitat. This is why running aging backward, and removing short strands of RNA and DNA off of the chromosome may reduce the number of cases of cancer.
President Biden, I dont think your staff is going to do a damn thing. I don't think they are going to help you at all with this problem. Please note that I have already emailed you on how to reduce the kill rate of COVID-19, and your staff let an additional half million americans die.
Other Presidents, as you can see I am having a problem getting information across to people who are being educated by schools such as yours. As I see it, you are the most likely to correct the problem. It's kinda like in Blazing Saddles "we gotta protect our phony-bologna jobs". University Presidents work at the pleasure of university boards. You don't care about the politics of science battling it out with the people who want to teach creationism in schools. You do care about things that could cost your school money. You don't want anything to reflect badly on the school, or people may be less likely to leave large endowments. You also don't want what you're teaching to be incorrect, because it may also reduce research grants. Also, if you teach your students things which are incorrect, and you know about it, you could end up subject to class action suits and end up paying back part of their tuition.
Somewhere the fact has been lost, that the Watson-Crick model is just a model. I don't know when you check with your legal staff, if they will suggest putting an SI swimsuit model next to every image of the Watson-Crick model. However, I suspect they are going to suggest you make it clear that the Watson-Crick model is just a model.
This is not to say that the Watson-Crick model is wrong, far from it. It's just that not all of our DNA is in the Watson-Crick model. If it hadn't been for the Watson-Crick model, I would not have been able to come up with the two additional models of our moderately repetitive and highly repetitive DNA.
45 Years ago, Dr. Crick had just given a lecture on histone proteins. Afterward, I asked him if histone proteins evolve slower than most other proteins because of the amount of bio-specificity required to bind to the chromosome wouldn't any other protein that binds to the chromosome require a great deal of bio-specificity and evolve slower than most other proteins? Dr. Crick said "Yes". I then asked, "If the proteins that bind to the chromosome evolve slower than most other proteins, would they be able to regulate the proteins that evolve faster than they do?". Dr. Crick said "No". I asked, "If they can't, what can?", Dr. Crick said, "RNA may have something to do with it". Dr. Crick was smiling. He knew he hadn't been asked something. He had been forced to the conclusion: that protein regulation in eukaryotic cells would require some type of nucleic acid - nucleic acid interaction that wasn't dependent on protein evolution.
Other Presidents, please note that for some time now, biology has been saying that evolution is protein evolution. The problem with this, is that protein evolution is too slow. For example, in your lifetime you may account for around ten to the fifteenth bacteria give or take a zero or two. If you had two stacks of lottery tickets, one with one lottery ticket, the other with a quadrillion lottery tickets, which stack would you take? The bacteria should be evolving far faster than we are, but we are evolving far faster than the bacteria. The fact that the instructors don't know what's going on, should be stated, or they could verify that the introns are a feedback mechanism and act like a compiler in a computer and allow us to evolve faster than the proteins we're made out of.
I'm sending this to the heads of Johns Hopkins University (Ronald J. Daniels), University of Michigan (Mary Sue Coleman), Harvard University (Lawrence Bacow), Stanford University (Marc Tessier-Lavigne), University of Chicago (Paul Alivisatos), and Yale University (Peter Salovey).
When I was in the boy scouts, we sometimes played a game called "steal the bacon". This is something like "steal the bacon", whatever university corrects or expidites the correction of this problem stands to gain, whereas anyone who procrastinates too long stands to lose. If you have questions, please email me with your phone number. I will respond in the order that the emails are received.