A review of 'The Music of Life' by Denis Noble. Noble is not a clown!

The Music of Life. 

Denis Noble has been unfairly attacked. One YouTuber, 'professor Dave', called Noble 'a clown' [1]. Evidently, attacking a person rather than his theory is always wrong. One of Noble's books, The Music of Life. Biology Beyond the Genome [2], contains very valuable insights about problems of DNA-centrism. Noble has gone too far in later books, but it would be foolish to ignore the very valuable insights about DNA-centrism and 'the selfish gene' in this 2006 book. Here I give a summary of his insights. His insights are in agreement with ideas in my previous blog posts about DNA-centrism [3], [4] and some of his ideas are a useful addition to my ideas.

The amazing thing is that Noble's criticism doesn't contain controversial facts. His facts are all mainstream scientific facts. The facts are not the problem. It is just that the views about the precise role of DNA in organisms in mainstream science literature is an inaccurate description of what is really going on in a cell. Noble doesn't deny the importance of DNA. It is the routine mainstream science writing about DNA that is wrong. The way mainstream science writes about DNA is based on a bad habit that crept unnoticed into the literature after the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953, and culminated in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene in 1976. 

The book The Music of Life is about systems biology. It is about putting together rather than taking apart, integration rather than reduction. DNA is important, but is not 'the control centre of the cell'. The genome is not a privileged level of causality in biological systems. The genome is on a 'lower' level than the cell. The cell or the organism is 'the system'. The genome is part of the cell, and the cell is part of the organism. The genome only functions within a system. Reducing the cell to its genome is reductionism. Reductionism as a method to discover the parts of a system is necessary and should not be replaced by anything else. The system level must be built on successful reduction. 

According to Noble, DNA as a biological molecule does not do much. The real players are the proteins. DNA is in comparison rather passive. (How could a passive part control anything?). I think that Noble's statement:

'the cell reads the DNA code'

could be called 'the central dogma of systems biology or cell biology'. This statement must be printed in a bold, large font in every biology and evolution textbook. It is a perfect antidote to the DNA-centric worldview. Here, the cell is the active part. The cell is the system. From this principle, it follows that we must describe the genome as a database (or an archive, library, toolbox) that is transmitted to the next generation, rather than a 'program' that creates organisms. How could a database with protein-coding genes create an organism? There must be  an organizing principle. Something has to choose which genes are to be read in which cells (in a multicellular organism like us). Our worldview influences how we describe what happens in a cell. So, the language we use to describe DNA is important. The language that scientists use, reveals the underlying worldview: DNA-centric or cell-centric.

Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene

That is in particular true for expressions such as 'The Selfish Gene'. The way Noble analyses 'The Selfish Gene' idea is enlightening and new to me. 'The Selfish Gene' idea is in fact not a scientific theory at all, Noble says. No empirical test could possibly distinguish between 'selfish genes' and the opposite view  'genes as prisoners'. The genes are prisoners because they are trapped in huge colonies locked inside highly intelligent beings [5]. They are inside you and me; we are the system that allows their code to be read. The selfish genes do not create us, body and soul. Their preservation is totally dependent on our efforts to reproduce. We are the ultimate rationale for their existence. Additionally, Noble mentions that Dawkins agrees with him that the 'selfish gene' idea is not a scientifically testable hypothesis. I didn't realize that. Despite the fact that the selfish gene metaphor is not a scientific hypothesis, it continues to influence scientific research, thinking and writing. However, if it is an arbitrary view, then it doesn't deserve to be the standard view in biology and evolution. Noble presents us with an eye-opening alternative view.

Evaluation

I think, contrary to Noble, that there is a fact that can distinguish between the DNA-centric and cell centric view. That fact is that DNA as a molecule is passive. How could a passive molecule create you and me? A molecule that for every 'action', such as transcription, replication, recombination, repair or whatever, requires enzymes  [6]. In my view, this fact contradicts Dawkins' selfish gene view, because that view implicitly claims that genes actively control the actions of the organism. To be precise Dawkins says: we are robots obeying the commands of the selfish genes. I consider that claim as falsified. A database cannot dictate anything. Consequently, a theory of how an individual is created from a fertilized egg is far from complete by summing up all the necessary protein-coding and regulatory genes in the genome. The genes in our genome are an inventory that is necessary, but far from sufficient. Question: how do thousands of individual protein-coding genes and proteins create an individual? [7]. These are fundamental questions in biology which tend to be ignored by the standard gene-centric selfish gene account.

In several chapters, Noble elaborates the Systems view of the cell. It amounts to highlighting forgotten uncontroversial facts. It certainly is worth reading, but I can not discuss it in this blog. My thoughts are this: molecular genetics after 1953 became a huge success, mainly because the discovery of DNA sequencing made it possible to identify genes and determine the fine-structure of genes. Additionally, genes can be modified, silenced and deleted. That enabled the determination of the functions of many genes. Furthermore, the expression of genes, even a large number of genes at the same time, could be detected. Undeniably, that is scientific progress. However, all these methods, taken together, strongly suggest that genes control everything: the development and daily running of the organism. Yes, genes are involved in almost everything, but strictly speaking, they do not control everything. The most fundamental and difficult question in biology remains unanswered: 

 

How do 25,000 protein-coding genes and proteins

 create an individual? [7]. 

 

How is that regulated? Who or what does orchestrate all this? There is more to organisms than DNA, genes, gene expression and protein synthesis alone.

Denis Noble is not a clown!

Professor Dave Explains: Denis Noble is a clown [1]

Contrary to what 'Professor Dave' claims: Denis Noble is not a clown!

 

 

 

Notes

1. Professor Dave Explains: Denis Noble is a Clown 22 May 2025 is a video fiercely attacking the person Denis Noble.
   
2. Denis Noble (2006) The Music of Life. Biology Beyond the Genome. In this review I use words and expressions from Noble's book to describe his position without giving page numbers. 
3. Gene-centrism is bad biology. Here is why. my blog 17 December 2025
4. What is DNA-centrism? Why is it wrong? my blog 10 November 2025  
5. 'genes as prisoners' locked inside the nucleus of a cell: to me, it looks similar to the mitochondria which are also locked up in the cell and are completely depended on the host cell! Nice!
6. The only 'exception' is self-splicing RNA. But RNA is not DNA, furthermore, RNA is the product of a transcription process that uses enzymes. 
7. "one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology for nearly two centuries" from: Sean B. Carroll (2005) Endless Forms Most Beautiful (2005), page x Preface. I will return to interesting examples of Carroll's DNA-centric language.