AMPHISBAENA 187 



o: 



I know, scientific dogmas are phagocytes which eat only what is 

 good for them. They cannot be refuted or dethroned; but they 

 vanish eventually owing to the fickleness of subsequent genera- 

 tions who lose interest in them. In fact, the more absurd a hypoth- 

 esis is, the stronger must be the belief in it. 



y: 



I continue. DNA is, as I said, the primary genetic determinant 

 carrying a code, as yet unbroken, through which in the last resort 

 the composition of RNA and of the proteins is specified. Before 

 this code can be expressed, the two strands composing the double 

 helix of the DNA must be separated, unwound, perhaps enzymat- 

 ically. I believe, it was you who called this hypothetical enzyme 

 an "unscrewase". You will observe that, because of the com- 

 plementary structure of the two strands, the information stored 

 in either one really is sufficient. 



o: 

 Have the two strands been shown to exist, let alone to have a 

 complementary structure? 



y: 

 Well, yes and no. But you should be the last to ask such a question. 



o: 



Sometimes I wake up in the dark of the night and I begin to think 

 of all these claims and discoveries and models, of aU this molec- 

 ular prestidigitation; and I ask myself: Is this all a confidence 

 game? They are all so brilliant; why are they so shallow? Why 

 did the manna of the heavens tu|Ti into porridge? Why does the 

 liquidation of a science begin at the top; why do its greatest 

 triumphs turn into its worst disasters? 



y: 

 I don't believe you expect an answer. AU you have to do is to 

 take a spectra of a DNA before and after heating. 



