Biological complementarity and RNA

The was once a great biologist

Who was inspired by a great physicist


Both were captivated by

The principle of complementarity


Namely that some sets of observations could never be

Simultaneously measured due to methodological limitation


But were nonetheless truly derived from

One natural physical process


For a long time the biologist was searching

For complementarity in biology


Given that complementarity was successful in physics

Why should it not be the same for biology


Most historians say the biologist never found

Some biological complementarity principle


Yet I think I have found an example

That only came after his death


The example is that of the two types of measurement

of the nature of RNA species

RNA are molecules necessary for life

Yet never live as long as the organism


They are transiently generated by each cell

in response to some biotic or abiotic signal


The paradigmatic measures of RNA are RNAseq and FISH

Where the standing numbers of RNA are quantified


Yet, these RNA counts are standing numbers

That are the product of dynamic processes


Namely the processes of transcription, translation, and degradation

Birth, living function, and death


These dynamic processes, only capturable by live imaging technologies

Of which there are a few technologies available


These technologies have also shown that

These processes are cyclical and rhythmic in nature



Sure the complementarity between live imaging and RNAseq

Might yield new insight into the laws of production of RNA in each cell


Yet there are technological and perhaps personal limitations

That prevent me from fulfilling the full potential of this complementarity


I wish Delbrück and Bohr were alive to see this

Surely they must have had something to contribute

(Originally written in April 2024)