Spring Martlet 2017

DNA Strand
‘When you read your biochemical textbooks,
you’re told this is how transcription works,
this is how translation works and you’re
told the ideal. But, for example, when you
transcribe, how often do you transcribe the
wrong gene? When you translate, how often
do you actually put in the wrong amino acid?
Or do you frame-shift? We’re always taught
the ideal view of how a genome works but
now when you look at the estimates of the
rates at which these errors are occurring
it’s actually stunningly high; it’s actually much
higher than the mutation rate. So in your cells
at the moment you are actually processing
large amounts of mistranslated protein.’
Hurst also shows a pronounced interest
in the significance of his work to the
world outside the lab, both in terms of the
applications of genetic theory to medical
problems but also of the social implications of
working within concepts which have a bearing
on clinical practice. Again, discussions that he
had while in the WCR at Univ played a role in
the formation of these concerns. He cites, for
instance, exchanges with historians as a useful
way to harness the historical significance of
the terms used in his own work. ‘Disease is
a very interesting one historically,’ he reflects,
‘In the 19th Century what was a mental
disease and what was criminality was very
poorly differentiated…today we do attempt
to differentiate, but I doubt very much if that’s
perfect.’ He acknowledges that the historical
baggage behind the term disease determines
that it has to be deployed judiciously and
sensitively; ‘I’m colour-blind and I never know
whether to call that a disease: I can trace it
back, I know I’ve got a particular mutation in
the receptors, and that’s fine as a mechanistic
description of what’s going on in my head, but
whether or not I’d want to call it a disease
attaches a large amount of baggage with it.’
Quite consciously, he has turned the findings
of his research towards practical applications
in diagnostics. ‘I am engaged in a project
examining the world’s most interesting
disease,’ he explains with some excitement.
That disease in his view is pre-eclampsia; a
condition generally affecting first pregnancy,
which, if allowed to run to course, kills both
mother and baby. Hurst explains that because
of the high mortality rate for mother and
baby where the condition is present, ‘This
must have been one of the most powerful
selective forces in human evolution.’ His
hypothesis frames pre-eclampsia as a
misplaced immunological response to the
foetus; it is probably the mother’s body misrecognising
the foetus and the immune system
responding as it does as a defence against
other foreign material. ‘There is no universally
accepted model for pre-eclampsia’, Hurst
explains, reflecting on the current difficulty
in handling the disease – the only cure at
present is a caesarian section. The natural
implication is that work like Hurst’s which
helps to understand the condition’s nature
and causes could prove momentous in finding
ways to treat and prevent it.
Vital to his work on this project has been cooperation
with a team of researchers in Berlin.
Speaking more broadly, he reflects that such
collaborations and productive conversations
with closer colleagues have been instrumental
to the development and completion of
much of his work and emphasises that in
his view supportive and friendly working
relationships are the most productive: ‘I like
collaborating with nice people: a really great
problem is something really important’ he
says, ‘But actually a lot of science is done by
simply talking to people who you can really
get on with.’ Evident in the way that Hurst
talks about his discursive working method is
that sense of intellectual and interdisciplinary
exchange which first sparked his enthusiasm
in Univ’s WCR. ‘On top of that, of course,’
he continues, reflecting particularly on the
WCR, with a distinct tone of fondness,
‘They were all stupendously smart people.
In retrospect, I think there’s nothing more
glorious than spending time with stupendously
smart people who think differently from you,
or even if they don’t think differently have
thought about different things.’ It is evident
from the way that he talks about his work that
his enduring value of a thoughtful, challenging
and multi-sided approach is key to the success
of his research.
24 THE MARTLET | SPRING 2017