Core Concept - The article discusses the concept of the "triple helix" proposed by R.C. Lewontin, emphasizing the interaction and influence among genes, organisms, and the environment [1][8]. Group 1: Genetic Determinism Debate - Lewontin criticizes genetic determinism, arguing that the human genome differs by less than 0.1%, yet it is misused to explain social inequalities such as wealth, intelligence, and crime [5][6]. - He asserts that the environment is not merely a container but is actively shaped by organisms, which select and modify their surroundings [5][8]. - The completion of the Human Genome Project, according to Lewontin, will not achieve its intended purpose of identifying disease-causing genes through DNA comparison [5][6]. Group 2: Responses from Richard Dawkins - Richard Dawkins responds to Lewontin's critiques, clarifying that he never claimed genes determine everything, but rather that genetic differences can explain phenotypic variations [6]. - Dawkins emphasizes the directionality of evolution, countering Lewontin's and Gould's views on randomness in evolution by citing examples like the speed of cheetahs [6]. - He argues that moral responsibility should not be outsourced to science, maintaining a distinction between scientific conclusions and their political implications [6]. Group 3: Impact on Biological Sciences - The debate between Lewontin and Dawkins has had a lasting impact on the field of biology, with new perspectives emerging, such as those presented by behavior geneticist Kathryn Harden in her book "The Gene Lottery" [7]. - Harden attempts to find a middle ground, acknowledging the significant role of genes while also recognizing the influence of luck and the potential for social policies to mitigate genetic impacts [7]. - However, Lewontin remains critical of this middle ground, insisting that the interactions among genes, environment, and randomness are too complex to disentangle [7][8]. Group 4: Science as a Social Institution - Lewontin argues that science is not an isolated pursuit of truth but a social institution influenced by political and economic factors [10][11]. - The direction of scientific research is often driven by societal needs and interests, rather than purely by the quest for knowledge [10][12]. - Cultural and ideological contexts shape scientific inquiry, affecting research focus and methodologies across different societies [11][12]. Group 5: Historical Context and Future Implications - Historical examples illustrate the close relationship between biology and political ideologies, such as the use of Darwinian theory in imperialism and eugenics [12]. - The ongoing developments in biological sciences, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, raise questions about the political implications of scientific advancements [12].

Group 1 - The research team, including Dr. Dai Guangzheng from Liaoning He University, published a paper in the journal "npj Digital Medicine" on the feasibility of using a portable slit lamp combined with AI algorithms to identify narrow anterior chamber angles (NACA) for early screening of primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) [1] - Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness globally, and traditional screening methods are not suitable for large-scale community screening due to various limitations [1] - The developed portable slit lamp system is compact and easy to operate, addressing issues of high costs and portability associated with traditional equipment, showcasing the potential of AI in eye disease screening [1] Group 2 - He Eye Hospital Group, as an innovative digital eye health ecosystem, supports the research and aims to leverage its advantages in the eye health industry chain to promote intelligent, precise, and inclusive eye health services [2] - The company plans to utilize cutting-edge technologies such as AI, genetics, and stem cells to ensure that technological innovations benefit the public and improve overall health outcomes [2]