This would be one hypothesis. The article is about how the competing field of inquiry ("bioelectricity") has been mistakenly ignored for the past 60+ years.
What if the field is more important than the genes?
Your idea of "morphogenetic fields" is fundamentally incorrect; re-read the wikipedia article you linked to, the word "electricity" doesn't appear in it at all. It's talking about "fields" of chemical gradients which control the development of tissues; that kind of idea has been established developmental biology for over a century.
Meanwhile, in terms of the parent article, yes- it turns out that "bioelectricity" is an important part of the embryonic development. But this is not at all serving the same role as DNA; DNA stores durable information, whereas these fields are being used for, essentially, intercellular communication. I would think that the fact that the researchers successfully replace a frog's entire brain, for developmental purposes, with a simple tweak to an ion channel, pretty clearly demonstrates that the amount of vital information being carried this way is minimal.
Nice. I assumed NGF interactions with other developmental signalers like SHH, BMP, etc was the mechanism of action in this anyways.
It's been a while since I was in a devo lab, but I've watched a few presentations regarding wound healing and denervation such as seen in paraplegics with sacral ulcers. The hypothesis was that the nerves were gone and therefore NGF and other trophic factors were gone leading to impaired healing. I'm assuming healing and development are nearly synonymous in some tissues. Like you said, it's not the electrical signals that necessarily matter that much, it's the chemicals produced by the nerves.
The point I was trying to make is that there is no "more" or "less" important. There are just multiple layers of complexity that are all required to form the end result. DNA being the first layer just means the information that sets up the environment for bioelectric/epigenetic/whatever mechanisms still originates from DNA. Is it possible that there is some kind of mysterious force/particle that creates DNA? Anything is possible I guess. But that just seems like anomaly hunting at this point.
The discussion of what layer we should concentrate our research on has been going on for a long time actually. I remember reading some passionate arguments a decade or so ago about how we should concentrate on cells as the basic unit of biology.
This would be one hypothesis. The article is about how the competing field of inquiry ("bioelectricity") has been mistakenly ignored for the past 60+ years.
What if the field is more important than the genes?