The 'Nature versus Nurture' debate is a hoary old chestnut that goes back to pre-Watson and Crick days, when we had only indirect knowledge of genes. Today, our increasing ability to gather large amounts of genomic data makes unravelling the overall relationship between genotype and phenotype look like an achievable aim. Suzanne Rutherford's review on p263 examines a specific aspect of the genotype–phenotype relationship: the evolutionary consequences of protein chaperones that modify gene products in response to environmental cues. Barry Bochner, in his Innovation article on p309, describes attempts to develop technologies to help gather the large amounts of high quality phenotypic data that we need to get a comprehensive understanding of this relationship.

Michael Müller and Sander Kersten, in their Opinion article on p315, discuss the effect that nutrition has on the link between genotype and phenotype, and give their view on what should be the future priorities in nutrigenomics research. Genomic data is already being put to good use in other areas, as Abel Ureta-Vidal, Lawrence Ettwiller and Ewan Birney, on p251, highlight in their discussion of recent advances in metazoan comparative genomics.

Given the huge amount of genomic data now available, it is easy to forget that it was only 50 years ago this month that we took the first step towards understanding how DNA stores and transmits genetic information. Starting on p243 of this golden-hued issue of NRG (commemorating the golden jubilee of the double helix) we have a special feature celebrating the anniversary of Watson and Crick's paper. We cover the 2003 scientific and public celebrations, the art of the double helix, milestones in genetic research and the fate of the main protagonists in the double helix story, as well as a personal view of the less well-known double helix — left handed DNA.