|
The Greek Philosophers debated issues in a Critic's Corner in Athens. On
this model, no less, I have initiated
Hence, I want to express their feelings regarding the long-running debate and misunderstanding of the "memory of water" findings, first reported in NATURE in 1988, and their offspring. I welcome your comments and debate of the epistemological, sociological, and philosophical aspects of the research and controversy on the" memory of water" discovery, which is now centered on the physical nature of the biological signal and on the role of water in its transmission. What do my critics and friends say about the endless interrogation of our research? Is it personal? Does it threaten the established model of the biological signaling process? Is the questioning based on the type of financial support which, for a short period back in 1987-88 underwrote our research? Or is it ideological, by fear of a scientific support to an once and for all heretic practice, homeopathy? Do we threaten "Big Science" and the financial support by government authorities world-wide that has yielded such meager new theories with beneficial application to medicine? On a broader scale, let's discuss why science -particularly biomedicine- has become so refractory to really new advances and concepts. Just a few questions for a start: does the word "skeptics" belong to the realm of science, when only confrontation of facts with existing and proposed theories should fuel the scientific debate? Is it scientifically sound -and even ethical- to require external replication of controversial data, and them only, before publication? (Please don't be mistaken: we are doing it, right now, but is it not against the law?) What would happen to science if this requirement was generalized? More generally, should we enforce the common sense principle which says: "special (which means more stringent) laws for special results"? Let's think of it: is it scientific to vary the conditions of publication of a set of data according to their possible impact on the currently reigning theories? Speculating a bit further, would it not make sense to adopt an exactly inverse position: be lenient with "baby results" which do not stand that well on their two feet yet. Where is the risk? To commit errors? They are intrinsic to the scientific process. With the best of intentions, would not any attempt to suppress errors, as it would be to forbid soccer players to miss goals, simply bring science to a grinding halt? No risk, no science. Going even further: what threatens more scientific progress? Either letting a minuscule number of fraudulent data provisionally appear (and inevitably fade away) or kill dead those uncomfortable facts, that, in the history of science, have always paved the way for ground-breaking advances? (see "A Crime Far Worse Than Fraud Threatens Scientific Progress", The Scientist). On these various points, you may easily guess my answers, and my opinion on this recent prevalence of a witch-hunting climate, the scientifically correct attitude, which has become the major block to the emergence of those new paradigms, the lack of which is nowadays severely crippling the advancement of science. Welcome to JB Fr&Fo's Corner. Your comments -friendly, supportive, adversarial, or otherwise- will be appreciated greatly. Jacques
Benveniste, M.D. email:
jbenveniste@digibio.com (-; I wish to express my deepest gratitude to Mrs Joanne Levy, from Burlingame CA, who greatly improved this text. But since I later added quite a lot to it, some more editing is welcome :-).
Explaining digital biology is impossible
without explaining its principle. The purpose of this text is not to
report experimental results. Rather, it tries to explain to laymen, in the
simplest terms, this radically new approach to biology. We hope it will be
useful to all, scientists or not, who find it hard to "make the leap".
Indeed, is it possible to believe that the specific activity of
biologically-active molecules (e.g. histamine, caffeine, nicotine,
adrenalin), not to mention the immunological signature of a virus or
bacterium can be recorded and digitized using a computer sound card, just
like an ordinary sound? Imagine the perplexity of Archimedes confronted
with a telephone, and being told that by using it he could be heard on the
other side of the world, were we not to explain the nature of sound waves
or their translation into electromagnetism. The truth, based on facts, is very simple. It does not require any "collapse of the physical or chemical worlds." That molecules vibrate, we have known for decades. Every atom of every molecule and every intermolecular bond-the bridge that links the atoms-emits a group of specific frequencies. Specific frequencies of simple or complex molecules are detected at distances of billions of light-years, thanks to radio-telescopes. Biophysicists describe these frequencies as an essential physical characteristic of matter, but biologists do not consider that electromagnetic waves can play a role in molecular functions themselves. We cannot find the words "frequency" or "signal" (in the physical sense of the term) in any treatise on molecular interactions in biology, not to speak of the term "electromagnetic," use of which would be - at least in France - a cause for excommunication of any offending biologist by the scientific Papal Office... Like Archimedes, I would have liked to have had a brilliant idea in my bathtub: "Eureka, the vibrations of molecules don't exist for them to dance the salsa at a Saturday night ball; vibrations are the tools of their trade, which allow them to send instructions to the next molecule down the line in the cascade of events which govern biological functions, and probably, to a large extent, chemical ones as well." Unfortunately, this was not the case. I followed a purely experimental approach. After eight years of research, around 1991, my experiments showed that we could transfer specific molecular signals by using an amplifier and electromagnetic coils. In July, 1995, I recorded and replayed these signals using a multimedia computer. A computer sound card only records frequencies up to about 20,000 Hz. In the course of several thousand experiments, we have led receptors (specific to simple or complex molecules) to "believe" that they are in the presence of their favorite molecules by playing the recorded frequencies of those molecules. In order to arrive at this result, two operations are necessary: 1) record the activity of the substance on a computer; 2) "replay" it to a biological system. sensitive to the same substance. Therefore, there is every reason to think that when a molecule itself is in the presence of its receptor, it does the same thing: it emits frequencies which the receptor is capable of recognizing. Which means that a molecular signal can be efficiently represented by a spectrum of frequencies between 20Hz and 20,000 Hz, the same range as the human hearing or music. For several hundred thousand years, human beings have been relating sound frequencies to a biological mechanism: the emotions. Composers of background music for supermarkets or elevators are practicing neuropsychology without knowing it. High-pitched rapid sounds engender lightness of spirit, high-pitched slow sounds, sweetness, sounds both deep and rapid awaken the fighting spirit, while deep, slow sounds invoke serious emotions, sadness and mourning. These are fundamentally cerebral physico-chemical phenomena, triggered by defined frequencies. We do nothing more than this when we transmit pre-recorded molecular activities to biological systems. Therefore, one may hypothesize that biological systems function like radio sets, by coresonance. If you tune a receiver to 92.6 MHz, you tune in Radio-This, because the receiver and the transmitter vibrate at the same frequency. If we change the setting a little to, say, 92.7, we no longer receive Radio-This, but Radio-That instead. These advances in understanding the inmost mechanism of molecular recognition and signaling do not overturn the science of biology, and even less those of physics and chemistry. We have taken nothing away from classic descriptions, but only taken a step forward by adding to the present body of knowledge. This is the normal course of scientific progress, and there is no reason for it to provoke imprecations and anathema. The electromagnetic nature of the molecular signal sheds light on many shadowy areas of biology. We can now understand how millions of biological molecules can communicate (at the speed of light), each with its own corresponding molecule, and it alone, the basic requirement for the functioning of biological systems...and why minute chemical modifications produce considerable functional consequences, something "structural" biologists are at a loss to explain. In deciding that only structures can have an action, biologists find themselves in a pre-Newtonian world where the movement of celestial bodies is described by Ptolemy in terms of epicycles. Hence the inability of contemporary biology to provide answers to the major pathologies of the end of this century (my article in Le Monde, May 22, 1996, which has not been challenged to date). The passage from the rigid biology of structures to one of information traveling at the speed of light can be accomplished without a "revolution." Contrary to what is stupidly claimed by scientific gossips, recording the activity of molecules no more implies denying their existence (after all, molecule-specific electromagnetic messages must come from specific molecules) than it does denying the law of mass action, according to which the effect is directly proportional to the number of molecules. One might as well expect a singer to disappear by recording his voice! In other words, we eliminate neither the light-switch nor the light bulb; we only say that a wire with a current of electrons connects the two. We are not in another, electromagnetic world which we are substituting for the old molecular world. We capture, copy, transfer-and soon will modify-electromagnetic signals emitted by molecules in the course of their normal functioning. What about water in all this? It is the vehicle for information. This cannot be avoided, since there are 10,000 water molecules in the human body for every molecule of protein. There is no problem with this either; a submarine communicates with its base via low-frequency electromagnetic waves, not with megahertz frequencies, which do not penetrate water. We have recently completed very simple experiments showing that a molecule at a normally active concentration does not work in a medium devoid of water. Adding water is not enough to restore activity; it must be "informed." In other words, when molecules trigger a biological effect, they are not directly transmitting the signal. The final job is done by perimolecular water which relays and possibly amplifies the signal. Sound is not directly created by a compact disc. The latter carries data which is audible only after being amplified by an electronic system. The "memory
of water?" It is more mysterious, but no more so than the fact that a
compound formed from two gases should be liquid at normal temperature and
pressure, and dilate as it cools. Coherent domains with laser-like
properties have been described in water (E. del Giudice, G. Preparata, G.
Vitiello (1988) 'Water as a free electric dipole laser', Phys. Rev. Lett.
61:1085-1088). More recently, a unique type of stable (non-melting) ice
crystal that maintains an electrical field has been identified and
characterized in water. Truly, unemployment should not be a worry for
physicists! Nonetheless, water is not our subject of investigation. What
interests us is not the nature of the magnetic medium and how it
functions, but the message recorded in it, which can be copied and
transmitted. In the light of our experimental results, we are confident in
our belief that we have elucidated the physical nature of the molecular
signal. The principle is as simple as exploding a mixture of air and
gasoline, but the consequences are enormous. At the
present time, the only way to identify a molecule is to carry a sample,
most often obtained invasively or even destructively, to a laboratory.
With the digital method, we dispose of a signal which can be instantly
transmitted and analyzed at the other end of the world by classic means of
telecommunication. Using this method, the detection of toxic substances,
proteins (antigens, antibodies, prions) or molecular complexes (parasites,
bacteria, viruses, abnormal cells) should become possible without physical
sampling. It is noteworthy that no in vivo detection methods of prions
presently exists, with well-known epidemiological and economic
consequences. The detection of antigens and antibodies, just to mention
this field, represents a considerable share of the activity of clinical
biology laboratoires. Moreover, some results seem to indicate that these
methods should be applicable to the chemical industry and to environmental
surveillance, e.g. to detecting, at a distance, micro-organisms or
products from genetically modified plants. A final question: why are scientists so opposed to the evolution of science? Is it to defend their piece of turf? Why, in the name of intangible dogmas, which the history of science has shown to be so often ephemeral, do they reject advances which represent progress for their discipline? Do these advances appear to threaten their all-too-fragile certitudes? Such questions are not just philosophical, because these people are respected counselors, advisers to political and industrial decision-makers. They orient-most often by hampering-new applications flowing from scientific progress. I don't know where these mental blocks come from, but they are, in theory at least, irreconcilable with a scientist's function. Here is a quote (translated from the French edition of Encyclopedia Universalis, taken from the article on Mechanism) which shows, alas, that those blocks are eternal: We have a good example of the dilemma of "mechanism" in the Cartesians' opposition to the Newtonian world-view, which they felt completely called into question the new science and pushed scientific thinking back to a level beneath what "mechanism" had already achieved. The problem is, for Descartes, that movement is only possible if there is contact and impulsive force; action at a distance-attraction, as Fontenelle was to say-can only mean a return to a physics of sympathetic motion and occult attributes...In this way, they do not engage Newton in a scientific controversy; they disqualify him for obscurantism. Thus the French scientific community resisted Newtonian theory for a long time, or would prefer to ignore it...But "mechanism," which is an obstacle to scientific progress, remains blocked. No doubt, Newton is less an opponent of "mechanism" than he is the proposer, by provoking a total break, of another model of physical mechanics in which movements other than those produced by impulsion become possible. Four
centuries later, we hear the same words: "there must be molecules"
(François Jacob)-that is, contact, forceful impulsion-according to our
sages of science, still frozen in the Cartesian mechanistic dogma: the
same denial of action at a distance, and the same accusations of a return
to obscurantism.
Well if you remember, I had some trouble with my Taliban servants last time we met, so they all had to go back to Lisson Grove Job Club. The first day free of prayer and wailing saw all the gang lying on our backs breathing freedom's air for the first time in two months. Even poor Tibbins came out of the coal cellar and pranced in spring sunshine free of Allah, whoever he is. Elated, I decided to assume my transcendental meditations, broken previously by the site of prayer-mats and the complaints by veiled women about the nude sunbathing underneath my beech trees.
Ever inventive, I decided to claim to be the
maker of a known corn-circle, although of course I had done nothing of the
kind. The ideal concealment is non-involvement. Having done this, I stood
well back and prepared to duck. Immediately, rationalists and scientists
commented, but as usual, they all sounded like a Michael Jackson interview
played in reverse. So I wasn't concerned. All such “factual” opinions can
be mentally excreted as easily as the Tellytubbies, Michael Barrymore, or
the News at Ten (or whatever that is). This done, my life started to get interesting. The first set of screaming counter-denials arrived. High intelligent serial killers wrote to me from Death Row and Parkhurst, and beautiful women claiming to be aliens wrote to me from all points of the compass of belief. To make matters even more interesting, I now withdrew my first claim to be the maker of the Portobello Green circle. I said it was a hoax. I said I was ashamed and felt guilty about having gulled people into thinking the circle was made by the gods. Of course, some believed me, some did not. Into this credibility gap dived many things. The circle was made, some said, by diving supersonic pelicans, or were the result of emanations from car-headlamps, or moving lighthouses. I was now on my way to becoming a true magician. The first set of writs arrived, and I acquired a stalker, always a sign of coming fame. A humourless and suicidal manic-depressive from the Sceptical Enquirer threatened me with murder. I encouraged him by withdrawing my claim not to have made the Paddington circle. This time I did the explaining. I said I was an “artist”; had been all along. There were sighs of relief all round and red faces from the Pelican crowd. I had shown those bourgeois instincts which the Guardian loves, if no-one else. All was revealed: I was an avant-guarde landscape action-painter and just wanted to see the wonder of the theories my complex deceptions might give rise to. I was rendered harmless again. Everybody was happy, except the scientists, who due to all lack of a proper education, had absolutely no idea of what I was talking about. But Dad swelled with pride and Mum put me back into her Will on accepting that it was all about a most superior kind of very clever entertainment.
But the sceptics (who did have an idea of what
I was talking about) remained suspicious. But nevertheless, my
pseudo-explanation of “artist” had worked. This explanation of
explanations is one of the finest illusions I have ever made.
As a rising star, my agent wrote to tell
Magonia magazine that they were going to be sued for an article in which I
was accused of being a complete impostor. I told my solicitor to write
back saying that there is no such thing as a complete impostor. Meantime,
my agent got me a Melvin Bragg interview in which such things as complete
impostors do not matter. On Melvin’s programme, I told him that he was now
beginning to experience the double benefit of seeing almost false theories
arise from possible falsehoods sponsored in turn by almost certain
falsehoods. Melvin’s jaw dropped as I claimed that all this could lead to
a calculus of falsehoods whose general solutions I was about to present.
After that, poor pre-electric Melvin was glad to get back to paste-shade
novels about Jack and Jill in Hampstead. I was not a little proud of myself. I had succeeded in the great God-Game. Life had emerged from the alchemical furnace of the varied spectrum of mass expectancy I had created. I was amused when the sceptics called it psycho-social. This means that the things we imagine come about. That makes sceptics into fellow-magicians, which of course I always knew they were. Now I watched my system clone itself. I watched the many shades of the suggestion-bacillus I had created grow plausible web-like worlds. Now I knew that once a belief system is established, it will produce a cloned life which mimics those self-deceptions, mock-explanations, and double-bluffs within the self that we call thinking. And all this when during the Taliban praying, I was preparing to switch on a continuous video loop of East Enders just before I shot myself after experiencing the Taliban at close range. I had rediscovered both theatre and media both. And it was all done by advertising in that prime time called consciousness. I had also learned also that truth and reality are scandalous and disreputable beyond all conception. But had now reached the Star stage, where I am not concerned with such things as truth and reality. The Times called me a modern shaman, Madonna has asked me for dinner, and Melvin has been on the phone asking what the phrase post-modern means.
Bon appetite! |
|
Chapter 4 & 5 click here |
Chapter
2/3
a
new forum for debate and discussion, the Jacques Benveniste friends and
foes' corner. One motivation is to relieve my colleagues at DigiBio and my
friends who hear me complain ad nauseum about the sad state of modern
biomedical research and discovery! They heard and read my complaint
repeatedly that one can be ostracized from the scientific community when
challenging any of the reigning paradigms. It's about time for me to annoy
others on the WEB. 