In Chapter Three of The Force, she adduces the work of Fritz-Albert Popp, a theoretical biophysicist at the University of Marburg, Germany. Popp is well-known for his state-of-the-art research into cancer, among other things.
For present purposes, I just want to get down to the nitty-gritty of certain passages in this work. Please do read the book if you want all the preliminary details.
To be brief, suffice it to say that Popp eventually conjectured that the mechanism of cancer in biological systems proceeded from cancer’s ability to neutralize the “photo-repair mechanism” at the cellular level of the cancer-invaded organism. In other words, there are photons capable of work in the organic body, and cancer interferes with and finally overcomes their ability to effect necessary cellular repairs. Popp conducted many successful experiments tending to confirm this active photon-as-maintainer-of-living-systems hypothesis. But still, the results were not dispositive. Fast-forward to the relevant passages:
* * * * * *
A particularly gifted student [of Popp’s] talked him into trying an experiment. It is well known that when you apply a chemical called ethidium bromide to samples of DNA, the chemical squeezes itself into the middle of the base pairs of the double helix and causes it to unwind. The student suggested that, after applying the chemical, he and Popp try measuring the light coming off the sample. Pop discovered that the more he increased the concentration of the chemical, the more the DNA unwound, but also stronger the intensity of light. The less he put in, the lower the light emission. He also found that DNA was capable of sending out a large range of frequencies and that some frequencies seemed linked to certain functions. If DNA were storing the light, it would naturally emit more light once it was unwound.
These and other studies demonstrated to Popp that one of the most essential stores of light and sources of biophoton emissions was DNA. DNA must be like a master tuning fork in the body. It would strike a particular frequency and certain other molecules would follow. It was altogether possible, he realized, that he might have stumbled upon the missing link in current DNA theory that could account for perhaps the greatest miracle of all in human biology: the means by which a single cell turns into a fully-formed human being.
One of the greatest mysteries of biology is how we and every other living thing take geometric shape. Modern scientists mostly understand how we have blue eyes or grow to six foot one, and even how cells divide. What is far more elusive is the manner by which these cells know exactly where to place themselves in each stage of the building process, so that an arm becomes and arm rather than a leg, as well as the very mechanism which gets these cells to organize and assemble themselves together into something resembling a three-dimensional human form. [BIG hello!!! to all you information theorists out there….]
The usual scientific explanation has to do with the chemical interactions between molecules and DNA, the coiled double helix of genetic code that holds a blueprint [information!] of the body’s protein and amino acids. Each DNA helix or chromosome – and the identical twenty-six pairs exist in every one of the thousand million million cells in your body – contains a long chain of nucleotides, or bases, of four different components (shortened to ATCG) arranged in a unique order in every human body. The most favored idea is that there exists a genetic ‘program’ of genes operating collectively to determined shape, or, in the view of neo-Darwinists such as Richard Dawkins [and don’t forget Steven Pinker here], that ruthless genes, like Chicago thugs, have powers to create form and that we are ‘survival machines’ – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.
This theory promotes DNA as the Renaissance man of the human body – architect, master builder and central engine room – whose tool for all this amazing activity is a handful of the chemicals which make proteins. The modern scientific view is that DNA somehow manages to build the body and spearhead all its dynamic activities just by selectively turning off and on certain segments, or genes, whose nucleotides, or genetic instructions, select certain RNA molecules, which in turn select from a large alphabet of amino acids the genetic ‘words’ which create specific proteins. These proteins supposedly are able to build the body and to switch on and off all the chemical processes inside the cell which ultimately control the running of the body.
Undoubtedly proteins do play a major role in bodily function. Where the Darwinists fall short is explaining exactly how DNA knows when to orchestrate this and also how these chemicals, all blindly bumping into each other, can operate more or less simultaneously. [Help!!! information theorists!] Each cell undergoes, on average, some 100,000 chemical reactions per second – a process that repeats itself simultaneously across every cell in the body. At any given second, billions of chemical reactions of one sort or another occur. Timing must be exquisite, for if any one of the individual chemical processes in all the millions of cells of the body is off by a fraction, humans would blow themselves up in a matter of seconds. But what the rank and file among geneticists have not addressed is that if DNA is the control room, what is the feedback mechanism which enables it to synchronize the activities of individual genes and cells to carry out systems in unison? [emphasis added] What is the chemical or genetic process that tells certain cells to grow into a hand and not a foot? And which cell processes happen at which time?
If all these genes are working together, like some unimaginably big orchestra, who or what is the conductor? And if all these processes are due to simple chemical collision between molecules, how can it work anywhere near rapidly enough to account for the coherent behaviours that live beings exhibit every minute of their lives?
* * * * * * *
Personally, on the strength of the immediately foregoing, I think McTaggert is a pretty good “journalist.” For one thing, she is capable of making accessible to a non-specialist audience the things that working scientists ought to be “dialoging” about with us consumers of science – but in general do not; at least not in any kind of a forthcoming, proactive manner.
Isn’t science supposed to be dedicated to human understanding and welfare – that is, of all of us, including non-scientists?
It seems to me “science” has to stop “talking to itself” and start talking to the wider, intelligent if non-specialist, public. At least if it wants to continue to enjoy taxpayer funding for its research.
Just a “modest proposal.”
Meanwhile, I love this book so far. Probably this trend will continue. I do recommend The Field to any fellow FReeper who cares about science and its prospects for human society – and the human race at large.
Best to all, and thanks for the conversations.
p.s.: RWP, there's an article at Karl Popper's site that details the amoeba's "learning curve." I'll find that link for you (stored on my office computer), and bump it along to you tomorrow.... I've posted it here before; I guess you missed it. But this sort of thing happens to me all the time; so I certainly wouldn't hold this "lapse" (if it is one) against you.
I recall the amoeba learning example you posted a few months back. It was absolutely fascinating!
And this book sounds very interesting as well especially the photon speculation. betty boop, I have no idea how I'm going to keep up with you - but I'll give it my best effort!
A particularly gifted student [of Popp’s] talked him into trying an experiment. It is well known that when you apply a chemical called ethidium bromide to samples of DNA, the chemical squeezes itself into the middle of the base pairs of the double helix and causes it to unwind. The student suggested that, after applying the chemical, he and Popp try measuring the light coming off the sample. Popp discovered that the more he increased the concentration of the chemical, the more the DNA unwound, but also stronger the intensity of light.
OK, first of all, let me say I've done research with ethidium and other intercalation agents bound to DNA, some of which has been published in Science. It is a system I'm familiar with. And I'm a spectroscopist, teach mol. spec., at the advanced level, have a Ph.D. in biophysics, etc. Take that argument from authority for what it's worth.
McTaggert's description made no sense, so I looked up some of Popp's papers. He has essentially invented the field of 'biophotons'. There are conferences on it, and a lot of third world research on it, but it has the odor of crank research. I hadn't heard of it before this exchange. Popp has patented all sorts of applications in searching for tumor detection, infection, etc. Seen any of these devices in a hospital?
I searched the NIH grant database for 'biophoton', and found nothing. I think they're simply looking at a mixture of delayed luminescence and experimental artifacts. I may be an American chauvinist, but in my experience if it's a legitimate area of biophysical research, it would be funded by NIH. If there were any truth to his theory of carcinogenesis, someone over here would take it up, and steal the credit. Europeans complain about this all the time :-). Seriously, we understand a great deal about cancer, and it's not a result of impaired biophotons. Let me quote a phrase from one of the abstracts
One of the main difficulties in interpreting numerous biological effects of ultra-weak photon emission (UPE) produced by the living specimen is associated with its extremely low average intensity, which do not often significantly exceeds the level of a background count and is sometimes even lower
It's way down in the background, and you have to look really hard to see it. Riiiight.
Do me a favor, and look up the history of N-rays. Here's one source . The difference nowadays is that crank research (unless it would have earthshaking consequences, like 'cold fusion' or 'polywater') is simply ignored. There's no percentage in proving stuff like this wrong. But there's an enormous amount of utter crap published in scientific journals, and those of us in the field learn to look for tell-tale signs, and avoid it.