THE
PERENNIAL CHALLENGE OF ANOMALIES
AT THE FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE
Anomalies at the Frontiers
of Science
B.
RUBIK
Institute for Frontier Sciences, 7711-D
Mc Callum St, Philadelphia, PA 19118, USA
2 - Scientific Paradigm
3 - Scientific anomalies
4 - The Role of the Skepticism
5 - The power of New Questions and Approaches in Science
6 - The resistance of Scientists to New Discoveries
7 - Obstacles Faced by Scientists who Challenge the Paradigm
8 - Strategies Toward Progress in the Frontier Sciences
9 - The Role of Homeopathy and Low Dose Bioeffects in the
Future of Science
10 - Conclusions
Scholars
have documented the resistance to novel scientific discovery by various groups,
such as economic and religious groups. However, there has been less attention
given to the resistance of the scientific community itself to challenging
scientific discoveries (Barber, 1961). Nonetheless, we find it in the history,
philosophy, and sociology of science and especially in the writings of those
scientists who have personally suffered obstacles due to this resistance. Whereas the scientific community believes
that it deals with novel controversial discoveries in a rational manner, this
is rarely the case.
The history of science, medicine, and
technology is full of rejections of novel discoveries that seemed anomalous in
their time. Contemporary scientists laughed when Benjamin Franklin proposed
that lightening was a form of electricity. Semmelweiss, a Viennese physician
who documented that washing one's hands before obstetrical assistance would
prevent childbed fever, was scorned and rejected by his contemporaries. William
Crookes, the noted British scientist and member of the Royal Society who
discovered the element thallium, was bitterly attacked by his scientific
colleagues for his research in parapsychology. Lord Kelvin said that X-rays
were a hoax. Helmholtz, who was not a physicist, but a medical doctor who
formulated the theory of energy conservation and who was opposed by the
physicists of his time noted how the "greatest benefactors of mankind
usually do not obtain a full reward during their lifetime" (Murray, 1825).
Lister warned medical students against blindness to new ideas in science, such
as he had encountered against his own theory of antisepsis. Long after their
time, many of these scientists whose ideas were rejected were regarded as
formative thinkers who made significant contributions or even launched new
scientific paradigms.
In
1962 Thomas Kuhn published a seminal work, "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions", which addresses the manner in which science advances. Kuhn's
main thesis is that science is not a slowly growing body of knowledge
approaching a true description of the world. Instead, science is characterized
by periods of quiet research activity leading to a crisis, which may last for
years to decades. During this transition period, scientific problems appear
that cannot be resolved within the given paradigm. Scientific anomalies, experimental results that cannot be
reconciled with current theory, may occur. Such anomalies are critical to
progress in science. In fact, each new
major advance in science starts with an anomaly that is unacceptable at first*.
Therefore, anomalies are valuable because they inspire new ways of thinking.
Conventional scientists attempt to explain the anomalies within the framework
of the dominant paradigm, while a smaller, usually younger group of scientists
develop an alternative paradigm. The crisis is resolved by a dramatic change of
perspective, a paradigm shift. A struggle typically ensues that may result in
the overthrow of the old paradigm. After the triumph of the new paradigm, the
old paradigm eventually disappears in a time frame necessary to provide
stability and confidence in the new paradigm. What was an anomaly earlier now
becomes the expected result. Textbooks are rewritten such that they even
disguise the very existence of the revolution that generated them. Eventually, new research uncovers problems
with the new paradigm. Then the process
repeats itself.
Kuhn notes how unconsciously ingrained the
dominant paradigm is. He wrote, "Scientists often work from textbook
models acquired through education and through subsequent exposure to the
literature without knowing or needing to know they are accepting a community
paradigm" (Kuhn, 1970). They work to fit their data into the ruling paradigm.
The usual peer review process in science provides an adequate forum for
evaluating new ideas and discoveries, but this is only true if those ideas and
discoveries do not challenge the paradigm. As was mentioned previously, those
considered incomprehensible or too challenging to current scientific
understanding are typically rejected. Michael Polanyi, in defending this
conservative nature of science, wrote, "There must be at all times a
predominantly accepted scientific view of the nature of things, in the light of
which, research is jointly conducted by members of the scientific
community". Any evidence which contradicts this view has to be
disregarded, even if it cannot be accounted for, in the hope that it will
eventually turn out to be false and irrelevant" (Truzzi, 1990). Although
the neglect of other possible conceptual categories is not malicious in intent,
it can become malicious in effect because the dominant paradigm discourages and
poorly tolerates competitors. That is, scientists prefer their work to appear
as an integral, growing body of knowledge under the auspices of a single
paradigm. Perhaps this is because scientists are encouraged to demonstrate what
they know rather than to raise truly novel questions that challenge what they
think they know.
Kuhn recognized an "essential
tension" within science because it must preserve its accumulated knowledge
by acting cautiously and conservatively, and on the other hand, remain an open
system ready to take in novel, potentially revolutionary data and concepts
(Kuhn, 1977). This balance is maintained in a number of ways. First, science
places the burden of proof on those who claim to discover scientific anomalies
or otherwise make revolutionary scientific claims. Second, the proof must be
commensurate with the claim; that is, extraordinary claims require stronger
than usual proof. (This relates to the
principle of parsimony in science in which the simplest adequate theory is the
most acceptable.)
It is interesting to note that Kuhn (1970)
believes that science generally progresses in a positive direction, but that
some paradigm shifts have reversed concepts such that aspects of an even older
paradigm may return in the form of new input reshaping old models. It is a
common conviction that the world is progressing in one direction scientifically
and socially, but as Kuhn points out, very often the clock is turned back with
new scientific developments. For
example, relativity and quantum theory, two of the most significant scientific
paradigm shifts in the twentieth century, both turned back the clock in certain
ways. The gravitational aspects of Einstein's general relativity reflect back
to Newton's predecessors, and quantum mechanics has reversed some of the methodological
prohibitions that had occurred in the earlier chemical revolution. Needless to say, the reshaping of older
views into a new paradigm would have significance for homeopathy and low dose
bioeffects. Many scientists today have
the attitude that these phenomena from an era predating modern molecular
biology have been overthrown, or that at best they represent a placebo effect.
These scientists are victims of historicism who refuse to accept anything from
an earlier time as bearing any modicum of truth.
According
to science sociologist Marcello Truzzi, an anomaly is something that: (1)
actually occurs (that is, something both perceived and validated); (2) is not
explained by some accepted scientific theory; (3) is perceived to be something
which is in need of explanation; (4) contradicts what we might expect from
applying our accepted scientific models. I would suggest that the anomaly's
lack of fit with accepted theory is the necessary element common to any real
anomaly. It is a fact in search of an explanation (Truzzi, 1987).
In the field of anomalistic observations,
or anomalistics (Wescott, 1980), that is, inquiry into anomalies and their role
in science, there are different types of scientific anomalies, at least in
retrospect. There are those that are recognized in their time by the scientific
mainstream that become the subject of legitimate research activity, and those
that go ignored by them because they are apparently too threatening. Many of
the latter come from the "frontier sciences," that is, whole areas of
scientific inquiry that have not yet been incorporated into conventional
science. These areas are ignored or even considered irrelevant by the
mainstream, in some cases, because they are often residues of older systems of
knowledge that have been denounced as pseudo-science, as, for example,
parapsychology and astrology.
The history of science shows that the most
challenging anomalies, those that seriously challenge the dominant paradigm,
are ignored by the scientific mainstream until they are explained, and only
then are they recognized in retrospect.
The term retrorecognition has been given to this type of recognition
only after there is a compelling explanation for the anomaly (Lightman and
Gingerich, 1991). Such anomalies make the scientific community uncomfortable,
as it likes to think of science as an integral body of knowledge that is nearly
complete. These unexplained facts are
either ignored, reduced in importance, or merely accepted as
"givens". Several factors are behind this attitude, such as the sheer
intellectual difficulty in recognizing anomalies, the tendency to ignore a
problem that cannot be easily solved, and the conservatism of science. But
there is something more. The recognition of what were once anomalies under an
older paradigm only after they are reconciled with a new paradigm clearly shows
that the scientific community is unable to live with ambiguity and cognitive
dissonance (psychological inconsistency). However, frontier scientists whose
work challenges the paradigm appear to be of a different psychological makeup,
with a higher tolerance for ambiguity and cognitive dissonance. It is
interesting to note that such tolerance correlates highly with creativity
scores in psychological testing (Barron, 1963). Furthermore, frontier scientists
may be working from dimensions other than rationality and logic, for Kuhn has
written, "The man who embraces a (new) paradigm at an early stage must
often do it in defiance of the evidence. A decision of that kind can only be
made on faith" (Kuhn, 1970).
Indeed,
it is rare to find those scientists who are true skeptics, that is, without
prejudice, open, and tolerant of uncertainty.
It is unfortunate that the term "skeptic" is being used by
many who are disbelievers or debunkers whose aim is to remove the anomaly,
rather than true nonbelievers (Truzzi, 1987). This appears to be particularly
the case for organized so-called skeptics groups such as the Committee for the
Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which sponsors
unusual critiques and other activities to discredit anomalous scientific
claims, undermining the usual processes of replication attempts and peer
review. In some cases this has involved
members outside of the scientific community such as professional magicians in a
process analogous to inquisitors for a dogmatic church (Maddox et al., 1988). Unfortunately, this has the effect of creating fear among those
who would have an interest in trying to replicate the anomaly, thereby blocking real scientific inquiry.
Where there are anomalies and frontier
areas of science that seriously challenge the paradigm, the scientific
community is often polarized into two categories: believers and disbelievers. Although the scientific community may
consist largely of disbelievers, sometimes the frontier scientists or
proponents of an anomaly act as "true believers". In some cases there
are societies of "true believers" centered around maverick scientific
claims that do not welcome open dialogue. In my opinion, they are no better
than some of the mainstream scientists they criticize. Sometimes the discoverer
of a challenging fact overstates his claims, jumping to conclusions about the
importance of his discovery without adequate data. On the other hand, the
"essential tension" of the scientific process renders it very
difficult to find the right balance in reporting anomalous claims. If the
discoverer understates his claim, it may go ignored; if he stresses its
revolutionary character, it may gather more attention and resources for further
study. From my own work aiming to facilitate new research and greater
open-mindedness in frontier areas of science, I find that it is a difficult
position to stand firm on the fine line that separates the believers from the
disbelievers. In my opinion this is the best viewpoint to encourage an attitude
of nonbelief that stimulates new questions and further experimentation.
Apparently this viewpoint is not well understood or liked by most, as I am
often accused of being "the enemy" of one group or the other.
However, openness and a healthy level of skepticism are crucial in order to
avoid pathological science.
5. The Power of New Questions and Approaches
in Science
Scientists
must approach nature by asking questions of her, and it is impossible to pose a
question without some expectation or anticipation. Clearly, from the analysis of Kuhn and numerous other scientific
historians and sociologists, science is not context-independent. Scientific
objectivity does not reside in theory-free perception. It lies in the
flexibility to reject a cherished theory when an anticipated observation cannot
be confirmed, and a contrary event or fact is perceived instead. Scientists may
say that they see the data with their own eyes, but in fact, they see it
through their brains. They cannot
bypass this central focus and filter full of biases, products of both evolution
and society. It is very difficult to
"see" scientifically beyond the context of theory or expectations.
As an example, consider the following.
Before Darwinism, the paradigm that preceded evolutionary theory was natural
theology, in which each creature was considered to be perfectly adapted to its
environment and designed for full functionality. While natural theology
dominated, no one noticed that some organisms were less well adapted to their
environment. Natural theology would not
permit such questions. Ducks were webbed feet that could not swim, birds with
wings that could not fly, and bats with eyes that could not see, went
unnoticed. Darwin asked new questions and noticed that some animals were less
well-adapted for their environment. He explained these anomalies on the basis
of natural selection, an ongoing evolutionary process. The point here is to
show the power of asking new questions that take us outside of the present
scientific theory or paradigm. These offer the possibility of a breakthrough to
a new way of seeing nature. As physicist Werner Heisenberg noted, "What we
observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of
questioning."
Another historical example of this goes
back to microscopy of the 17th and 18th centuries. The great microscopist Van Leeuwenhoek and his contemporaries
claimed they saw minute forms of complete babies inside sperm under the
microscope. Their observations were
shaped by the 2000-year-old idea that women contributed nothing to conception
but the womb as an incubator. In this case, too, preconceived ideas determined
what was scientifically observed.
In another historical example involving
microscopy, different methodological approaches of observation based on
different philosophies led to a scientific debate. In the 1940's the
bacteriologist Adrianus Pijper maintained that bacterial flagella are not true
motor organs, but are essentially insignificant, being merely cell wall
byproducts of bacterial motility (Strick, 1994). From his observations of live
bacteria under the dark-field microscope, he claimed that he saw small changes
in the forms of the bodies of the bacteria, a slight undulating motion, which
he proposed as a theory of bacterial motility.
As it turned out, his view was unpopular because he was far outnumbered
by those who fixed and stained dead bacteria for light microscopy or electron
microscopy, which was newly introduced at that time. The majority of scientists
then claimed that flagella were indeed the organelles of motility and showed
evidence via microphotography of sites of flagellar attachment to the cell
body. Pijper rejected these physical approaches, emphasizing that studies on
the living state itself were critical to understanding cellular motility, and
that the approaches using dead cells might yield artifacts. This lead to an
ongoing debate, as both schools refused to "see" any evidence beyond
their own viewpoints. In the end, Pijper lost the debate. His refusal to
acknowledge the "superiority" of the electron microscope was held
against him by the scientific majority.
Beyond the specifics of this historical
debate, the latter case is important for us to consider because it reveals the
perennial struggle between the naturalist and the mechanist in biology. It shows how naturalists' observations of
living systems were replaced by a modern biology tightly linked to
physico-chemical reductionism as new powerful, expensive, prestigious,
technological tools came into being. These new physical methods require an
often insensitive manipulation of organisms that distorts or even kills them in
order to study them. The naturalists'
approach came to be regarded as old-fashioned and even reminiscent of vitalism
to the new biologists, who were led by several physicists-turned-biologists in
the 1940's and 1950's. These were the people who ushered in a new scientific
era, the revolution that became the dominant paradigm of molecular biology and
biotechnology in recent decades.
6. The Resistance of Scientists to New Discoveries
Studies
on the psychology of science suggest that scientists have a resistance to
acknowledging data that contradicts their own hypothesis (Truzzi, 1990). In one
study on falsifiability, a simple experiment was set up to compare the
performance of a group of scientists and a group of clergymen. A false
hypothesis was given to all of the participants. The means was provided for them
to test the hypothesis, which they did not know was false. The results showed
that most of the scientists refused to declare the hypothesis false, clinging
to it longer despite the lack of evidence. The clergymen, however, more
frequently recognized that the hypothesis was false. This and other studies
show that scientists are at least as dogmatic, authoritarian, and irrational as
nonscientists in resisting unexpected findings.
The historical examples cited earlier
illustrate only a few reasons why resistance to novel discoveries in the
scientific community occurs. Analysis of many other examples shows numerous
ways in which scientists resist discoveries that are old paradigm breaking and
new paradigm making. One of these mentioned earlier is the loathing of
ambiguity. Most scientists prefer to elaborate what they think they know than
rather focus on what they do not know; perhaps this is simply human nature.
Along with that is fear of novelty. New discoveries require restructuring older
ideas and ways of doing science. Change, whether it is personal, social, or
intellectual is difficult, and may even cause a lifetime of work to become
unimportant and obsolete. Related to this is the fact that older scientists
have a tendency to resist the novel work of the younger. Innovative
"outsiders" may also be rejected by the "insiders,"
especially if the new discovery comes from outside the field, as in the case of
cold fusion**.
There is also a faithfulness to old models, reflecting a belief in scientific
concepts or simply conservatism. When Thomas Young proposed a wave theory of
light, the scientific community remained faithful to the older corpuscular
theory for some time. This tendency sometimes reveals a dogmatism or scientism.
Paul Feyerabend accuses contemporary science of being a "church" in
which scientists play a role that is in many respects similar to the role
bishops and cardinals played not too long ago (Feyerabend, 1980). Another mode of resistance, also illustrated
by the example cited earlier of Van Leeuwenhoek and his colleagues, is
blindness due to preconceptions. It is extraordinarily difficult to
"see" what may lie beyond one's paradigm, which delimits all
questions posed of nature and ways of perceiving her. Anomalies without "causes" or an adequate explanatory
model are rejected because they do not fit neatly into the body of science. If
an anomalous claim pertains to an area reminiscent of mysticism, religion,
older paradigms that have been overthrown, or pseudo-science, this may be
grounds for rejection by those who feel threatened by these associations. Along
with that, occasionally conflicting personal religious ideas may be a reason
for rejection. That was the case for both Galileo and Copernicus, and it also
appears to be a factor in the debate between Creationists and Evolutionists.
Scientists evaluating an anomalous finding sometimes take into account the
relative professional standing of the discoverer as well as the number of
prestigious followers of the new claim, and these are primarily political
concerns. Concerned about their reputation, scientists are reluctant to take
the lead in helping to advance a new claim. In relation to that, publications
about the new scientific claim in other than the most prestigious peer-reviewed
journals are taken less seriously and may be grounds for rejection or simply
neglect. Finally, and perhaps most important to contemporary science is that
where substantial funding is involved, patronage to those ideas endorsed and
funded to the exclusion of others is overwhelming.
Today, because of large economic interests
in science, biomedicine, and technology, and the increasing overlap between
academia and industry, the resistance to new discoveries or ideas that
challenge the dominant paradigm goes well beyond ideological concerns.
Challenging ideas can be seen as threatening to big business interests,
including the interests of those industries waging war against cancer or AIDS.
Anyone who is a proponent of ideas that threaten large-scale economic interests
can expect even harsher backlash from the scientific community, which in
mainstream biology and medicine, is now closely linked to pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Surely that is one
of the most significant reasons for rejection of novelty in biology and
medicine today. Moreover, the many different fields of biology with their
varied orientations to life that existed before big business science are
presently extinct, at least in the U.S.
It is simply taboo to challenge seriously
the dominant paradigm, and those who propose such maverick ideas or findings
suffer extraordinary obstacles. Similar to the acceptance of novel discoveries,
the obstacles are especially severe for those whose work threatens big economic
interests that are now coupled to mainstream science.
7. Obstacles Faced by Scientists who Challenge
the Paradigm
There
are a number of serious, even extraordinary obstacles that scientists presently
face as proponents of paradigm-challenging discoveries or where their
reputation becomes associated with research on unconventional topics. These
obstacles are not characteristic of a particular culture; they appear
worldwide. (1) There is difficulty in obtaining funding, as there are simply no
usual sources. (2) There is difficulty in publishing, and there is no real peer
review. (3) There is loss of camaraderie. Colleagues fear a loss of reputation
by association with a scientist who is deemed an outcast. (4) There is loss of
reputation in the scientific community regardless of one's stature. (5) There
are obstacles to promotion, retention, and tenure. (6) There is possible
critical backlash from the scientific community. (7) There is a possible loss
of employment and future employment opportunities.
The pursuit of research in frontier science
areas such as homeopathy and extremely high dilution bioeffects, novel medical
therapies or diagnostics, new energy technologies, and consciousness
studies--research in any area that challenges the dominant paradigm--poses
extraordinary hardships for scientists. Merely expressing an interest in these
can affect one's reputation as a serious member of the scientific community.
Whether one is a postdoctoral researcher, a junior professor, a member of a
distinguished national academy of science, or a Nobel laureate, essentially the
same obstacles remain. For those who have seemingly overcome these hurdles,
publications of challenging scientific results may bring about unforeseen
backlash in the form of discrediting the discoverer or the claim without really
disproving it, prohibiting it from being tested by others. Moreover, this may prevent consideration of
similar challenging claims in the scientific literature, textbooks, and
education. The proponent of the anomalous claim is thus isolated from further debate
and interaction with rest of the scientific community.
Many people associate such repressiveness
with earlier times, but there are living examples today. One illustrious
example--a case where big economic interests in biotechnology and medical
testing are threatened--is that of Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular
biology at the University of California at Berkeley. His work identifying the
first oncogene to cause cancer and also decoding the first retrovirus genes
earned him an outstanding international reputation as a molecular biologist and
virologist. However, because of his recent criticism of the oncogene theory of
cancer and especially his criticism of HIV as the cause of AIDS, he has
essentially been silenced by the scientific community. No one will debate his
arguments either in writing or in person. Duesberg is unable to publish in
prestigious peer-reviewed journals, not even the Proceedings of the U.S.
National Academy of Science, despite his stature as a member of the National
Academy, because they rewrote the rules especially to prevent him from
publishing. He lost his annual $300,000 Special Investigator Grant from the
U.S. National Institutes of Health, which was expressly for the purpose of
asking novel questions, and as a result, his students and technicians have had
to leave. Duesberg has been excommunicated from the scientific community.
Needless to say, the review panel who refused to renew his grant included
scientists who earn their living from the theories that Duesberg is undermining,
and many others in the mainstream also earn their living from these theories.
8. Strategies Toward Progress in the Frontier
Sciences
With
all of the obstacles and resistances, how can we help facilitate rational,
objective criticism and fair peer review of anomalous claims? What strategies
can we implement to bring progress to a frontier science area such as
homeopathy and low dose bioeffects?
(1)
We must recognize that there is no single critical experiment that can prove an
anomaly. This is ridiculous from the scientific viewpoint, as the history and
philosophy of science has shown that there is no such thing as a critical
experiment.
(2)
More empirical studies need to be undertaken by more researchers, and we need
to work together at least to provide peer review of each others' work, if not
outright collaboration. All too often, the work of pioneering frontier
scientists represents isolated, individual efforts. By contrast, most quality
science involves collaborative efforts. It is important to build on one
another's work. Just as cooperative or collective phenomena in nature have
unusual stability, there is also a strength in collective scientific efforts
that is harder to dismiss.
(3)
An interdisciplinary approach to anomalies is absolutely necessary, because we
do not know ultimately where an anomaly will fit. In the case of homeopathy or
high dilution bioeffects, interdisciplinary group collaboration with
experiments performed in tandem on the same high dilution would be worthwhile,
because for the first time it would reveal physical, chemical, and biological
information about a single preparation. This could develop into an
international task force, a global cooperation, to address the problem.
(4)
We must produce well-designed experiments that are well-communicated in the
scientific literature, which will presumably continue to demonstrate the effect
in a wide variety of biological systems.
(5)
We must show replication of phenomena, especially by skeptics.
(6)
We must also discover and document where no such anomalous effects are
observed, so that the boundary conditions of the effect are clear.
(7)
Conceptual work toward achieving a theoretical explanation for the effect is
crucial for its recognition.
(8)
We must keep the communication flowing between those working in the field who
don't agree on the details. A diversity of opinions is extremely important
because it drives the formation of new questions. Good science requires good
and effective criticism. Furthermore, failures in communication from splinter
groups in frontier areas of science only weaken the case, as their presence
makes a statement to the scientific community that there is weakness or
irrational behavior associated with the anomaly.
(9)
One of our best strategies would be serve as mentors and inspire younger
scientists to conduct research in novel areas of science. For one, it is most
likely that presently established scientists will have to retire before a
paradigm shift is completed, and most of them will not change their
viewpoint. As physicist Max Planck
sadly noted," A new scientific theory does not triumph by convincing its
opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it "
(Kuhn, 1970). Niels Bohr put it
somewhat differently: "Science
advances--funeral by funeral."
(10)
Retired scientists, who have less to lose in terms of their reputation or
funding, are occasionally more open to new ideas or discoveries. Moreover, they may still wield political
power in the scientific community.
Therefore, communications with or other involvement of retired
colleagues may be a viable strategy.
(11)
Another strategy that may be used to advance scientific recognition of a
challenging anomaly is to identify and align with whatever social, political,
or economic interests that would very much like this particular piece of
scientific unorthodoxy to be true, or at least to be highly interested in
resolving the issue. When Robert O. Becker, medical researcher in
bioelectromagnetics had the unorthodox idea in the 1970's that electromagnetic
fields from power lines might be a health risk, he found no sympathetic ears in
the scientific community or the electric power industry. However, he
communicated the issue clearly in his popular writings and launched a public
campaign in which the people demanded unbiased research to test his ideas.
Within less than two decades, substantial U.S. government funds became
available for this purpose.
(12)
Another approach related to this strategy is to develop a successful
application of the anomaly that will bypass the scientific community
altogether. Once the application is adopted, scientists will be naturally drawn
to the fundamental discovery underlying it.
(13)
Finally, we should attempt to foster true skepticism--neither denial nor
disbelief, but a balanced state of openness. The best way to do this is by
personal example, by maintaining a level of healthy skepticism ourselves, with
an emphasis on further questions. This is crucial to keeping science an open
system of inquiry.
9. The Role of Homeopathy and Low Dose Bioeffects
in the Future of Science
The
observations of low dose biological effects challenge the dominant paradigm of
mechanical reductionism, of viewing life as a collection of biomolecules
responding to molecular stimuli. The enhanced potency of very low doses as in
homeopathy appears to challenge molecular theory, one of the pillars of modern
chemistry. On the other hand, it may demonstrate that something else is
occurring at these very low doses that does not involve molecules.
Biological effects of low doses have been
demonstrated in a growing number of studies worldwide, and we are now in the
midst of a paradigm struggle. As Kuhn predicts, an intellectual and emotional
battle is occurring: there have been nasty editorials, tenure battles, debates
and arguments, splinter groups, the rejection of papers, frequent denial on the
part of the scientific community, and many questions that have been raised for
further research. From an historical perspective, the accretion of anomalies or
numbers of anomalous observations in themselves are not enough to product a
paradigm shift. Further effort is required. Conceptual work towards new theories
and a paradigm that would reconcile them is critical to their recognition by
the scientific community. No one other than the proponents of the anomalies
will accomplish this. It remains for us, the frontier scientists, to design the
theories, elaborate the new paradigm, and show how they explain our anomalies.
One of the best examples of a conceptual
revolution is found in a 19th century science fiction classic: E.A. Abbott's
Flatland. The inhabitants of Flatland live on a two-dimensional surface and
have no concept of our third dimension. When a sphere visits Flatland, he is
perceived as an anomaly: a circle that first grows bigger and then smaller. The
sphere then lifts the leader of Flatland into the third dimension where he can
see his whole world. This novel perspective not only clears up the anomaly, but
offers a new perspective for everything. We need a similar major conceptual
breakthrough for homeopathy and low dose bioeffects. When it occurs, it may
reframe our ideas of matter, energy, life, and information in a radically new
perspective.
Presently the greatest challenge to those
working on homeopathy or low dose bioeffects is to develop a proper theoretical
context for their observations. We need a theory of very high dilutions in the
context of the organism. This would enable us to form testable questions that
move the research from an accumulation of anomalous observations to a sequence
of facts that fit together like pieces of a puzzle. It is becoming more
apparent that molecular theory offers nothing but conceptual limitations for
this field of inquiry, and that an alternative that goes beyond it must be
sought. Moreover, I anticipate that a
breakthrough toward a radically new view of chemistry is in the making, and it
is long overdue. Quantum chemist, H.
Primas, wrote (Primas, 1982), "The
richness of chemical phenomena renders it impossible to discuss them
exhaustively from a single point of view. The molecular view is just one of
these views and has no privileged status.... While the molecular theory fell on
fertile ground, the further development of a theory of chemical substances was
deprived of intellectual incentive. Even today, chemical thermodynamics and
chemical kinetics are still in a rudimentary state of development achieved at
the turn of the century....The molecular idea flourished and degenerated into a
dogma, requiring unqualified faith".
He also wrote, "Our vision of the
world will be severely limited if we restrict ourselves to the molecular view.
Molecular theories describe some aspects of matter, but it is not wise to think
that they give us a description of reality 'as it is.' If questions of a
different kind can be asked, nature will then respond in a new language."
As to the future of science, research on
homeopathy and other low dose bioeffects offers the gift of new questions to
the greater scientific community--not only for homeopathy and solution
chemistry, but for the entire theory of condensed matter with ramifications for
biology, chemistry, and physics. Chipping away at the molecular dogma and
raising uncertainty about what scientists thought was bedrock truth should be
seen as healthy for science. As physicist Louis de Broglie warned us, "The
advances of science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of
certain preconceived notions that were turned into unassailable dogmas, and for
that reason scientists must periodically reexamine their basic
principles." Research on
homeopathy and low dose bioeffects may lead to a revision or a refinement of
molecular theory, or it may show that something other than molecular theory is
involved at these low doses.
There is theoretical work in physics
towards a new theory of matter that may hold promise for application to
homeopathy and low dose bioeffects. Del Giudice (1991) and Preparata (1992)
propose a novel theory of condensed matter based on quantum electrodynamics in
which collective or cooperative phenomena are critical to its structure and
properties. They show that conventional
molecular theory works well for gases, but falls short in explaining the
phenomena of liquids and solids. A
system of molecules kept together by purely static forces becomes dynamically
unstable beyond a certain density threshold.
Therefore the system enters a lower energy configuration where molecules
oscillate in tune with a self-produced coherent electromagnetic field. The energy gain is proportional to the
particle density, and then matter is forced to condense. The theory predicts
the appearance of coherence domains in solids and liquids such as water.
Because the living cell and its structural subcomponents have dimensions of the
same order of size of the calculated coherence domains in liquid water, it is
expected that electrodynamical coherence may be relevant to the living state,
in terms of enhanced stability and novel energy and information transactions.
Such novel energy and information transactions, if they exist, may be relevant
for homeopathy.
The results of many low dose experiments
suggest new features of matter such as information that may be conveyed by more
subtle properties of matter than molecules. It comes as no surprise that living
systems, which are well known to involve many levels of order and different
types of informational exchange, appear to be sensitive to what may be
"informational" properties of very high dilutions of bioactive
substances. Experiments from another frontier area of biology suggest that
there may be subtle non-chemical bio-informational transfer in cellular systems
(Kaznacheev, 1976; Kirkin, 1981). Still other experiments suggest that the zero
point energy of the quantum vacuum may be involved in subtle informational
transfer in biology (Reid, 1989). Perhaps an appropriate explanation for low
dose bioeffects awaits us in a biophysics that is yet to be invented.
Whereas conventional science maintains that
biological information is stored and transferred via biomolecular structures
such as DNA, there is some indication that more subtle informational signals
may elicit biological effects. In bioelectromagnetics there are many
observations that extremely low-level nonionizing electromagnetic fields whose
energy content is below the physical thermal noise limit can produce biological
effects, sometimes robust. There is no agreed upon molecular mechanism for
these effects. It has been postulated
by some that these may act on the organism in such a way that they affect the
organisms's endogenous electromagnetic field, which may be bio-regulatory. That
is, they act at the level of the whole organism to provide bio-information or
disrupt it rather than at the level of energy or power intensity directed to
molecular receptors. Furthermore, it is possible that several other phenomena
that elicit biological effects such as very high dilutions, homeopathy, healer
treatments, acupuncture, and other types of "energy medicine" may
mediate their effects by means of coherent excitations, forms of
electromagnetic bio-information that might interact primarily with the
organism's endogenous fields. Endogenous electromagnetic fields, which are
properties of the entire organism rather than specific biomolecules, may be
involved in self-regulation of the whole organism, and sensitive to a variety
of subtle informational signals from the environment. These speculations not
only challenge the concept of molecular mechanisms, but also the dogma that
mechanical reductionism is the fundamental principle underlying the living
state. However, much work needs to be
done to develop these speculations into testable hypotheses and theories.
There are a number of other attacks on the
mechanistic view of life that those working on homeopathy or low dose
bioeffects should be aware of. Richard Strohman, a leading molecular biologist
and Professor Emeritus at the University of California has recently presented
some serious challenges to the genetic paradigm. He argues that the information
for cellular activity is not in the individual genes, but is holistically
located (Strohman, 1993). In his view, biological research is presently missing
this integral program. The creativity of the organism, which is perhaps life's
most salient feature, involves the interplay of the integral design and
function of the organism with its environment. He raises the argument for an
epigenetic rather than a genetic view of life, whereby environmental
interactions produce hereditable changes. This means that a nonlinear
interaction between the organism and its environment takes place, where the
temporal sequence of events determines the complexity that unfolds even in the
simplest organism. Of course, it is much easier to ask questions within the
mechanistic reductionist framework by studying the fragments of a dead
organism. It is much more difficult to study the interaction of genetic and environmental
factors in a living organism and develop a science of life at this level.
However, most biologists fail to see the limitations of their paradigm and the
importance of aiming for this larger context.
There is a popular anecdote based on a Sufi
story of a drunk who lost his keys somewhere on a dark street and is groping
for them only under the street lamp.
When
asked where he lost them, he replies that he doesn't know, but he is looking
there because the light is good. Similarly, the dominant paradigm of mechanical
reductionism has prevailed because the biology community has asked only those
questions where the "light is good," and the results are clear cut
and reproducible.
Biologists explore, for the most part,
those dynamical possibilities for life only where organisms "obey"
the paradigm. They have missed the enormous creative potential of life in its
subtle interactions and interrelationships. Furthermore, the genetic approach
has not permitted "other" questions to be addressed, which, in fact,
challenge the conventional approach and the dominant paradigm. Moreover, there
is a terrible confusion in contemporary biology between the ontology of life,
its epistemology, and the methodology. That is, the methodology used
(mechanical reductionism) has frequently been equated with life itself or the
model of how it functions. This is particularly true in the U.S. where higher
education in science does not typically include coursework in the history or
philosophy of science.
The whole organism may be a biological
fundamental that cannot be reduced to its parts; the whole may be
self-governing by virtue of its long-range electromagnetic fields that are the
summation of many electrically charged component species and their
interactions. This is reminiscent of the words of Claude Bernard, "The
vital force directs phenomena that it does not produce; the physical agents
produce phenomena that they do not direct." In 1839, when Bernard wrote
this statement, the "vital force" was taken to mean a metaphysical concept
beyond the scope of science. However,
the "vital force" may indeed be a property of the whole organism, a
time-varying electromagnetic field summation of all the electrically charged
molecular events occurring within it. Subtle biological effects may be mediated
through this subtle informational network at the level of the whole.
The
dominant paradigm of mechanical reductionism that shaped science for the past
few centuries, but was overthrown by developments in modern physics earlier
this century, still governs modern biology and medicine. Mechanical
reductionism, which was developed for the inanimate physical world, determines
the scope of questions that can be posed for living organisms, and conventional
biology is the collection of theory and results based on those questions.
However, frontier scientists are exploring other features of life by asking new
questions that go beyond the dominant paradigm. Their questions come from
various frontier areas of science and medicine such as epigenetic heredity,
bioelectromagnetics, homeopathy, and low dose bioeffects. The results of their
investigations, which may be regarded as individual anomalies by the
mainstream, may be taken together as evidence for the need of a bigger paradigm
to accommodate them. Biology, it appears, may be entering a crisis.
Not only do these "anomalies"
challenge our present view of life, but collectively they point to the
necessity for a holistic view of life to complement the reductionistic view.
Whereas conventional science maintains that biological information is stored
and transferred via biomolecular structures such as DNA, the anomalies show
that other informational signals not stored in chemical structures may elicit
biological effects by possibly altering the subtle informational signals
involved in biological regulation of the whole organism.
Major changes in science have never been
brought about by isolated experimental findings, but by collective evidence.
Thus, it is crucial for scientists who dare to venture into tributaries of the
mainstream or uncharted terrain to come together to dialogue and share their
data, to find that what may seem as isolated anomalies fit together to form the
rudiments of an emerging paradigm. It is important to look at the problems of
our science and the gaps in our knowledge. We must continually ask new
questions, to never be satisfied with the old ones or the answers that have
come to pass. Scientists must continually be motivated by the
"mother" of all questions: what facets of nature remain undiscovered
because what we consider to be theoretical certainties prevent the posing of
new challenging questions?
11. References
Abbott, E.A. (1963) Flatland,
Harper and Row Publishers, New York.
Barber, B. (1961) Resistance by scientists to scientific
discovery, Science 134, 596-602.
Barron, F. (1963) The disposition toward originality, in
C.W. Taylor and F. Barron, (eds) Scientific
Creativity: Its Recognition and Development, Wiley Pubmisher, New York, pp.
139-152.
Bernard, C. (1859) Des
Liquides de l'Organisme, Tome III, Bailliere Publisher, Paris.
Del Giudice, E. and Preparata, G. (1991) Superradiance:
Towards an understanding of the ground states of QED in condensed matter, in
T.D. Clark et al. (eds)Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena, World
Scientific Publisher, Singapore, pp. 167.
Feyerabend, P. (1980) Comments by Paul Feyerabend, Zetetic Scholar 6, 52-54. I
Kaznacheev, V.P., Shurin, S.P., et al. (1976) Distant intercellular interactions in a system of two
tissue cultures, Psychoenergetic Syst.
1, 141-142.
Kirkin, A.F. (1981) Non-chemical distant interactions
between cells in culture, Biofizika 26,
839-843.
Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The
Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Second Edition, University of Chicago
Press Publisher, Chicago.
Kuhn, T.S. (1977) The
Essential Tension., University of Chicago Press Publisher, Chicago.
Lightman, A. and Gingerich, O. (1991) When do anomalies
begin?, Science 255,
690-695.
Maddox, J., Randi, J., and Stewart, W.W. (1988) "High
dilution" experiments a delusion, Nature 334,
287-290.
Mallove, E. (1993) Personal communication.
Murray, R.H. (1825) Science
and Scientists in the Nineteenth Century, Sheldon Press, London.
Preparata, G. (1992) Coherence in QCD and QED, in T.
Bressani et al. (eds) Problems and Ideas of Modern Physics,
World Scientific Publisher, Singapore, pp. 3.
Primas, H. (1982) Chemistry and complementarity, Chimia
36 , 293-300.
Reid, B.L. (1989) On the nature of growth and new growth
based on experiments designed to reveal a structure and function for laboratory
space, Medical Hypothesis 29,
105-127.
Strick, J. (unpublished paper) Adrianus Pijper and the
debate over bacterial flagella:
morphology and electron microscopy in bacteriology, 1946-1956. Presented April 1, 1994 at Joint Atlantic
Seminar for the History of Biology at MIT.
Strohman, R. (1993) Ancient genomes, wise bodies, unhealthy
people: limits of a genetic paradigm in
biology and medicine, Perspectives in
Biology and Medicine 37,
112-145.
Truzzi, M. (1987) Zetetic ruminations on skepticism and
anomalies in science, Zetetic Scholar 12,
7-20.
Truzzi, M. (1990). Reflections on the reception of
unconventional claims in science, Frontier
Perspectives 1, Fall/Winter, pp. 13-25.
Wescott, R.W. (1980). Introducing anomalistics: a new field
of interdisciplinary study, Kronos 5,
36-50.
* Plenary lecture presented at the 7th GIRI Meeting, November 1993, Montpellier, France.
* In this regard, it is interesting to note that in Chinese, the character for "crisis" also means opportunity
** The Princeton Plasma Fusion physicists said of cold fusion, when it was first announced, "What would you do if you were working to develop a propeller airplane that did not yet fly and somebody else from outside the field suddenly invented a rocket ship?"(Mallowe, 1993).