Are these guys crank scientists??

[abskebabs]

I posted on these forums a few years ago links to some admittedly dubious articles and papers relating to topics regarding "wave genetics" and photonic radiation using DNA somehow between cells to coordinate behaviour and things of the sort. A lot of the work was done by just a few researchers who continuosly seemed to cite a few works of each other. At least this was the impression I gained after a discussion with one of my own professors about this work(he was pretty skeptical of photonics having any major role in molecular biology).

 

I recently came across an article, that was linked across from somewhere Gariaev's work was discussed, from a researcher called Paolo Manzelli. Admittedly this article reads pretty nuttily as well, however; despite this and the bad english I think they might be on to something. Here's a link to the article:http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/lre/DNA-MUSIC.pdf

 

Anyway, the bottom of the article cites a webpage detailing the history of this field of biophysics/biophotonics which is as follows:

http://www.lifescientists.de/history.htm

 

This website is hosted by an organisation called the International Institute of Biophysics. They have a summer school this August. I guess maybe part of the work in this area may have been pseudoscience or bad science. I certainly became skeptical. What do you guys think? Have I once again potted on to the world premier league of cranks?

[CharonY]

Well, it is not easy to answer. Just from the look of it they appear to be genuine. However, their theories are hardly backed up by hard data. In fact, their published papers give only weak evidence, if at all (at least to the more outrageous claims). You have to keep in mind, however that these guys are physicists. It is not too unusual for them to come up with some weird ideas, often based on little biological knowledge. In fact some actually believe that "biological knowledge" is too limited and actually only a purely physical approach will lead to new findings. This is a bit sad as I believe that interdisciplinary work is actually of paramount importance for progress, but unfortunately too often both sides are to be too dug in in their viewpoints to facilitate true collaboration (I have some personal experience with that as I have collaborated as well as worked as a member of chemistry and biophysics groups).

Personally I believe this topics it is less a case of pure nuttiness but more of physicists trying their hand on biology and overstating their findings.

This opinion is based on a rough screening of only a few articles, though.

[abskebabs]

Interesting, I have a friend who is interested in "Econophysics", and what you have said very much reminds me of the somewhat uncritical approach many physicists in that field take towards Economics. Do you think it's a case of: "When you have your favourite hammer every problem looks like a nail?"

[ennui]

Freaky! I just read "History of Biophotonics", and once you penetrate the jargon it doesn't make sense at all.

 

I'm no expert, but I'm about 99% sure that DNA isn't a "source of photons for the body". I'm also pretty sure that photons aren't used for signalling in the body (except of course in the eye) - haven't these people heard of hormones and other ligands!?

 

The big warning bell is that if you click on the link to their papers, they aren't published in peer-review journals. They're simply written and then stuck online.

[timo]

I am not sure what exactly you are talking about but in case it is not obvious to everyone: The guys from the "International Institute for Biophysics" pretty much meet all crackpot criteria I can spontaneously think of. Might be more obvious if one speaks German, though.

EDIT: To be fair I should say that it is only the impression that the homepage of the IIB leaves.

Edited June 29, 2009 by timo

[CharonY]

If you look more closely you will find that a number of these guys actually have published in established (if mostly low-ranking) journals. An interesting aspect is that they are almost all exclusively (at least those I noticed and which were at least partially in the direction of what the website proposes) physical journals (e.g. Phys letters). In addition the papers are not (from my understanding) supporting the claims that they make on the website. In fact, the biological oriented paper do not actually mention biophotonics or anything else, from what I can see.

I do agree that the website looks more like an opinion piece than anything else, though.

 

The big warning bell is that if you click on the link to their papers, they aren't published in peer-review journals. They're simply written and then stuck online.

I suppose you went to the section with "Internet Publications". Curiously they made this one more prominent than their actual research papers. Further supporting the notion that they want to sell an opinion. While I obviously cannot vouch for any of them, the people themselves appear to be "real" scientists. Edited June 29, 2009 by CharonY

[GDG]

Psuedoscientific babble. As usual, there is an article in Wikipedia about biophotons. Although such photons do exist, they are believed to be a minor byproduct of metabolic chemical reactions. The wild extrapolations that attribute the photons to DNA, and that claim that the photons initiate chemical reactions (rather than result from them) have no scientific support that I can see.

 

For example, AFAIK, DNA bases do not spontaneously emit light. Even if bases did emit light, you cannot transmit much information in a handful of photons. And even if you could, what mechanism aims those photons at their receiver? And why don't the photons streaming through your body completely overwhelm the entire system? Way too farfetched: not even good science fiction

[CharonY]

Just to add, I do not see much credibility in their theories either. And judging from some of the publications I am not even sure whether they all know that they are on this particular website. I imagine that some of the biologists there may have delivered some specimen to the physicists, but I would be kind of surprised if they were actually believing that biophotons could have the properties ascribed to them on the website.

 

Do you think it's a case of: "When you have your favourite hammer every problem looks like a nail?"

It kind of seems to me like that. As I said, it is not that rare. While I am not working in a biophysics group anymore, I still visit biophysics seminars on a regular basis. And you would not believe what they sometimes say when they think that there are no biologists around. Of course it is rarely as elaborate as the website in question.

Of course this does not make them crank scientists per se, as they do not (as far as I can see) publish these things in the journals, but rather smaller elements, like detection of photon emissions in biological systems. But I have not read the papers in full, so I cannot state whether they imply that these emissions may be involved in cell communication within the article somewhere. Depending on the referee it may actually be possible...

[abskebabs]

Psuedoscientific babble. As usual, there is an article in Wikipedia about biophotons. Although such photons do exist, they are believed to be a minor byproduct of metabolic chemical reactions. The wild extrapolations that attribute the photons to DNA, and that claim that the photons initiate chemical reactions (rather than result from them) have no scientific support that I can see.

 

Thanks for the wikipedia article link, I probably should have realised there'd be one but I must admit it was quite enlightening. I think the comments about distressed cells using light as a signalling mechanism reveal the problems with a signalling hypothesis, when we can already largely explain the phenomenona along the lines you've mentioned above as:

 

Proponents additionally claim that studies have shown that injured cells will emit a higher biophoton rate than normal cells and that organisms with illnesses will likewise emit a brighter light' date=' which has been interpreted as implying a sort of distress signal. These ideas tend to support Gurwitsch's original idea that biophotons may be important for the development of larger structures such as organs and organisms.

 

However such conclusions are debatable. Injured cells are under higher amounts of oxidative stress, which ultimately is the source of the light, and whether this constitutes a "distress signal" or simply a background chemical process is yet to be demonstrated.[9'] The difficulty of teasing out the effects of any supposed biophotons amid the other numerous chemical interactions between cells makes it difficult to devise a testable hypothesis. Most organisms are bathed in relatively high-intensity light that ought to swamp any signalling effect, although biophoton signaling might manifest through temporal patterns of distinct wavelengths or could mainly be used in deep tissues hidden from daylight (such as the human brain, which contains photoreceptor proteins). There remains little evidence in the scientific literature to support the existence of such a signaling mechanism.

 

I'm tempted to sift through Fritz Albert Popp's papers myself to figure out the chaff from the wheat in this. I guess as a physicist, there's a temptation to see if any good can be done with that trusty old hammer:D.

[science4ever]

I got contacted today by a fervent believer in this stuff so maybe it works like a variant

of Transhumanism or even as a religious faith but expressing itself using pseudo science.

This guy has named it

NEXUS THEORY

The motivation seems to be this

 

a tiny part of that larger unitary consciousness is able to interact with the Nexus to animate the brain and body with what we erroneously recognize to be our separate selves in the grand illusion that is life. Consciousness is thus derived from the same source for everyone and we are all living parallel illusions of separateness.

 

So to me it looks like a New Religious Movement (NRM) that use sophistery to sound scientific?

Think of it it means they have done this now for some 4 years so they don't want to give up obviously.

Has there come any new reliable information that give any credit to it?

 

In case anybody wonder about my own take on this claim "we are all living parallel illusions of separateness."

 

I trust it is the other way around. we are all living our lives in total separateness due to how the body/brain works.

Edited July 22, 2013 by science4ever