At The End Of The Twig: Are There Limits To Entanglement? Is…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 23, 2017

As I indicated yesterday, this has been a very strange week for me, for people have sent many articles detailing recent discoveries in technology and science, and as might be expected, many of them come from the wild and weird world of quantum mechanics, which seems to grow weirder by the week (as if it wasn’t weird enough already). Mr. J.K., Mr. V.T., and Mr. A. and a few others sent the following three articles:

Scientists Have Set a Limit For Quantum Entanglement – And It’s Really Freaking Powerful

Space time ‘fluctuates wildly’ claims new theory that could shed new light on how the universe is expanding

Scientists Achieve Direct Counterfactual Quantum Communication For The First Time

Now, as one might expect, I’m going to crawl way out onto the end of the twig of high octane speculation here, where the weight of the speculation far exceeds the ability of the twig to support it. I can’t help it; I’m a hack from South Dakota, and it’s what hacks from South Dakota do. Besides, I’m also a Capricorn, and crawling way out onto the end of tree branches is also what goats do:

So, with that huge caveat in mind, there are a few statements in these articles that have me wondering. Consider this statement, when scientists subjected entangled particles to micro-gravitational, and then hyper-gravitational, acceleration:

“Our results show that quantum entanglement is unaffected by non-inertial motion to within the resolution of our test-system,” the researchers conclude.

“This represents the first experimental effort exposing a genuine quantum system to milli-g and hyper-g, and extends the experimental regime in which quantum effects can be said to exist in harmony with relativity.”

Consulting my Scientismese to Hack English dictionary, this translated to my simple mind as:

“entanglement is not affected by inertial systems”, or, “entanglement is not affected by gravity.” Now, granted, the scientists conducting this odd, but very important, experiment, are not saying that. What they want to do is scale it up, and see if in fact there is some limit or “boundary condition” where under extreme gravitation entanglement might be affected or perhaps broken. Would it break, for example, in the extreme conditions of a black hole? Or, conversely, would the conditions in a black hole actually be the matrix for a kind of “hyper-entanglement”? I suspect (here comes that standing on the end of the twig part) that no such boundary condition will be found, or, that if it is, under certain inertial or gravitational conditions, entanglement might actually be enhanced, and that as such, entanglement (which, let us remember, is the entanglement of information) might be a clue, perhaps, to anti-gravity or contrabary.

Which brings me to the second article, and these ideas:

New calculations suggest space-time is wildly fluctuating, swinging back and forth between expansion and contraction at a scale ‘billions and billions’ times smaller than an electron.

The researchers from the University of British Columbia suggest there is a huge density of vacuum energy in the universe, as predicted by some – but, in their calculations, oscillations between expansion and contraction cause it to nearly cancel itself out.

But, it doesn’t, and instead gives rise to a tiny net effect that slowly causes the universe to expand at an accelerating rate, they say.

Again, to my simple hack-goat-from-South-Dakota-on-the-end-of-the-twig mind, this sounds a bit like what we’ve heard before: the lattice of space-time is not a static phenonemon: it appears to be that way but upon analysis, those “nodes” in the lattice result from a kind of zero-summing at the node, but with a slight residual leading to a translation, and as a result of that, there is a slight asymmetry driving the expansion of the universe. If that even more wild and woolly speculation is true, then connect it with the first phenomenon: manipulation of that contraction and rarefaction might also be a clue to the engineering of that lattice directly (and note, a contraction or compression and rarefaction such as the authors are speaking is a longitudinal wave form… and who does that sound like?).

Then we have the following statements from the third article:

Quantum communication is a strange beast, but one of the weirdest proposed forms of it is called counterfactual communication – a type of quantum communication where no particles travel between two recipients.

Theoretical physicists have long proposed that such a form of communication would be possible, but now, for the first time, researchers have been able to experimentally achieve it – transferring a black and white bitmap image from one location to another without sending any physical particles.

If that sounds a little too out-there for you, don’t worry, this is quantum mechanics, after all. It’s meant to be complicated. But once you break it down, counterfactual quantum communication actually isn’t as bizarre as it sounds.

First up, let’s talk about how this differs from regular quantum communication, also known as quantum teleportation, because isn’t that also a form of particle-less information transfer?

Well, not quite. Regular quantum teleportation is based on the principle of entanglement – two particles that become inextricably linked so that whatever happens to one will automatically affect the other, no matter how far apart they are.

But wait, there’s more:

Direct counterfactual quantum communication on the other hands relies on something other than quantum entanglement. Instead, it uses a phenomenon called the quantum Zeno effect.

Very simply, the quantum Zeno effect occurs when an unstable quantum system is repeatedly measured.

In the quantum world, whenever you look at a system, or measure it, the system changes. And in this case, unstable particles can never decay while they’re being measured (just like the proverbial watched kettle that will never boil), so the quantum Zeno effect creates a system that’s effectively frozen with a very high probability.

Now, putting all this in Hack-ese again, one simply freezes the system by freezing the observation of it in a certain state. Granted, all this is at a quantum, sub-atomic particle level. But it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that someone, somewhere, will want to test the whole idea by “scaling it up” to “see what happens”, or, in this case, what doesn’t happen. While all the focus of the experiment is on particle-less communication, I therefore cannot help but wonder the extent to which the whole thing might be tailored to the engineering of micro-timelines and “reality engineering.” (And, for those willing to crawl way out on to the end of this twig with me, I cannot help but wonder if the original Zeno paradox itself might be a legacy phenomenon of precisely this type of physics-observer-based thinking…. yea, I know, I’ve lost it. That’s too much of a whopper. But still… I can’t help but think of Plato and his “mathematicals”.)

Putting all this together, what it boils down to is that these experiments and ideas have truly cosmic implications, that mankind is taking the first faltering steps into a cosmological engineering capability.  For now, the capability is small… but… if they can be “scaled up…”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Weaponization of “Science”

Source:  CorbettReport
May 22, 2017

SHOW NOTES: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=22774 |

“Science” is being turned into a political weapon. Not the scientific method, but the reified “science” of scientism, exemplified by the politically-motivated March For Science, the politically-biased peer review process, the politically-charged infotainment from political hacks like Bill Nye, and the politically-appointed scientific regulators who always put their corporate interests and political worldview ahead of scientific accuracy.

Something Wicked Came This Way…[Part 3]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Kelly EM
May 16, 2017

This author is very appreciative of the many fine comments, links, propositions and theories shared with respect to the first two blogs with the above title. The premises for continuing our discussion are reports of a discovery of a layer of platinum from the comments to Part II. So let’s take the debate a little deeper.

The argument of the pro-comet faction is that the platinum (Pt) is evidence only of a cometary impact.  I asked Dr. LaViolette about the evidence of a rise in platinum in the ice cores.  Dr. LaViolette informed me that:

“The [platinum] peak increases gradually and drops off abruptly. This is exactly opposite to what you would expect for an impact. This is probably one reason Petaev suggested this to be dust of unusual composition that had entered our stratosphere (and not an impacting body). For Moore et al. Besides, the date of this peak lies 30 years prior to the burning episode that the comet theorists usually refer to for the catastrophe date. [emphasis mine].

Petaev does acknowledge one study that seems to support the comet impact scenario, the paper by Bunch et al., so that option may not be entirely dead.”

A lot of work has been done since his Earth under Fire was published in 1997. In particular, the researchers have continued to develop new research to see if they can “fill the histogram” with more data to further differentially diagnose the scenario.

Dr. LaViolette has contended that bursts of proton radiation from the sun that were able to penetrate to the surface of the Earth en masse. These events are called Solar Proton Events (SPE).

Dr. LaViolette thinks that solar proton storms occurred that were 125 times worse than the baseline event in 1956. The pre-Younger-Dryas solar proton storm produced surface radiation of three Sieverts (3S/hr) over a period of 50 hours, which is a deadly dose to any large animal so exposed on the surface. This event would have been highly problematic. Would it not be a frightening thing if periodically the sun burns through the atmosphere and delivers a lethal dose of proton radiation for more than two days?

Such an SPE would have led to a massive but incomplete extinction, which is what we see. The fauna began disappearing before the Younger Dryas. The following quotes are from his paper on the Startburst Foundation website:

“There is a question as to whether the megafaunal extinction was progressive, perhaps lasting several millennia, or whether it occurred all at once in a single catastrophic event. Meltzer and Mead (1985) have suggested that it progressed over several thousand years with most of the extinct megafauna disappearing at or prior to 11,000±100 14C years BP, or at or prior to 12,910±100 cal yrs BP in the Cariaco Basin chronology.”

Speaking metrologically, in addition to the overall extinction rate, the end of the Clovis people continues to be tightened up. It looks as though the Clovians culture ended before the YD, which is more consistent with an GW/SPE than a strike during the YD, a logical impossibility for the “comet during the glacier” theory.

“The Clovis cut-off date has been placed between 10,900 and 10,800 14C years BP (Meltzer, 2004; Waters and Stafford, 2007). This is equivalent to the interval between 12,880 to 12,840 cal yrs BP in the Cariaco Basin chronology. Hence the Clovis culture end date immediately precedes the date of the proposed solar event.”

Lastly, he pins the overall extinction directly on a Solar Proton Event (SPE).

“Based on all of the above boundary dates (Rancholabrean, Clovis, and black mat), it is reasonable to place the abrupt termination of the Pleistocene megafauna as having occurred sometime within the first 200 years of the YD onset, or somewhere in the range of 12,950 to 12,750 calendar years BP in the Cariaco Basin chronology. Hence from a chronological standpoint, the proposed 12,837 cal yrs BP solar proton event proves to be a good candidate as being the final cause of the megafaunal demise.”

But how do we distinguish a cometary impact from a Galactic SuperWave/SPE?

“The proposed solar proton event hypothesis, like the comet impact/explosion scenario of Firestone, et al. (2007), is compatible with the occurrence of a single main catastrophic event. But, unlike the solitary-event comet scenario, the solar hypothesis also allows the possibility of the occurrence of multiple hazardous events of varying magnitude, as suggested by the presence of multiple 14C spurts seen.”

Unpacking this, the GW/SPE hypothesis is supported by multiple Carbon-14 increases in the ice cores. In layman’s terms, this means radiation striking carbon and adding two neutrons, making it radioactive, which cannot be explained by a comet. Further, things got so very acidic in the ice cores that snow would make a perfect salad dressing component for your next lunch at Spago:

“On the basis of the transferred Cariaco Basin chronology, it dates at 12,837±10 cal yrs BP, hence indicating that very acidic snows were being deposited around the time of the hypothesized 12,837 cal yrs BP super SPE. The snows falling at the time of this event were so highly acidic that they increased the electrical conductivity of the ice 1000 fold compared with background conductivity levels prevailing before the event. Highly acidic snows would be an expected outcome if, as suggested earlier, the atmosphere had been exposed to a high flux of cosmic rays during a large magnitude solar proton event.

“Nitrate ions are produced when the atmosphere is exposed to cosmic rays. Hence nitrate ion concentration spikes serve as good indicators of SPEs. McCracken et al. (2001a, 2001b) have found that nitrate ion concentration spikes registered in the polar ice record during the period 1561 to 1950 correlate with major historical SPEs and that impulsive nitrate events serve as reliable indicators of large fluence SPEs. The 12,837 yrs BP ECM spike is seen to be associated with high nitrate ion concentrations in the GISP2 ice record, where the nitrate values plot 10 cm sample increments (Yang, et al, 1995); see figure 5. The 200 ppb peak visible here is the highest nitrate level to occur during the entire Younger Dryas period, supporting the present suggestion that the 12,837 yrs BP acidity peak records the occurrence of a very large magnitude cosmic ray event.”

Dr. LaViolette, in a private correspondence stated further:

“Its main problem is that a comet impact would produce a huge nitric oxide peak in the polar ice record and no peak that large is seen. Also all their findings of platinum group elements near the extinction boundary can be interpreted as being due to cosmic dust injected into the stratosphere from the dust sheath. I discuss this in my 2011 paper, which proposes a solar flare cause for the mass extinction event. Also the Starburstfound.org cite has a paper I have written about the 22 flaws of the Firestone comet impact theory.”

One curiosity this author carries with respect to the comet vs. superwave “debate” is that the theories are not mutually exclusive technically. It is possible, in a “both/and” perspective rather than an “either/or” that multiple events took place. The Carolina lakes evidence is the closest we have in my view but the measurement of when and how, the lakes, which stretch from the seaboard to Texas, came to be and the metrology for determining when and how is still tentative.

Since the events of the YD are within human memory, why can’t we remember it more accurately? Well, we do, in all the sacred scriptures from around the world. Even Plato took on the topic:

“The fact is, that wherever the extremity of winter frost or of summer does not prevent, mankind exist, sometimes in greater, sometimes in lesser numbers. And whatever happened either in your country or in ours, or in any other region of which we are informed-if there were any actions noble or great or in any other way remarkable, they have all been written down by us of old, and are preserved in our temples. Whereas just when you and other nations are beginning to be provided with letters and the other requisites of civilized life, after the usual interval, the stream from heaven, like a pestilence, comes pouring down, and leaves only those of you who are destitute of letters and education; and so you have to begin all over again like children, and know nothing of what happened in ancient times, either among us or among yourselves. As for those genealogies of yours, which you just now recounted to us, Solon, they are no better than the tales of children. In the first place you remember a single deluge only, but there were many previous ones; in the next place, you do not know that there formerly dwelt in your land the fairest and noblest race of men which ever lived, and that you and your whole city are descended from a small seed or remnant of them which survived.” Plato, Timaeus, (Critias, speaking) [Emphasis mine.]

Plato describes pestilential events that periodically rain down from heaven that make Earth beings forget the past, like children, forcing the ancients to record their wisdom in stone. The GSW/SPE fits the bill nicely. Putting the entire earth inside a proton accelerator would affect the minds, the memories, with radiation damage, like this poor Russian.

Dr. LaViolette’s position is that the comet theory does not hold up under the data. That’s a well-reasoned view. There are just too many events and mix of data to pin this down to a comet or asteroid strike. And as Dr. LaViolette would likely agree, the comet researchers seem to grasp onto any data that on the surface supports their theory while not addressing the fact that the data actually undermines it. Sarcastically, only Department of Education “experts” could support such a math.  It comes down to politics.

Why does not Dr. LaViolette’s theory get the scientific attention it deserves? When we remember Dr. Carol Rosen’s recounting of her discussion with Dr. Werner Von Braun, the one where he laughingly told her that it would go from nations of concern, to terrorists, to asteroids, to aliens, one can understand why the superwave theory does not get attention it clearly deserves. It does not fit the playlist of narratives that drive the meta agenda.

Additionally, the global effort to undermine the cultural significance of historical scripture, tablets, and scrolls, in order to create a collective amnesia perforce to turn the ground for a single world replacement religion, which is intended to provide an ersatz “spiritual” pillar to the globalist collective system, makes it perfectly clear why science that rigorously tips its hat to textual evidence would get the cold shoulder. Work like Joseph Farrell’s Cosmic War and the work of Paul LaViolette provides a jolt of scientific credibility to scripture, which of course will just not do.
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Something Wicked This Way Came…[Part 2]

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 9, 2017

In a previous blog, this writer commented on the recent promotion of a meme that a comet strike explained the tragedy of the Younger Dryas and the stories of the Great Flood. In that blog, it was posited that Dr. Paul LaViolette’s galactic superwave hypothesis was a better fit to a wider set of data. Some of the key data points of the hypothesis are thus:

• Acid levels in Antarctica rose dramatically starting about 14,000 years ago. • Strange metals in the ice cores at nearly the same time. (Beryllium-10), which indicates proton cosmic rays • Evidence in the cosmological record exists of a number of supernovas in that time frame, which is unusual.

• The arrival of the superwave led to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions

• A cosmic dust invasion disturbed the sun’s energy distribution and vastly affected the earth. The dust vastly acidified the biosphere, leading to extinctions and massive plant death, destabilized weather, and vast social disruption

Essentially, a vast cosmic dust cloud, according to the theory, pushed past the bubble created by the solar wind and inundated the solar system. This cloud and its effects, plus the “backlighting” from the core explosion, illuminated the dust clouds in the galaxy, making the sky extra creepy, and the nickname of Venus became “the bearded star,” due to its tail through the dust.

All of these events are described in the historical record. Until Dr. LaViolette’s theory and the supporting facts were deciphered from the physical record, no one could explain the words of the ancient texts in a scientific way.

It sure would be nice to be able to know an event like this is coming.

In that light, Dr. LaViolette pointed out on his blog that the gigantic earthquake followed just such a galactic wave arrival in 2004.

He said in February 2005: “On December 26, 2004 a magnitude 9.3 earthquake occurred in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Sumatra in Malaysia. It caused a powerful tsunami, which devastated coastal regions of many countries leaving over 240,000 people either dead or missing. It was the worst tsunami to affect this area since the 1883 explosion of Krakatoa.

The earthquake that produced it was so strong that it exceeded by a factor of 10 the next most powerful earthquake to occur anywhere in the past 25 years.

Indonesian 9.3 Richter earthquake: December 26, 2004 at 00 hours 58 minutes (Universal Time) It is then with some alarm that we learn that just 44.6 hours later gamma ray telescopes orbiting the Earth picked up the arrival of the brightest gamma ray burst ever recorded! Gamma ray burst arrival: December 27, 2004 at 21 hours 36 minutes (Universal Time)” [Source: http://etheric.com ]

The burst emanated from a powerful neutron star, SGR 1806-20, a star only 12 miles in diameter and 25,000 light years from earth. The outburst of gamma rays released more energy in a tenth of a second than the sun emits in 100,000 years. It is Dr. LaViolette’s position that the gamma rays arrived behind the gravity wave, which might even be superluminal at inception. [Emphasis mine.]

Publisher Catherine Austin Fitts noted that trading changed with respect to the Indonesian currency a short while before the earthquake and tsunami. Her theory at the time was that “the hit might have been planned.“ If earth based scientists have developed extrasolar detection technology in operation in 2004, they may have had advance notice of a superwave arrival, which does not explain the alleged ability to predict an earthquake and its location, only the coincidence.

Common knowledge says that cosmic events produce effects that travel at and near the speed of light. In order to explain how “someone” could have predicted the quake, one would need a sensing mechanism that was superluminal, as Dr. LaViolette pointed out may be possible with superwaves.

Dr. Farrell has many times described the scalar component of physical phenomena. Simply put, scalars do not compress or “wave,” and so they are not subject to the speed limit for mass at the speed of light.

Stepping out on a limb here… is it possible that someone has developed scalar sensing equipment and is using it to read space weather happening at vast distances with very little time lag? Given the suppression of scalar physics, it would explain some things and make sense given some of the more important and quieter papers in physics that are never talked about. It sure would have been nice for it to have been shared with the people who live near sea level on the Indian Ocean, but that would not have been profitable.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Something Wicked This…


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
K.M.
May 8, 2017

Metrology and Chronology are the studies of measurement and time. Most people are not aware that all measurements are inherently subjective, subject to error, and require constant revision. The methods of modern science, beginning with Francis Bacon, have all been directed to reducing error in measurement, increasing the relevance of the data, and enabling more effective scientific models to develop. Metrology and chronology are important element in the foundations of empiricism and the scientific method itself. Joseph Farrell ably discusses the topic in his book, Grid of the Gods, written with Dr. Scott DeHart. How are we measuring? How can we assess when things happened?  The paleoancient narrative seems highly subjective and more effective techniques continue to be developed and hopefully shared.

Nothing is as dicey as figuring out when events happened in the distant past. The Earth system is in constant motion. The environment of the Earth is dynamic, and this activity smudges the fingerprints of the past. Much has been written in the alternative science field about the origins of the Younger Dryas, a violent change in Earth weather that resulted in a rapid cooling of the Earth that lasted for about 1,000 years. It was a very short ice age. It has been difficult, even with a time span of only 12,000 to 14,000 years ago to fix a precise date for the event. The reigning alternative hypothesis is that a comet of some kind impacted the Earth. Some say that the object hit the Great Lakes region of the United States, wiping out nearly 40 species and dooming the Clovis civilization.  We’ve heard a lot of excitement from able researchers like Mr. Graham Hancock and I applaud his efforts. At the same time, I must express skepticism on the comet theory; if only because the hole in the ground has not been identified with clarity.  But work is ongoing.

A recent article in Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry provides more textual evidence of the date by reference to Gobekli Tepe and astronomy. But the problem has never been the date. The problem has always been “the what.”

I think we will ultimately find that multiple events over about 100 years happened to trigger the Younger Dryas and the great melting. But what can explain all the data? Since we know that the Younger Dryas happened, further chronological precision may be unhelpful. The real question is what the triggering events were, the scientific narrative, if you will.

Many readers of Joseph Farrell’s work on the cosmic war will be familiar with Dr. Paul LaViolette, a physicist with a PhD in general systems theory. His unique background enables him to syncretize the various scientific disciplines and bring to bear all of the available information in an analogical way. One important book is his work, Earth under Fire. In it, he gathers all the best information he can from many dozens of sources and proposes that the effects of a massive explosion at the center of the Milky Way arrived to Earth about 13,500 years ago, which coincides quite nicely with the more recent research.  His theory explains most of the data while the comet theory only explains some of it.

Since these events occurred within human memory it also is worthy to consider textual evidence – the stories, tablets, and monuments of the past, in order to glean new calibrations of what and when, as Mr. Hancock is so good at doing; a technique when employed by Dr. LaViolette is quite fruitful. The strongest evidence is for LaViolette’s galactic wave theory, and it still remains the most interesting and relevant theory when combined with real scientific data and properly-interpreted textual evidence provided by human memory.

The bias against human historical narrative, misconstrued through the lens of colonial arrogance, must end if we are to find the final answers to the mystery of the great catastrophe. My advice is to reject the comet theory as the sole trigger. The story is wider and deeper; understanding  “Who are we?” “Where did we come from?”  “Where are we going?” will be better answered if we extend our sights beyond the heliopause.  An accurate historical record is the key element in humanity understanding itself.

It also might allow us to gain some predictive skill in galactic weather forecasting; which we need since those of us on the surface lack the underground cities of the government and the wealthy. The recent purple skies from the CME event in April 2017 as well as the Carrington event in 1859 should give anyone pause as the extent of our vulnerabilities on the surface. The cave cities in Turkey and tunnels throughout Europe seem like a better idea all the time.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

Artificial Womb Created


Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 7, 2017

In case you didn’t catch the story, artificial wombs have been successfully created and tested… at least, for sheep, according to this article shared by Mr. B:

An artificial womb successfully grew baby sheep — and humans could be next

Now, of course, this is all being sold – predictably enough and just according to the playbook – as a potential health benefit, for if it can be applied to humans, the technology could conceivably help premature babies; here’s the way the article puts it in its first three paragraphs:

Inside what look like oversized ziplock bags strewn with tubes of blood and fluid, eight fetal lambs continued to develop — much like they would have inside their mothers. Over four weeks, their lungs and brains grew, they sprouted wool, opened their eyes, wriggled around, and learned to swallow, according to a new study that takes the first step toward an artificial womb. One day, this device could help to bring premature human babies to term outside the uterus — but right now, it has only been tested on sheep.

It’s appealing to imagine a world where artificial wombs grow babies, eliminating the health risk of pregnancy. But it’s important not to get ahead of the data, says Alan Flake, fetal surgeon at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and lead author of today’s study. “It’s complete science fiction to think that you can take an embryo and get it through the early developmental process and put it on our machine without the mother being the critical element there,” he says.

Instead, the point of developing an external womb — which his team calls the Biobag — is to give infants born months too early a more natural, uterus-like environment to continue developing in, Flake says.
(Emphasis added)

True enough, such a technology would be a boon for care of premature babies.

But like Mr. B., I have difficulty believing that this technology is not applicable to the earliest stages of pregnancy. And that brings me to my high octane speculation of the day…

… while such a technology might be beneficial in the care of premature babies, I strongly suspect there’s another reason set of reasons entirely for the creation of this technology, and that set of reasons boils down to just two words: genetic engineering. Conceivably, such a technology could fulfill two dreams – or rather, nightmares – of the transhumanist “community,” for it would be (1)  a means not only to create but to gestate chimerical life forms, and (2) a means to create and gestate clones. Both purposes could be served by the perfection of this technology. In the latter case, it would be a kind of real world fulfillment of the film Island, staring Scottish actor Ewan McGregor, where human clones are literally gestated in such ‘biobags” and then “birthed” surgically on a pre-determined date.

The reason? There organs are going to be harvested for their “real” counterparts, and the clone – who is not viewed as a real “person” of course – is butchered, murdered, and thrown away. The technology, in other words, raises moral and jurisprudential issues. I’m one of those that maintains that human clones are persons, unique and different from their “originals” in the same way identical twins or triplets are different unique persons, regardless of the DNA similarities.

But watch, the transhumanist-progressive crowd will consult medical “ethicists” from the University of Oxford, who will contrive sophistical arguments why this is not the case.

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

The Meaning of Life [Part I]

The Meaning of Life (Part I)
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Jonathan Latham Ph.D.
April 26, 2017

Originally published on IndependentScienceNews.org.

The Rockefeller Foundation had two strategies for management that were distinct but complementary: to control human behaviour at the level of social structures: family, work and emotions, which the Foundation referred to by names such as “psychobiology”; and to control human behaviour at the level of molecules.

Many people date the DNA revolution to the discovery of its structure by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953. But really it began thirty years before, conceived by the mind of John D Rockefeller, Sr. Thus it is fitting that DNA is named after him. DNA stands for DeoxyriboNucleic Acid and ribo stands for Rockefeller Institute of Biochemistry (now Rockefeller University) where the chemical composition of DNA was first discovered in the 1920s. The Rockefeller Foundation had become interested in DNA because its trustees feared a Bolshevik-style revolution. Intense public resentment had already compelled the break-up of their Standard oil Company in 1911; so the Foundation sought ways, said trustee Harry Pratt Judson in 1913, to “reinforce the police power of the state”. They intended to find the ultimate key to human behaviour which would allow the resentful and envious mobs to be effectively managed.

The Foundation had two strategies for management that were distinct but complementary: to control human behaviour at the level of social structures: family, work and emotions, which the Foundation referred to by names such as “psychobiology”; and to control human behaviour at the level of molecules.

The “science of man”

To develop methods of control at the societal level, the Foundation more-or-less founded the discipline of social science in the early 1900s.

Max Mason, appointed as the Foundation’s director in 1929, described this double focus as their “science of man” project:

“[It i]s directed to the general problem of human behavior, with the aim of control through understanding. The social sciences, for example, will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control; the medical and natural sciences propose a closely coordinated study of the sciences which underlie personal understanding and personal control” (quote from Lily Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life, 1993).

For the social science arm the Foundation sought to inculcate within the social science research community specific mechanistic habits of mind and an ethos conducive to this goal of control: “the validation of the findings of social science [must be] through effective social control,” wrote the Foundation’s head of Social Science, Edmund E. Day. According to Warren Weaver, then director of the Foundation, this meant the “recasting of prevailing ideas of human nature and conduct” in line with the “managerial needs” of industrialisation for characters such as timeliness and obedience.

The “restructuring of human relations in congruence with industrial capitalism” as Lily Kay, biographer of the Foundation described it, was an agenda that was quite widely understood in the 1930s—and widely disapproved of. One contemporary critic called the Foundation’s work “a thinly disguised capitalistic manipulation of the social order” (Kay, 1993).

The Rockefellers construct the gene

The second arm to the “science of man” strategy was seen as purely based on scientific rationality.

To the Rockefeller Foundation trustees, however, rationality meant eugenics. Eugenic theory, by definition, implies that humans contain hidden determinants for traits like civility, intelligence, and obedience. Logically, such determinants ought to be discoverable, reasoned the Foundation’s trustees. If science were able to peer deep enough it would discover those mechanisms and molecules that effected this ‘upward causation’ of behaviour. Once identified, such controlling elements—which were initially presumed to be proteins—could be understood and made use of.

However, to make such discoveries required a new science and a new concept: ‘molecular biology’. Molecular biology was a term the foundation invented for a reductionist “science of the very small” that was focused on discovering the nature of the gene.

The Foundation nevertheless did try out other—even nonreductionist—approaches to biology. It briefly supported the mathematical biologist Nicolas Rashevsky before finally dropping him (Abraham, 2004). Presumably, as a descriptive science, mathematical biology did not meet the Foundation’s desire to discover deterministic and controlling forces.

By testing out and sifting through distinct approaches, individuals, and institutions, the Foundation eventually developed a strategy to reinvent the science of biology that, by 1933, was fully elaborated. It concentrated on funding scientific cliques at a relatively small number of elite institutions (such as Caltech and the University of Chicago). These cliques trained up hundreds of scientists whose job was to find the molecules responsible for that upward causation; that is, to find the specific molecules and the specific mechanisms that determined the form and function of organisms. They would thus validate the Rockefeller eugenic thesis.

Institutionally, these efforts were extremely successful. After the search for these ‘master molecules’ had eventually narrowed to DNA, George Beadle, Nobel Laureate in physiology and Rockefeller insider, noted that all but one of the 18 Nobel prizes awarded for genetic science after 1953 had been awarded to current or former Rockefeller-funded scientists (Kay, 1993). By Beadle’s death in 1989, largely thanks to the Rockefeller Foundation, molecular biology had become the dominant approach to all of biology. That is, medicine, developmental biology, neurobiology, and agriculture.

Almost the whole world nowadays assumes the overwhelming emphasis of biological science on genetics and reductionism to be a logical and inevitable scientific one. But what the history of the Rockefeller Foundation shows is that the virtual wiping out of whole organism biology and the sidelining of diverse other approaches such as Rashevsky’s; of nutritional biology; and of environmental determinism, was a carefully planned coup d’état. It was an overt seizure of the scientific estate intended to substitute genetic determinism for competing ideas about causation in biology.

Genetic determinism is the idea that genes have a privileged level of causation and thus a special status in biology. As shown in the companion article Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life, the idea is clearly false. Causation in biology can take many forms and genetics is just one of them, but the robber barons who bought biology did so specifically in order to impose a genetic determinist paradigm.

A further consequence of their efforts was that they simultaneously seized and impoverished our idea of life. Thus, when Watson and Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953 they considered they had discovered “the secret of life“. The triumph of the Rockefeller Foundation was that no one contradicted them.

The origins of genetic determinism: Huxley and the Victorians

The fear of unruly mobs was not unique to leaders of the Rockefeller Foundation. Victorian reviewers of the books of Charles Darwin, fifty years earlier, also lived in a tumultuous age. The advent of new technologies like trains and telephones, the growth of cities, and the rise of a mercantile class that threatened to displace the nobility, were destabilising their world.

To add Darwinism to this ferment, feared those reviewers, would “shake society to its very foundations” (Desmond, 1998). These mid-Victorians feared Darwinism primarily because it provided a set of powerful ideas that profoundly undermined God and the Church, the two rocks on which their world was largely built.

More than that, evolution specifically threatened to destroy the ancient and sacred concepts of inherited wealth and inherited merit. To Victorians, these were virtually synonymous with the benefits of order and hierarchy.

Evolution even threatened to unleash social upheaval directly: to free the slaves, to liberate the workers, and emancipate the female population; and Thomas Huxley, the leading advocate of Darwinism, calculated he would widen popular support for science by promising as much. He told enthusiastic Victorian workers that the ascent of species showed the inevitability of social improvement.

Huxley, however, couldn’t go too far. Unlike all of his wealthy colleagues, he needed to make a living from science. But as Darwin’s de facto spokesperson, he was nevertheless in a unique position to shape the perception and interpretation of Darwinism.

Thus, in the presence of the dispossessed he emphasised science’s revolutionary qualities; but with the new industrialists he presented science as the driver of a new industrial era; and, for the stolid British establishment he emphasised that “Nature’s old salique law will not be repealed, and no change of dynasty will be effected”. Salique law was the ancient Frankish law ensuring inheritance only through the male line.

Huxley and his fellow scientists became adepts at such political manouevring. The key example, at least for genetics, was the taking of prescientific theories of inheritance, that were familiar to the establishment, such as salique law, and melding them with Darwinism. No evidence was available to anyone that the character traits prized by the establishment, such as intellect and social refinement, could be biologically inherited; and even if they could, it was surely unlikely to be only through the male line. Yet Huxley and his scientific fellows glossed over such inconsistencies so as to present evolution as minimally disturbing to the beliefs and values of the status quo. This required the nature of inherited traits to be essentially deterministic in nature. People did not acquire good characters, they were born with them.

Such interpretations meant that science thrived, but it was at the expense of undercutting Huxley’s earlier promises of greater freedom for the underclasses. Thus it was that the scientists used their positions as experts to bend the science and to knowingly take the side of the establishment in the struggle for social power that surrounded Victorian science (Desmond, 1998).

These interpretations were crucial to the future of biology. Inherited deterministic factors were based on what Huxley called “protoplasm” and protoplasm was a controller of human behaviour. Protoplasm is now accepted by many historians as the intellectual father of eugenic theory. It became the intellectual justification for the subsequent Rockefeller search for molecules of social control; but, as a theory constructed more for political than scientific reasons, it had feet of clay.

The entry of big tobacco

The railroading of biology away from the study of whole organisms by the Rockefeller Foundation (joined also by the Carnegie Foundation) proved relatively easy. Turning that understanding into social control was less so. The next stage required new impetus and even more money.

Starting in the 1950s the tobacco industry distributed $370 million among approximately 1,000 scientists in the US and British medical establishments. The long term plan was to construct another novel molecular science, that of human genetic variation (Wallace, 2009). The immediate goal was to attribute the diseases of smoking to genetic origins. The tobacco industry was determined to find “gene defects” that might lead to lung cancer and addiction. Tobacco executives thought—correctly—that finding even limited evidence would keep blame from being placed entirely on their products. Genetic determinism thus could be used to neutralise negative public, professional, and even legal, opinion (Gundle et al., 2010).

Tobacco funding never uncovered any compelling genetic determinants of cancer or addiction. But the strategy did shift public opinion. Genetic researchers were therefore encouraged by industries and governments to apply their methods to other physical illnesses (such as diabetes), and for the same reasons (Vrecko, 2008).

So although eugenics practitioners, such as Adolf Hitler, had made the word eugenics abhorrent to most people by the 1920s and 1930s, the genome sequencing bandwagon eventually convinced the public that DNA was a master molecule, a governor of health and behaviour, even down to one’s daily activities and decisions. The study of genes and genomes achieved acceptance of the eugenic premise through, as it were, the back door. The public was convinced to blame numerous illnesses and conditions, and not just lung cancer, on their own genetic ‘weaknesses’. Thus genetics was established as the presumptive primary cause of most human variation, chronic disease was normalised, and DNA was crowned “the King of molecules” by a Nobel Laureate (Mullis, 1997).

The ever-expanding domain of science

Thomas Huxley once declared, in an editorial of 1865, that science had no intention “of being content with anything short of absolute victory [over the Church] and uncontrolled domination over the whole realm of the intellect” (cited in Desmond, 1998). So while Charles Darwin initially refrained from publicly pursuing what he supposed to be the intellectual implications of his ideas, from fear that doing so would prevent them being accepted, his apostles rarely showed such restraint.

From Huxley and Herbert Spencer, via EO Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker, and many others, the presumed properties of DNA have formed the basis of great edifices of implication. EO Wilson’s Sociobiology: The new synthesis (1975) and Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype (1982) extrapolated biology far beyond previously accepted domains of the physical body, to encompass human desires, human ‘misbehaviour’, human ethics, and human social structures. Relying on faint statistical associations between DNA genome markers and human traits, geneticists have claimed that hundreds of human attributes have genetic explanations, at least in significant part, including: sexual and religious orientation, voting preferences, sleepwalking, entrepreneurial behaviour, sexism, violence, and many others (e.g. Kales et al., 1980). These claims have provided a steady supply of juicy headlines to pronounce that genes play powerful deterministic roles in behaviour.

The failure of “master molecules” to explain life

In 2016, Gary Greenberg, Professor Emeritus at Wichita State University, Kansas, reviewed a book that he plainly considered to be unnecessary. The reviewed was titled How many nails does it take to seal the coffin? The coffin in question is the science of behavior genetics. He cited fellow gravedigger Richard Lerner of Tufts University describing the “counterfactual conceptualizations of the role of genes in behavior and development” (Lerner, 2007) and genetic mortician Douglas Wahlsten (2012) that “all hope has been lost” in the search for genetic effects on normal human behaviour (Greenberg, 2016).

The basic issue identified by Greenberg, Lerner, et al., is that, if several hundred billion dollars of searching finds no evidence for genetic influences (except for rare traits like Down syndrome), then the only reasonable conclusion is that genetic influences on those traits are absent or minutely small. Yet the genetic zombie, to their exasperation, lives on, and for the simple reason that it is lavishly funded.

It is not just the study of human behaviours for which the long-sought genetic evidence is chronically missing. In 2013, the head of the Broad Institute at MIT, which is the most prominent global institution in the study of human genetics, called genetic influence on human disease a “phantom” (Zuk et al., 2013). This U-turn followed a succession of compelling critiques that focused on 1) the lack of replicability of putative genetic predispositions in humans (Ioannidis, 2007); 2) lack of evidence of broad effects on health (Manolio et al., 2009Dermitzakis and Clark, 2009); 3) lack of effect size of all except a very few individual genetic predispositions (Ioannidis and Panagiotou, 2011); and 4) a general lack of experimental rigour of genetic methods and hypotheses (Buchanan et al. 2006Wallace, 2006Charney and English, 2012).

The media (including the science media) has barely reported these critiques, but they have left the discipline of human genetics in turmoil. Interesting as it is to watch billions of dollars of medical research funding generate nothing but negative results, (see Manolio et al., 2009), the really big question is the one now hanging over the underlying master molecule idea, since genetic determinism has become the central paradigm of all biology.

The fundamental defects of this master molecule concept were summed up perhaps most succinctly by Richard C Strohman of UC Berkeley; in a 1997 article “The coming Kuhnian revolution in biology“:

“[W]e have taken a successful and extremely useful theory and paradigm of the gene and have illegitimately extended it as a paradigm of life”. But, Strohman wrote, the broader paradigm “has little power and must eventually fail”.

Interestingly, the same logical flaw was identified by Lily Kay in her Rockefeller Foundation biography of 1993. In concluding, she noted the self-limiting nature of its reductionist method. “By narrowing its epistemic domain, the new biology has bracketed out important animate phenomena from its discourse on life”.

That failure is now fully visible. Thanks to emerging research findings such as those described in Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life, it is now hard to overlook that genetic reductionism has failed to explain “important animate phenomena” like: growth, self-organisation, evolution, consciousness, learning, health, and disease. These are the key elements of life that a successful paradigm ought to explain but somehow genetic determinism never has.

Its emerging replacement is a vastly different paradigm of life, one that conceives living systems as cooperatives and not dictatorships. To be clear, some facts about DNA are not in dispute. DNA exists. The mutation or addition of genes can have profound effects on the properties of organisms; but this doesn’t make DNA special. The removal or addition (where possible) of most other components of organisms, such as RNA, or proteins, even water, has the same effect. Thus even the use of GMO crops, which might look like clear examples of upward causation, are consistent with the new paradigm because introduced transgenes are carefully designed to act as isolated modules, traits that operate independently of all the system level controls that organisms typically use to manage and integrate gene activity and biochemical function.

But what ultimately motivates this new paradigm is the lack of conceptual necessity for DNA to animate organisms. Molecular biologists routinely propose that DNA has properties of “expression”, of “control”, and of cellular governance, in some sense that other molecules do not. These are the properties that a master molecule paradigm requires, but asserting them does not rescue genetic determinism, it is merely prescientific vitalism.

What science is telling us, therefore, is that, in living systems, everything depends on everything else, and life bootstrapped itself out of the ooze. DNA did not lead the way.

The societal consequences of genetic determinism

Whether true or not, all belief systems have consequences. When news of Darwin’s evolutionary theory reached Germany in the 1860s, Ernst Haeckel, German prodigy biologist, constructed the first trees of life, with humans (for no scientific reason) at the apex of creation. Much like Huxley, Haeckel also stretched the implications of Darwinismus into a genetic determinist struggle, in this case one that drove “peoples irresistibly onward”. Darwinismusforetold, he said, a new Teutonic destiny.

As early as the death of Charles Darwin (1882) it was said that his thought (which for the most part meant Huxley’s interpretations) could be found “under a hundred disguises in works on law and history, in political speeches and religious discourses…if we try to think ourselves away from it we must think ourselves entirely away from our age” (John Morley, 1882, cited in Desmond 1998)

Thus the belief system that humans are controlled by an internal master molecule has become woven into myriad areas of social thought. It is far beyond the scope of this article to describe the consequences of genetic determinism at either the personal or the societal level (see instead The DNA Mystique), but the two world wars, the holocaust, racism, colonialism, eugenics, inequity, are each stronger as a consequence of, or might never have happened without, the idea of genetic determinism. The reason is that genetic determinism moulded “higher” and “lower”, “normal” and “abnormal”, into intrinsic and unmodifiable scientific properties of biological organisms and groups, rather than being what they were previously: questionable prejudices and dubious conceits.

Genetic determinism thus became the defining idea of the twentieth century. Nothing was unmoved by it. It drove biology, it even drove science itself.

It began with the ability of outside institutions to impose long-term and overarching agendas on science. This alone is a breathtaking observation, both disturbing and profound, that wholly contradicts our normal presumption that science is driven by brilliant individuals, technical innovations, and collective intellectual rigour. Instead, to understand what occurred to DNA is as simple as following the money.

Science, and therefore all of society, was lured into a very specific DNA-centric interpretation of life that was predicated on magical thinking about the properties of genes. Once the initial conditions were set up, however, a key observation is that biological research fostered genetic determinist social thought and genetic determinist thought in turn made genetically determinist science seem more valid and desirable. A self-sustaining feedback loop was thus created.

One example of how genetic determinism participated in that loop was laid out in a 1975 letter from prominent geneticists to the NY Review of Books. They were replying to an uncritical review of EO Wilson’s Sociobiology: a New Synthesis. The geneticists’ letter lays out a rationale for why a political establishment might fund sociobiology and genomics: to furnish interpretations of human activity that create and therefore determine behavioural and social norms. As the authors wrote: “for Wilson, what exists is adaptive, what is adaptive is good, therefore what exists is good.” The authors were pointing out, well before the tobacco industry strategy had been unmasked, that any scientific assertion that a societal aberration such as “war”, or an individual misbehaviour such as “violence”, has genetic roots makes it seem natural or normal. Thus, what appears to be a simple and apolitical scientific “finding”, say of a genetic predisposition to obesity, generates inferences that are highly valued by institutions (such as the food industry) that cause obesity but wish to resist pressure on them for social change.

It is scant wonder then that the publication of Sociobiology was followed by a funding boom in genetic research, in both the social and medical sciences. This boom happened even though human genetic research is rarely of value in the search for cures or the treatment of disease (Chaufan and Joseph, 2013). The bottom line is, even if genetic predispositions for obesity were to exist, everyone should exercise and not overeat.

Thus biological explanations have vastly expanded science’s intellectual realm, into the arenas of social affairs, economics, politics, religion, even philosophy and ethics. Bearing out the prediction of the NYRB letter, sociobiology has virtually driven out traditional academic interpretations of human activity, such as Marxism or Deconstructionism, that made life uncomfortable for the powers that be.

As Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee observed for academia:

In the last few decades many universities have ceased to offer the grand survey courses in Western civilization that once seemed to explain so much about human culture and the human past. Postcolonialism, postmodernism, literary theory, and other trends in academic life called into question the legitimacy of the grand narratives that were built into the notion of “Western civilization”. Many college students will never take such a course. But most will take introductory biology……introductory biology has become the cultural equivalent of the old Western civilization curriculum: explaining human culture and the human past, biological knowledge is seen as deeply relevant to social concerns, economic development, international relations, and ethical debates. Introductory biology is presented as a valid, truth-seeking endeavour, untainted by religious, political, or philosophical commitments. It places human beings in a meaningful universe, providing ways of understanding relationships between ethnic and racial groups and between identity and the body” (Preface to the second edition, The DNA Mystique: The gene as a cultural icon, 2004).

Anyone not knowing the strategies of the Rockefeller Foundation and the tobacco industry might well imagine sociobiology to be “valid” and “untainted”. Plainly though, given their history, and the new scientific revelations, genetic explanations are just ones whose political commitments are better concealed, and it becomes highly relevant that genetic explanations are being made in academia, in policy circles, and in the public arena by scientists whose funders (whether governments or corporations) benefit from this neutering of public discourse.

The end result of Huxley’s proposed intellectual expansion of biology is arguably already here. Students unversed in the history of thought and stewed in unsupported or unverifiable genetic explanations have become the intellectual core of a miseducated and compliant society. One that creatively participates in its own delusion by self-describing illnesses as “genetic”, even in cases where the only clear evidence of causation is environmental. A genetically determinist society is therefore one not capable of understanding itself as directly at risk from irresponsible corporate activities and government indifference. It is fundamentally defenceless against polluters, junk food marketers, community dislocation, and other threats to human integrity.

In a wider political frame, the history of the 20th Century shows that a genetic determinist society is also vulnerable to fascists, racists, dictators, and warmongers. All this too is the product of a century and a half of the manipulation of biological science.

Is it too strong to argue this? I do not think so. Consider, as a case study, Adolf Eichmann and the transportation of the Jews to the death camps during the second world war. The world mostly blamed Eichmann personally and Israel executed him. Hannah Arendt, however, famously attributed his crimes to a mystical “banality of evil”.

They were all wrong. Adolf Eichmann and his superiors were following the dictates, as they saw them, of science and genetics. Jews were, to them, a genetic problem of racial purity and the only solution to a genetic problem is extermination and the prevention of reproduction (see especially The War Against the Jews: 1933-194). Given the premises, the final solution was perfectly logical.

But the perfectly logical question for us (and the subject of The Meaning of Life Part II) is, why does hardly anyone see this? Why is it so hard to critique or challenge genetics? Not only do we attribute to genes a wholly unwarranted privileged level of causation in biology, we also give them a privileged level of discourse in society. The dominance of genetics is thus a phenomenon that does not originate in science.

In the last essay of this series I will elaborate on this by proposing a novel theory to explain the fascination of our society for genetic determinism and master molecules. This theory explains the iconic status and scientific attraction of DNA in terms of its metaphysical role as a representative of the universe. Like that other representative of the universe, the Judaeo-Christian God, DNA confers the properties of leadership and authority on disorderly nature. DNA, as the true meaning of life, thus legitimates authority in our scientific society. Therefore, the historical actors, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, who helped create this role for DNA, were, just like everyone else, in thrall to forces they didn’t fully understand.

This theory has quite a few important implications. It suggests that ever since genetic determinism became established in the public mind, that Western societies have become locked into a downward spiral of authoritarian politics and genetic determinist thought. This spiral is already imperilling the functioning of democracy. Unhalted, it may extinguish democratic values entirely. More optimistically, the theory offers a conceptually simple way to reverse the spiral. That way rests on pointing out that all organisms are systems and not dictatorships. It becomes necessary, for the very survival of democratic society, to confront these habits of genetic determinist thinking which, after all, have no basis in reality.

Read More at: GreenMedInfo.com
________________________________________________________

References

Abraham, TH (2004) Nicolas Rashevsky’s Mathematical Biophysics. Journal of the History of Biology 37: 333–385.
Buchanan, AV, KM Weiss, and SM Fullerton. Dissecting Complex Disease: The Quest For the Philosopher’s Stone? International Journal of Epidemiology 35.3 (2006): 562-571.
Charney E, and English W (2012) Candidate Genes and Political Behavior. American Political Science Review 106: 1-34.
Chaufan C, and Joseph J (2013) The ‘Missing Heritability’ of Common Disorders: Should Health Researchers Care? International Journal of Health Services 43: 281–303.Lucy S. Dawidowicz (1975) The War Against the Jews: 1933-194 New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
Dawkins R (1982) The Extended Phenotype. Oxford University Press.
Dermitzakis E.T. and Clark A.G. (2009) Life after GWA studies. Science 326: 239-240.
Desmond A (1998) Huxley. Penguin books.
Greenberg, G (2016) How many nails does it take to seal the coffin?Developmental Psychobiology 9999: 1-2.
Gundle KR. Dingel, M and Barbara A. Koenig (2010) “To Prove This is the Industry’s Best Hope”: Big Tobacco’s Support of Research on the Genetics of Nicotine. Addiction. 105: 974–983. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02940.x
Ioannidis, J.P., (2007) Non-replication and inconsistency in the genome-wide association setting. Hum Hered. 64: 203-13.
Ioannidis JP and Panagiotou O (2011) Comparison of Effect Sizes Associated With Biomarkers Reported in Highly Cited Individual Articles and in Subsequent Meta-analyses. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 305: 2200-2210.
Kales, A, CR Soldatos, EO Bixler, RL Ladda, DS Charney, G Weber and PK Schweitzer (1980) Hereditary factors in sleepwalking and night terrors. The British Journal of Psychiatry 137: 111-118. 10.1192/bjp.137.2.111
Kay, Lily E. (1993) The Molecular Vision of Life. Oxford University Press.
Latham, J (2017). Genetics Is Giving Way to a New Science of Life. Independent Science News Feb 2017.
Lerner RM (2007) Another nine-inch nail for behavioral genetics! Human Development 49 1-7
Lewontin R, Rose S, Kamin, L (1984) Not in Our Genes. Pantheon Books.
Manolio T. et al. (2009) Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 461: 747-753.
Mullis, K Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. 1998, Vintage Books.
Nelkin D and Lindee MS (2004) The DNA Mystique: The gene as a cultural Icon. University of Michigan Press
Vrecko S (2008) Capital ventures into biology: biosocial dynamics in the industry and science of gambling. Economy and Society 37: 50-67.
Wahlsten D (2012) The Hunt for Gene Effects Pertinent to Behavioral Traits and Psychiatric Disorders: From Mouse to Human. Dev. Psychobiology 54: 475-492.
Wallace HM (2006) A model of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions and its implications for targeting environmental interventions by genotype. Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2006, 3:35.  .
Wallace H (2009) Big tobacco and the human genome: Driving the scientific bandwagon? Genomics, Society and Policy 5: 1-54.
Wilson EO (2000) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Belknap Press.
Zuk O, E Hechter, SR Sunyaev, and ES Lander (2013) The mystery of missing heritability: Genetic interactions create phantom heritability. 109: 1193–1198. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1119675109

_____________________________________________________________________
Jonathan Latham is co-founder and Executive Director of the Bioscience Resource Project and also Editor of the Independent Science News website. Dr. Latham holds a Masters degree in Crop Genetics and a PhD in Virology.