CONSCIOUSNESS: THE MOVIE; JNLRMI, Quantum Tunneling, Proteins, and Water
Our April 2006 issue of the Journal of Nonlocality and Remote Mental Interactions is now available online at
www.emergentmind.org/jnlrmiiv1.htm

Volume IV, Number 1
April 2006

Special Issue

Genetic Regulatory Architectures,
Bioelectromagnetics and Conscious Intent

A survey of current experimental evidence and new genetic control paradigms


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Biophysical Mechanisms of Genetic Regulation: Is There a Link to Mind-Body Healing?
Lian Sidorov and Kevin Chen
www.emergentmind.org/Sidorov06.htm

Abstract: Over the past several decades, pioneering biophysics work has shown that living tissues interact with electric and magnetic fields in unexpected and dramatic ways: from initial anecdotal accounts of enhanced healing under electromagnetic stimulation, research in this field has progressed to a sophisticated arsenal of investigative tools and theoretical models which include polarized light microscopy to study the liquid crystal properties of living cells and laser-excitation of DNA to induce hybridization through non-molecular information transfer. In almost all cases, the results point to a set of remarkable properties of living tissues, and in particular of genetic material: the emerging picture is that of biosystems as sources and domains of coherent electromagnetic fields, which account for practically instantaneous inter-cellular communication and a highly efficient mechanism of energy utilization, and which seem to reflect very closely the developmental and patho-physiological state of the organism. In addition, a wide spectrum of genetic mechanisms now appear to be under the influence of surrounding electromagnetic fields.

At the same time, an impressive number of studies in the areas of parapsychology and mind-body medicine converge to show that conscious intent can affect practically every single type of genetic program, as well as many physiological parameters [1]. These studies also show that such effects can be produced from great distances, and that occasionally they are accompanied by unusual energy signatures.

Is there a correlation between the effects of electromagnetic fields and those of mental intent on genetic regulation and living tissues? This paper will discuss the major experimental evidence and proposed mechanisms of these interactions, as well as the principal obstacles lying in the way of a viable, comprehensive theory. At the same time, we will attempt to formulate several preliminary hypotheses based on this evidence and to sketch some possible directions for future research in this field.

Keywords: genetic control architecture, EMFs, coherence, liquid crystals, interference grids, photon polarization, psycho-physiological remodeling, nonlocal communication, topological geometrodynamics



Crisis in Life Sciences. The Wave Genetics Response
P.P. Gariaev, M.J. Friedman, and E.A. Leonova- Gariaeva
www.emergentmind.org/gariaev06.htm

Abstract: To create an organism, two genetic programs are required. The first one is geometric, i.e. a scheme, how to design the body. The second program is in the form of a meaningful text which contains instructions and explanations how to use the first program, how to understand and build the organism. These programs exist in the form of “DNA video tapes”, which are used by the genetic apparatus, acting like a bio-computer. When the bio-computer reads these video tapes, sound and light images appear that constitute the movie program of the development of the organism. When the creation of a grown-up organism is completed, the movie ends. Then the second movie starts, which contains the instructions for maintenance of the organism for indefinitely long time. Unfortunately, the videotapes containing information about a perfectly healthy organism, get corrupted with time, errors accumulate (DNA mutations). The instructions accumulate errors and the organism gets sick, grows old and dies. It is very likely that these DNA video tapes can be renewed and corrected. With this new understanding of how our genetic apparatus works, completely new technologies for healing a person and extending a person’s life become feasible. And this is the essence of Wave genetics and its practical applications to come.



The Bioelectronic Basis for "Healing Energies: Charge and Field Effects as a Basis for Complementary Medical Techniques.
Leane E. Roffey
www.emergentmind.org/Roffey06.htm

Abstract: As of the time of this review over 150 studies of "healing energies" have been reported in which the energy parameters were specified and controlled. More than half demonstrate statistical significance, p < 0.05. Some researchers have measured electromagnetic (EM) signals emanating from the hands of healers which are within the same frequency range as human brain waves. There are some indications that a correlation exists between atmospheric oscillations, brain waves, and biological EM emissions. Understanding the nature of this correlation may enable us to characterize and further utilize various types of "healing energies". The paradigm for the application of these energies may develop into a basis for a variety of existing complementary medical practices. Integral portions of biological systems have been shown to be semiconducting, ferromagnetic and piezoelectric. The biosemiconductor, together with the drift of charges, ions, and radicals, may be considered as a form of "bioplasma". Bioplasma may be subject to magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) control. The EM fields emitted by trained healers may be considered as coherent, resonant biomagnetic emissions by which a less coherent EM field of the patient is "tuned" to the specific frequency and phase, and through which homeostasis can be "aligned" to induce "healing".


Outline of Biological Magnetohydrodynamics
Włodzimierz Sedlak, Ph.D.
translated by Leane Roffey Line, Ph.D. and Jaroslaw Kempczynski, Ph.D.
www.emergentmind.org/Sedlak06.htm

Abstract: In this article, Sedlak discusses how a living organism is not only an information detector and generator, but is also a transformer of electromagnetic energy. Biological systems generate their own magnetic mediums through a process he calls "dia-par", or diamagnetic to paramagnetic transition. Sedlak proposes that the science of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) can be used to model living bioplasma. He predicts that this model can account for such phenomena as spin- waves, anabolic to catabolic transitions, and redox processes. Such low-frequency biological rhythmic activity can probably be accounted for by MHD mathematics, the proof of which he leaves to future generations.



Metasubjective Cognition Beyond the Brain: Subjective Awareness and the Location of Concepts of Consciousness
Titus Rivas
www.emergentmind.org/Rivas06.htm

Abstract: Consciousness has irreducible qualitative and subjective aspects that cannot be represented in a physical, purely quantitative system. This implies that an exhaustive conceptual ‘metasubjective’ representation (i.e. a representation of the defining properties of conscious experiences) in the brain as an exclusively physical system is impossible. Similarly, individual memories of conscious experiences must contain information about qualitative and subjective aspects as well, since concepts of consciousness ultimately derive from such information abstracted from episodic memories. Therefore, the stored bases from which such individual memories of conscious experiences are reconstructed must also contain elements that cannot be represented in the brain.

Both metasubjective concepts and bases of our individual memories of subjective experiences can only be stored in a personal non-physical memory linked to consciousness. There must be a personal mind or psyche that embraces consciousness, metasubjective concepts and bases of episodical memories of one’s subjective experiences.




____________________
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i- sis.org.uk/LiberatingKnowledge.php
ISIS Press Release 21/12/05

Liberating Knowledge
Mae-Wan Ho, Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 0XR, UK www.i- sis.org.uk
Manuscript prepared for Centre Europe Tiers Monde (CETIM)*
A fully referenced version of this article is postedon ISIS members' website. Details here.

Abstract
The western knowledge that dominates the world today is in crisis across all disciplines, with science being the worst afflicted. Reliable knowledge is being drowned out by relentless propaganda and a concerted disinformation campaign aimed at promoting the commercial products of knowledge, while critical information on the dangers involved is summarily dismissed and suppressed. Worst of all, knowledge is being privatised and contained as the “intellectual property” of corporations, giving corporations unprecedented control, not just over knowledge of nature, but over life and the necessities of life.

Liberating knowledge is the most urgent task facinghumanity, without which there can be no reliable knowledge freely accessible to all that’s absolutely required for effective action.

*To appear in Health by and for the People:
Reappropriating Health for All after 25 Years of
Neoliberal Obstruction. Enquiries to: CETIM, 6 rue JC AMAT, 1201 Geneva, Switzerland, cetim@bluewin.ch. Tel:0041 22 731 59 63.


Why liberate knowledge?

The western knowledge that dominates the world today
is in crisis across all disciplines, with science
being the worst afflicted. I first became aware of
that soon after I was moved to join the genetic
engineering debate, partly because I was inspired by
people like Martin Khor of the Third World Network and Vandana Shiva of the Research Foundation for Science and Ecology in India among others, who have been unstinting and untiring in their brilliant efforts to save the world. So I thought I could contribute something useful too, as a scientist, for the scientific information available to our policy-makers and to the public was so lacking in quality. I take science very seriously both as a scientist and especially as a member of the general public. We need good, reliable knowledge that can protect and sustain the planet and all its inhabitants; and that’s good science by another name. Equally important, without critical scientific information, the public cannot
participate in making decisions that may put them in
danger, destroy their most deeply held moral codes, or profoundly change their lives in other ways; and there will be no way to draw on the collective wisdom and inventiveness of the human species to save the world.

But I soon learned how difficult it was to access and publicize reliable knowledge. It was being drowned out by relentless propaganda and a concerted
disinformation campaign aimed at promoting the
commercial products of knowledge, while critical
information on the dangers involved was summarily
dismissed and ruthlessly suppressed. Worst of all,
knowledge was being privatised and contained as the
“intellectual property” of corporations, giving
corporations unprecedented control, not just over
knowledge of nature, but over life and the necessities of life.

Liberating knowledge is the most urgent task facing
humanity, without which there can be no reliable
knowledge freely accessible to all that’s absolutely
required for effective action.


Enclosure of the intellectual commons

Living processes, genes and organisms are nature’s
inventions, and could belong to no one. Granting
patents on them was a new departure in the history of protecting human inventions; as based on the
previously existing patenting laws, it would have
required the actual creation of an organism.

Organisms are after all responsible for the living processes that enable us to reproduce, provide us with food, shelter and all the other necessities of life; without the organism, a gene – a bit of DNA – can do none of those things. Some critics say these “patents on life” are new because they are awarded for discoveries or knowledge, but that’s not even true [1]. In far too many cases,
patents are granted for genes or DNA sequences on
which there is practically no knowledge; while many
others are based on associations with specific traits or diseases, however weak, that are said to be useful for dubious “diagnostic purposes”.

In August 2005, biotech giant Syngenta revealed that
it has filed 15 global patents on nearly 30 000 gene
sequences from rice (out of a total of 37 544), which would grant it monopolistic rights not only over rice, but over other major crops plants with similar gene sequences such as wheat, maize, sorghum, rye, soybean, as well as banana, fruits and vegetables [2]. “This would mean, in practice, that the company would be able to determine price, access, research and re-use of seeds in future [3].”

I had warned of rampant gene patenting and its
consequences when the rice genome sequence was first
announced in 2002 [4] (“Rice genome in corporate
hands”, SiS 15), but had underestimated the scale and the scope of the patents that Syngenta is claiming. It would be a violation of basic human rights to grant those patents; it would be legitimising the theft of genetic resources that provide food and livelihood for billions of the poorest people in the world.

The patenting of human genes had begun much earlier.
The human genome had been handed over to private
ownership by our governments in the industrialised
countries through the publicly-funded human genome
project [5]. By now, more than 4 000 human genes – 20
percent of the total - have been patented in the
United States, mainly by private companies or
universities [6] seeking to cash in on gene tests
promoted in the popular and not so popular media. Such
gene tests may help diagnose diseases in patients that
have already fallen ill; but they are generally known
to give poor prediction on an individual’s future
health status even for so-called single gene diseases
such as cystic fibrosis [5, 7]. Applying them to
healthy individuals could cause unnecessary anxiety,
and end up undermining their prospects for health
insurance and employment, as insurance companies, if
not employers, are set to demand a disclosure of gene
test results. Where gene sequences are useful, as in
identifying strains of bacterial or viral pathogens,
proprietary rights through patenting have impeded
diagnosis and treatment.
The enclosure of knowledge through “intellectual
property rights” is bad for science and for citizens
in the industrialised world; it is disastrous for
developing countries. Yet, it is being imposed on
developing countries against their will, contrary to
their social values and economic interest and in
violation of basic human rights. This is done under
the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
property Rights (TRIPS) in the World Trade
Organization (WTO). To add insult on injury,
indigenous knowledge systems all over the world are
denigrated and suppressed in favour of western
science, at the same time that they are expropriated
in flagrant acts of biopiracy [8]. A sequence of a
gene that can be obtained within hours in the
laboratory is considered sufficient for claiming
intellectual property right over plant resources that
local communities have researched, developed and used
for millennia.
The first act of liberating knowledge is put an end to
patents on life and other enclosures of the
intellectual commons that compromise people’s access
to the necessities of life, including health and
affordable medicine, especially indigenous medicine in
serious diseases such as AIDS [9]. Biopiracy and
commercial exploitation of indigenous medicinal plants
can lead to price increases overnight that put
essential and widely available medicines beyond
people’s reach.


Universities and science for rent
As symptomatic of the crisis of knowledge, all the
traditional accepted standards of good science are
being compromised and eroded as corporations take over
academia and our government [10, 11]. In the United
States, allegations of faked scientific findings
increased 50 percent between 2003 and 2004 [12]; the
federal Office of Research Integrity received 274
allegations of scientific fraud in 2004, but was able
to complete only 23 investigations on account of its
limited budget.
“The basic role of the university in a democratic
society is at risk. Alone among social institutions,
the university’s mission is the unqualified pursuit
and public dissemination of truth and knowledge. The
university serves the broad public interest to the
extent it treasures informed analysis, critical
inquiry and uncompromising standards of intellectual
integrity.” James L. Turk, executive director of the
Canadian Association of University Teachers wrote in
2001 [13].
It was the general cutback in public funding that
drove universities to seek support from corporations.
Corporate funding and influence has since infiltrated
into every discipline. “Corporate donations to
universities are often made in utmost secrecy,” Turk
wrote, “Canada’s largest and most richly endowed
university, the University of Toronto, signed secret
deals in 1997 with the Joseph Rotman Foundation ($15
million for the Faculty of Management Studies), CEO
Peter Munk of Barrick Gold and Horsham corporations
($6.4 million for the Centre for International
Studies) and Nortel ($8 million for the Nortel
Institute for Telecommunications). The deals allow the
corporations unprecedented influence over the academic
direction of University of Toronto programmes.”
Today, “wealth creation” and “the knowledge economy”
resound in the halls of higher learning and in the
speeches of politicians, including the government’s
chief scientific adviser Prof. Sir David King [14],
who presented a glowing view of British science, and
even attributed its success to the cutback in public
spending in the 1980s; likening it to the necessary
“pruning” that improves the growth of plants.
The same clichés of “competitiveness of enterprise”,
“knowledge society” and “knowledge exploitation for
economic growth” are guiding principles of the “Lisbon
Agenda” that’s to be enacted in Europe’s next science
funding programme, Framework 7 [15].


Suppression and victimisation of honest scientists
Worst of all, suppression and misrepresentation are
the order of the day [16]. Scientists who try to tell
the truth that’s uncomfortable for industry and wealth
creation are victimised by their own universities and
the scientific establishment. The case of Dr. Arpad
Pusztai in the UK is well known. He was a highly
respected member of the scientific establishment, and
a supporter of genetic modification until 1998, when
his research turned up disturbing indications on the
inherent health hazards of genetically modified (GM)
food and feed [16, 17]. His job was terminated
overnight, the Royal Society hastily set up a
committee to discredit him in his absence; and
attempts to defame and vilify him continue to this
day.
Prof. Ignacio Chapela first became a public figure,
also in 1998. He was one of the few academics to
oppose the takeover of his department in the
University of California at Berkeley by Novartis
Corporation. In 2001, he and his graduate student
reported that Mexican landraces had been contaminated
by transgenic maize in a prominent scientific journal;
and were hit by an immediate barrage of vehement
criticisms and attack from scientists friendly to the
industry. When Chapela’s tenure came up for review, it
was delayed, and then denied. Chapela won his case
after battling the university administration for four
years, and only after he initiated a lawsuit against
the university. He dropped the lawsuit recently, but
said he would not abandon his efforts to hold the
university accountable [18]: “I look forward to
continue challenging, in the best forums that I can
find, what I believe is a corrupt and illegitimate
takeover of the public university away from its public
mandate.”
In September 2005, environment professor Stephane
McLachlan and his Ph. D. student Ian Mauro at the
University of Manitoba in Canada accused the
university of blocking the release of their video
exploring the risks of GM crops while courting funds
from biotech companies. The video, based on interviews
with Prairie farmers about their experiences with GM
canola, was completed in 2002 as a full- length
documentary with help from an independent Winnipeg
filmmaker, Jim Sanders. But it has never been screened
because the university and the researchers, who share
the copyright have been unable to negotiate an
agreement on its release [19]. James Turk compared the
case to the University of Toronto’s failure to support
Dr. Nancy Olivieri when the drug company Apotex tried
to prevent her from going public with her concerns
about one of their drugs. The University of Toronto
was also negotiating a huge donation from the company.

Fred Kirschenmann was director of the Leopold Center
in Iowa State University for the past five years,
until he was suddenly and involuntarily made
“distinguished fellow”. His sins? He argued once too
often that there is an urgent need for “a more
intelligent, diversified farming system.” Genetic
modification, he said, is “simply another tool to make
the monoculture work a little longer” in the face of
the pests and diseases that monocultures encourage. In
other words, he was simply carrying out what an
academic is mandated to do, which made him persona non
grata.
For his parting shot, Kirschenmann said [20] Iowa
State’s College of Agriculture “draws agribusiness
cash the way a penned-up pig wallowing in its own
waste draws flies.”
I was strongly encouraged to retire early and hounded
out of my university department in 2000 [11]. My sins?
I have been providing critical information on the
risks of genetic modification to the public and
policy-makers worldwide since 1994, all of which
incidentally, have been amply confirmed. But the
denial and disinformation continue.


Scientists for rent
What we are up against is a powerful pro-GM lobby that
has infiltrated every level of civil society from
international aid agencies to governments and
academia; I have crossed paths with it all too often
[21, 22].
Monsanto and other biotech corporations have been
funding university scientists to do their research
cheaply, to be sure; but also to do propaganda, to
‘debate’ with scientists like me, to defame us, and
spread falsehoods; and like the transnational
corporations, the pro-GM lobby operates worldwide.
Recently in Lusaka, I came up against a scientist from
the University of Zambia leading an aggressive
disinformation campaign against his country’s
rejection of GM crops and GM food aid. To make his
case, he exploited the most horrendous image of an
emaciated African child “crawling towards food aid
with a vulture at its back”. The child was saved; we
were told, but the journalist who took the picture
committed suicide. Following him, a scientist from
Kenya used the same image and told the exact same
story. The story turned out to be complete fabrication
[23]. The photograph was taken in Sudan in 1992 long
before GM crops and GM food aid became an issue. No
one knew if the child was saved. The photographer made
no attempt to help her, and was criticised for it; he
committed suicide because he ran out of money.


Another science is possible
Our struggle to liberate knowledge is not limited to
genetic engineering. Hot on the heels of genetic
engineering is nanotechnology, which has spawned a new
discipline of nanotoxicity years after research and
commercialisation has raced ahead [24]. But as usual,
the research budget for toxicity is extremely limited
compared with that for product development for
commercial exploitation. Also on offer are implants
for electronic surveillance and mind control [25], not
to mention a host of “non-lethal” and “crowd control”
electronic devices that may be sophisticated, overt
and covert torture equipment [26, 27].
Technology is running out of control; it is working
against the public good and against nature, not just
because it has been completely co-opted by “wealth
creation”, or that science is in bed with big
business; but most of all because western science is
rooted in seeing nature as hostile machine, separate
from us, to be disassembled, to be tamed and tortured,
to satisfy our every conceivable need, however
egregious or banal [8]. It is ultimately this mistaken
view of nature that has brought our planet to the
brink of a mass extinction that will include our own
species.
We desperately need another science that sees nature
as an organic whole, which includes the scientist. In
the words of quantum physics, the observer and
observed - the knower and the known - are mutually
entangled, and each act of knowing irreversibly alters
both. That is ultimately why we must know responsibly,
sensitively and without violence. I have articulated
this radically holistic science of the organism in my
book The Rainbow and the Worm [28], where I also show
how it reconnects western science to traditional
knowledge systems worldwide [29], transforming the
basis of knowledge and the meaning of life itself.


Spreading knowledge
A concrete way to breach the enclosure of the
intellectual commons is to engage in spreading
knowledge as widely as possible. Knowledge that’s not
free to circulate cannot grow and will eventually die.
That’s why I co-founded the Institute of Science in
Society in 1999 (see Box 1).
Box 1


The Institute of Science in Society
Objectives
· To promote social and policy changes towards a
sustainable, equitable world
· To reclaim science for the public good
· To promote a contemporary, holistic science of the
organism and sustainable systems
Working through
1. Lively reports posted on website www.i-sis.org.uk
(more than 50 000 hits a day in busy months) and
circulated to an e-mail list (about 3 000) that
includes all sectors of civil society worldwide, from
small farmers in India to policy-makers in the United
Nations
2. An attractively illustrated quarterly magazine
Science in Society (print-run 1 500 plus online
subscription)
3. Major campaigns and initiatives (see below)
4. In-depth reports and books, such as Unravelling
AIDS (2005), The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World
(2003, 2004) and Living with the Fluid Genome (2003)
5. Public- speaking and media-appearances in the UK
and abroad
6. Submissions to national and international
committees
Campaigns and initiatives include
1. World Scientists Open Letter, February 1999,
calling for a moratorium on genetically modified (GM)
organisms, ban on patents on life, and support for
sustainable agriculture; now signed by 820 scientists
from 84 countries http://www.i- sis.org.uk/list.php
2. Independent Science Panel (ISP)
(http://www.indsp.org), May 2003. Its report (The Case
for a GM-Free Sustainable World) calling for a ban on
GM crops and a comprehensive shift to sustainable
agriculture was presented in the UK- and European
Parliament, circulated worldwide, and translated into
6 or more languages since.
3. Sustainable World Initiative, April
2005,http://www.i-
sis.org.uk/SustainableWorldInitiativeF.php. A first
international conference was held 14/15 July 2005 in
UK Parliament, to be followed by a weekend workshop
21-22 January 2006, towards building an innovative
demonstration farm that turns agricultural wastes into
biogas energy and rich fertilizer while saving
substantially on greenhouse gas emissions. We aim to
produce a definitive report on sustainable food
systems under a new economic model, together with the
socio-economic, political and structural changes
needed for implementation.
We have created a website that probably contains the
largest number of accessible scientific reports and
analyses across the disciplines, and is growing all
the time.
We e-mail up-to-date reports to thousands, many of our
subscribers are list servers. Our readers range from
small farmers in India to policy-makers in the United
Nations. We also publish a quarterly magazine to
update on scientific findings that have large
implications for society and public policies.
With the start of our ISIS website in 1999, we
initiated the World Scientists Statement and Open
Letter, calling for a moratorium on environmental
releases of GMOs, a ban on patents on life, and
support for non-GM sustainable agriculture. To-date,
more than 820 scientists from 84 countries have signed
the letter.


Convention on knowledge
To raise the profile of knowledge and the importance
of liberating knowledge, we produced a discussion
paper, Towards a Convention on Knowledge in 2001 [30].
It was adopted by Scientists for Global Responsibility
with a membership of 600; the International Network of
Engineers and Scientists, which includes a union with
1.5 million members; the Third World Network; and
Tebtebba, a major network of indigenous peoples. We
launched this paper at the Earth Summit in
Johannesburg, 2002, at a pre- scheduled event
organised by UNESCO and Tebtebba Foundation, “Linking
Traditional and Scientific Knowledge for Sustainable
Development”.
A summary of what the Convention involves is given in
Box 2. It is not intended as a legal document, but
purely to express a commitment of civil society to
develop and use knowledge responsibly and for the good
of all.
Box 2


Convention on Knowledge (2002)
· No knowledge should be developed and used for
destructive, oppressive or aggressive military ends
· Keep knowledge in the public domain, open and
accessible to all
· Promote knowledge in inclusive and pluralistic
forms, especially indigenous knowledge
· Promote knowledge for sustainability
· Promote knowledge that serves public good,
independent of commercial interests or government
control
· Promote knowledge that makes the world equitable and
life-enhancing for all in every respect
The final section of our paper contains suggestions on
how to move forward, the most important of which is to
establish a new working partnership between the
scientists and their local communities. Scientists
should work much more closely, if not directly, with
local communities, so that people’s concerns and
aspirations can help shape the research. More
importantly, scientists could benefit greatly from
local knowledge. We want top priority to be given to
revitalising and protecting traditional agricultural
and healthcare systems from biopiracy and
globalisation, and to developing sciences and
technologies appropriate for the community.
We recognise that not all research could be done with
or within local communities. But even for research
that is largely laboratory-based, the scientists
should maintain close touch with the community of
which they are part, and be responsive and sensitive
to people’s concerns.
We set out some suggestions on science and
technologies that should be supported, and the
criteria of appropriate technologies. We also
identified technologies that should not be supported,
or should be subject to international peaceful
control.


Independent scientists of the world unite
To counteract the suppression of scientists and
scientific evidence and to contribute to the global
debate over GM crops, ISIS organised a major event in
London 10 May 2003, in which twenty-four scientists
from seven countries launched themselves as the
Independent Science Panel (ISP) on GM, to ensure that
all the scientific evidence will be heard, so people
can make the right choice for the future of food and
agriculture.
Two hundred people from all over Britain attended the
ISP launch, including the then Environment Minister,
Michael Meacher. Meacher lost his jobs several weeks
later.
The ISP issued a statement (see Box 3), based on the
Convention on Knowledge.
Box 3


Statement of the Independent Science Panel
The Independent Science Panel (ISP) is an
international panel of scientists from many
disciplines committed to:
1. Promoting science for the public good, independent
of commercial and other special interests, or of
government control
2. Maintaining the highest standards of integrity and
impartiality in science
3. Developing sciences that can help make the world
sustainable, equitable, peaceful and life-enhancing
for all its inhabitants
The ISP website (www.indsp.org) was created on 15 June
2003, coinciding with the web publication of the ISP
Report, The Case for a GM-Free Sustainable World. By 3
July 12 000 people downloaded the Report in the United
States alone.
The Report is the most complete dossier of evidence on
the problems and hazards of GM crops as well as the
many health, environmental and social benefits of all
forms of sustainable agriculture. Based on this
evidence, the ISP has called for a ban on
environmental releases of GM crops and the
comprehensive shift to all forms of non-GM sustainable
agriculture.
The Report has been republished in the United States
the following year, and has now been translated into
Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese, German and
Dutch; Indonesian and Italian translations are on the
way. It was presented in three successful briefings to
government and inter-governmental agencies in 2004,
receiving widespread coverage in the popular media.
The ISP has written many letters to government and
intergovernment agencies to support local campaigning
groups.
We have submitted a strong comment to the European
Commission, calling on it to support independent
science in its next round of science funding
(Framework 7), and to ensure maximum transparency and
democratic input in deciding funding and research
priorities. Basically, we want Europe to establish
broad funding criteria that put public interest ahead
of wealth creation, and to include ethical and safety
considerations before the research is funded. We are
demanding a redistribution of the research budget away
from industry and technology-driven areas like
genomics and information technologies towards
sustainable agriculture, ecology and energy use in
sustainable systems and holistic health. In
particular, we want to see top priority given to
scientists working with local communities to
revitalize and protect traditional agricultural and
healthcare systems.
At the European Parliament briefing in October 2004,
ISP delivered its strongest message: invest in
sustainable agriculture right now, as there is no
other way to really feed the world under global
warming.
As a follow-up on the ISP report, we have launched a
Sustainable World initiative to make our food
production system sustainable, to ameliorate climate
change and guarantee food security for all. This seems
like a very tall order. We had our first international
meeting for the Sustainable World, and there is no
doubt that we have all the means at our disposal to do
it; maybe all we need is a little dose of idealism and
quixotic daring.
Acknowledgment
I owe a lot to many people in my quest to liberating
knowledge, some of whom I shall mention here.
My colleagues in ISIS past and present - especially
Julian Haffegee, Sam Burcher, Andy Watton, Lim Li
Ching and Rhea Gala - without whose ingenuity and
dedication, liberating knowledge would have been
impossible.
Prof. Joe Cummins, a great friend and ally, who has
stalwartly sustained ISIS by a prolific stream of
timely exposés, and has kept us thoroughly informed
and up-to-date on science matters.
Martin Khor and other colleagues of the Third World
Network, who got me into all this in the first place,
and supported ISIS through thick and thin.
Edward Goldsmith, great friend, mentor and supporter
of ISIS, who is responsible for much of my passion for
‘saving the world’.
Last but not least, Peter Saunders, my fellow
traveller and constant reference point for all the
important things of life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i- sis.org.uk/LiberatingKnowledge.php
If you like this original article from the Institute
of Science in Society, and would like to continue
receiving articles of this calibre, please consider
making a donation or purchase on our website. ISIS is an independent, not-for- profit organisation dedicated to providing critical public information on cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability and ecological sustainability in science.
The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097,
London NW1 OXR
MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY
FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION,
PLEASE CONTACT enquiries@i- sis.org.uk

forwarded by
Zeus Information Service
Alternative Views on Health
www.zeusinfoservice.com
feel free to forward far and wide....

______________________

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/du-et112105.php

Contact: Monte Basgall
monte.basgall@duke.edu
919-681-8057
Duke University
Electrons 'tunnel' through water molecules between nestled proteins
DURHAM, N.C. -- Duke University theoretical chemists who spend much of their time calculating how the exotic rules of quantum mechanics govern electrons motion between and through biological molecules have garnered surprising results when they add water to their models.

They have discovered that a scant handful of water molecules positioned in the nearly infinitesimal gap between two "docking" proteins creates unexpectedly favorable conditions for electrons to "tunnel" from one protein to another. The researchers, chemistry professor David Beratan and postdoctoral researchers Jianping Lin and Ilya Balabin, revealed their findings in a paper to be published in the Nov. 25, 2005, issue of the journal Science.

Their work, supported by the National Institutes of Health, delves into puzzling guidelines of physics that Beratan said nature has to follow in order to harness energy and avoid disease.

"Electrons have dual characteristics, sometimes acting like billiard balls and sometimes like waves on a pond," Beratan said in an interview. "As a consequence, electrons do very peculiar things. One thing they can do is tunnel through barriers forbidden to them under the 'classical' rules of physics.

"Biology has to move electrons through proteins in order to trap energy from the sun, capture energy from our food, and control damage to living systems," he added. "So biology has had to come to terms with this duality. Although electrons have the ability to tunnel, it's very costly for them. But one thing that proteins seem to do is to guide such electrons from place to place."

Scientists have already deduced that electron movements are enhanced when proteins fold into complex three-dimensional shapes in their active forms. "It is much easier for electrons to tunnel quantum mechanically through a folded protein than it is for them to penetrate empty space," he said.

Beratan said he and other Duke chemists have spent years studying proteins' roles in electron transport. But only recently has his group addressed how water between protein molecules affects electron movement.

For instance, whenever two proteins that transfer electrons interact strongly -- or "dock" -- they must exchange electrons in a watery medium. What scientists didn't understand was the role of water at this interface, he said.

According to Beratan, electrons cannot simply hop over the very small half billionths of a meter gaps that separate such docking proteins. Quantum mechanics requires that those electrons instead follow pathways or conduits that are heavily influenced by the positions of nearby atoms and gaps between atoms.

"What our study was about was probing how that tunneling process changes if we begin pulling two proteins apart and the gap between them fills with water," he said.

"What we show is that at the shortest separations electrons take advantage of the proteins in tunneling between those two molecules. But there is an intermediate distance where the proteins are beyond contact and the water molecules start moving into this interface.

"In this intermediate distance before the proteins are too far apart, the water plays a very special role in mediating the electron tunneling more strongly than might have been expected."

An illustration in their Science paper, derived from massive computer studies by the authors, shows how a mere handful of those water molecules can form an organized cluster under the influence of the protein molecules on either side of the gap. This cluster aids the electron transfer process, he said.

Electrons can then tunnel between "donor" atoms at the tip of one protein to "acceptor" atoms on the other protein. Along the way, the electrons follow multiple pathways through these water molecules that facilitate the transport more strongly than expected.

"Before our study, expectations for electron tunneling were that interactions between the electron donor and acceptor through water would drop exponentially as a function of the distance," Beratan said.

"What we found was that water is a better mediator for electron transfer at intermediate distances than anybody had expected. Another finding was that the water-mediated tunneling drops only very slightly as a function of distance within this intermediate length."

The Duke team's computations show tunneling initially dropping off very rapidly when the proteins first start separating -- just like scientists originally expected. But at intermediate distances of a few tenths of a billionths of a meter "the rates of tunneling don't change very much," he said. "Then, when the proteins are separated somewhat further, the rates again drop exponentially again as a function of their separation distance," he added.

Experiments in the Netherlands as well as at the University of California, Berkeley also suggest a special role for water in promoting electron transfers between proteins, he said.

"You could think about the structure of the proteins as well as the water as guiding or shepherding the electrons," Beratan said. "So evolution has had to come to terms with physics in the way protein and water direct electrons through complex structures."

The study was the final Ph.D. project for Lin, Beratan's former graduate student, who is first author of the Science paper. Co-author Balabin helped the group calculate how the naturally occurring motion of atoms in the protein might further influence the electron transfer.

"We see pictures of proteins in fixed positions, but in reality we should think of their atoms as wiggling all over the place," Beratan said.

###

***************************
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i48/8348notw9.html

November 28, 2005
Volume 83, Number 48
p. 11

Redox Chemistry
Water Can Ease Electron Transfer Between Proteins
Stu Borman

Water molecules ease electron transfer between proteins docked at moderate distances-neither in contact nor too far apart-to an unexpected degree, according to a new study. The findings could lead to a better fundamental understanding of biological oxidation-reduction (redox) processes, such as photosynthesis and respiration.

Up to now, theoretical models of electron transfer between proteins in aqueous solution assumed uniform exponential decreases in electron-transfer rates as the proteins get farther apart. However, experimental data obtained by several groups have deviated from this model in unexplained ways.

Chemistry professor David N. Beratan and coworkers at Duke University now find that those earlier models are correct only at short and long interprotein distances (Science 2005, 310, 1311). At intermediate interprotein distances (shown), the researchers find, water molecules between proteins adopt an organized cluster structure that facilitates electron transfer to an unexpected extent. Transfer rates change little, if at all, with distance within that range.

The Duke team made the discovery by carrying out molecular dynamics and quantum mechanics studies of electron transfer between two molecules of cytochrome b5, a redox enzyme. “Our analysis explains a range of otherwise puzzling biological electron-transfer kinetic data and provides a framework for including explicit water-mediated tunneling [quantum mechanical] effects on electron-transfer kinetics,” the researchers note.
(c)2005 AAAS

Chemical & Engineering News
ISSN 0009-2347
Copyright (c)2005 American Chemical Society

__________________________

Shortcut to:
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20051227/43b0ca50_3421_133452005
12271094006758

Math Professor Solves Decades-Old Problem
From Associated Press
December 27, 2005 11:23 AM EST
COLUMBIA, Mo. - A professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia is being
recognized for solving a math problem that had stumped his peers for more
than 40 years.

The achievement has landed Steven Hofmann an invitation to speak next spring at the 2006 International Congress of Mathematicians in Madrid, Spain.

"It is like a baseball player being picked for the all-star team," Hofmann said of the invitation to the event, which is held every four years.

Hofmann became curious about the problem as an undergraduate when a professor introduced him to it.

The professor was unable to solve the problem. Hofmann, 47, would have more success when the problem began to take over his life in 1996. Until he solved it in 2000, it was the last thing he thought about before he went to bed and the first thing he thought about when he woke. He spent two to eight hours each day on the problem, working periodically with several colleagues.

"I could be out for a bike ride, and I would be thinking about it," Hofmann said. "Sometimes I would be doing something, get an idea and have to stop ... and write it down."

The problem, known as Kato's Conjecture, applies to the theory of waves moving through different media, such as seismic waves traveling through different types of rock. It bears the name of Tosio Kato, a now-deceased mathematician at the University of California-Berkeley, who posed the problem in research papers first written in 1953 and again in 1961.

Part of the problem, called the one-dimensional version, was solved about 20 years ago. Though it was a breakthrough, work remained. Hofmann solved the problem in all its dimensions in a 120-word paper that he wrote with several colleagues - Pascal Auscher, Michael Lacey, John Lewis, Alan McIntosh and Philippe Tchamitchian.

"Philosophically, the reason research in math matters is that by pursuing math ideas that are deep and interesting for their own sake, you will get real-world applications in the future," Hofmann said.

"It is like making investments."

Theodore Slaman, chairman of the Department of Mathematics at the University of California-Berkeley, said solving a problem as old as Kato's Conjecture "is like finding the Holy Grail."

"Once you have solved it, people believe you have an understanding of an entirely new area. The longer a problem has been around, the more cachet
associated with solving it."

CONSCIOUSNESS: THE MOVIE from Tucson Conferences
Hi everyone

A film about consciousness based on events at the recent Tucson conference
is being prepared, tentatively entitled

                      Consciousness: The Movie
                   Science, Brain, Mind and Being

Filmmaker Maurizio Benazzo and his crew shot interviews, plenary
sessions, informal discussions and numerous conference activities.
Additional material (including many cartoon animations by Steven Lehar),
simulations, and pictures of relevant people (e.g. Plato, Descartes,
William James and modern day figures) will be woven in with music and
didactic excerpts in a fun, Monte Python-like style by a highly regarded
film editor. All approaches to the problem of consciousness will be represented.

'Consciousness: The Movie' is intended to be part of a new genre of
entertaining science...e.g. see
http://www.indiewire.com/ots/2006/05/tribeca_06_tryi_1.html

A partial list of those who will appear in the film (interview, lecture or
informal cameo) include (alphabetically)

T.R. Anantharaman, Roy Ascott, Bernie Baars, Sue Blackmore,
David Chalmers, Paul Davies, Peter De Weerd, John Dunne, Ralph Freeman,
Walter Freeman, Temple Grandin, Stuart Hameroff, Craig Hamilton,
Allan Hobson, Douglas Hofstadter, Uriah Kriegel, Stephen LaBerge,
Hakwan Lau, Steven Lehar, Antoine Lutz, Steve Macknik,
Susana Martinez-Conde, Paavo Pylkkanen, Dean Radin, David Rosenthal,
Maria Sanchez-Vives, Alwyn Scott, Marilyn Schlitz, John Searle,
Dan Simons, Mark Solms, Jeff Tollaksen, Giulio Tononi,
Robert van Gulick, Alan Wallace and others.

Still needed are additional *visually appealing* animations/simulations
demonstrating neuronal activities, synapses, neuronal networks,
brain anatomy, functional imaging, EEG, evoked potentials, single unit
recordings, theories of consciousness... whatever YOU think helps explain
consciousness. Citation will be given in the credits for any material.

Send inquiries, material or url information to
Samantha Clark, CTM Research Associate
sam-2005@comcast.net

Many thanks

Stuart Hameroff


Stuart Hameroff M.D.
Professor, Anesthesiology and Psychology
Director, Center for Consciousness Studies
The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

My Name, Iona Miller

Light in Tibetan Buddhism
Ziji appears in the language of both Buddhism and Shambhala.

The Vidyadhara commented that both zi and ji have a sense of light and brilliance to them, glossing zi as "shine" or "glitter," and ji as "splendor." He added that ji also carries a sense of "monolithic." In keeping with that, when translating buddhadharma we have rendered ziji as "splendor," "radiance," "brilliance," and "full of splendor." One piece of etymology might be of interest here: zi also can mean a variety of precious stone unique to Tibet, a type of black and white striped agate with "eyes." The more eyes, the more it was valued in Tibetan culture, and as an historical note, the Vidyadhara often wore a theb-long (thumb ring) made of zi, a gift to him from Namgyal (aka "Nammie") Ronge, brother of Noedup and Palden.

In the Shambhala teachings, ziji has particular importance. Though on occasion, especially in our early days, we translated ziji as "light," we quickly settled on two renderings that the Vidyadhara felt brought out the inner quality that resulted in an outer radiance: "confidence" and "dignity." These are key terms in the Shambhala teachings. In fact, both render the one Tibetan phrase, ziji. The choice we made largely depended on the context—often the result of lengthy discussions with the tertön, the Druk Sakyong.


Luminosity /Ösel
An interesting and sometimes perplexing word worth shedding some light on involves the very notion of "light." The term ösel (Tib.'od gsal) literally means "clear [sel] light [ö]," and there are many who translate it this way. "Clarity" is another popular rendering. The Vidyadhara, however, preferred "luminosity," which points not so much to the light itself, but to the quality or state of being radiant. He once remarked that even though the experience of brightness, the vividness of the phenomenal world, was an important experience on the path, it wasn't in itself ultimately the point. Beyond that, as Thrangu Rinpoche once remarked, luminosity comes to mean the basic "knowing" quality of mind in which nothing is excluded.

In his oral commentary on Pointing Out the Dharmakaya, Thrangu Rinpoche makes the following comments on ösel and shunyata in discussing "the dharmata nature of mind":

While it is empty and while there is nothing there in a sense, nevertheless there is a natural clarity or luminosity, which is traditionally referred to as buddha nature, the spontaneously present qualities, and so on. Here luminosity does not refer to physical light or some kind of physical radiance. In this context, luminosity simply refers to the cognitive capacity or awareness, which is the defining characteristic of a mind. A mind is not any thing, and yet it cognizes; that is what is meant by the unity of luminosity and emptiness. This is something that we experience directly and that we do not have to talk ourselves into through logical analysis.

CONSCIOUSNESS: THE MOVIE