by Jeremy Narby
15 According to Van de Kar (1991), serotonin receptor “3” is an ion channel, while the remaining six receptors (1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 2, and 4) are membrane-spanning antennae. Recent research subdivides these seven serotonin receptors into fifteen subcategories—see Thiébot and Hamon (1996).
16 Pitt et al. (1994) write in their article on the stimulation of DNA by serotonin: “Thus it is apparent that a novel intracellular signalling pathway contributes to the increase in DNA synthesis caused by 5-HT [serotonin] in smooth muscle and other cells in culture” (p. 185).
17 Kato et al. (1970) administered four to eleven LSD injections to four pregnant monkeys in their third or fourth month of pregnancy. The total amount of these doses varied from 875 micrograms/kg to 9,000 micrograms/kg; the average total dose being 4,937 micrograms /kg. An average dose for a human being is estimated at 1.5 micrograms /kg (about 100 micrograms for a person weighing 70 kg or 154 pounds). Thus, the average total dose inflicted on these monkeys was 3,000 times greater than the normal quantity ingested by humans. Along the same lines, it is worth mentioning the research conducted by Cohen et al. (1967), which set off the whole “chromosome breaks” scare: These scientists poured high concentrations of LSD on cultured cells and went on to show that the chromosomes of these cells featured twice as many breaks as normal. It has since been shown that substances in common use, such as milk, caffeine, and aspirin, lead to similar results at sufficient concentrations (see, for instance, Kato and Jarvik 1969). Dishotsky et al. (1971), who reviewed a total of 68 studies on the supposed effects of LSD on chromosomes, wrote in the conclusion of their article for Science: “From our own work and from a review of the literature, we believe that pure LSD ingested in moderate doses does not damage chromosomes in vivo, does not cause detectable genetic damage, and is not a teratogen or a carcinogen in man. Within these bounds, therefore, we suggest that, other than during pregnancy, there is no present contraindication to the continued controlled experimental use of pure LSD” (p. 439). Finally, see Yielding and Sterglanz (1968), Smythies and Antun (1969), and Wagner (1969) concerning the intercalation of LSD into DNA.
18 Yielding and Sterglanz (1968) write: “A study of the interactions between LSD and such macromolecules as DNA may also be relevant to the psychotomimetic actions of such drugs.... Thus, binding to DNA would appear to be a general property of this group of drugs” (p. 1096). This idea was taken further by McKenna and McKenna (1975) in a visionary speculation: “We speculated that information stored in the neural-genetic material might be made available to consciousness through a modulated ESR [electron spin resonance] absorption phenomenon, originating in superconducting charge-transfer complexes formed by intercalation of tryptamines and beta-carbolines into the genetic material. We reasoned that both neural DNA and neural RNA were involved in this process: Serotonin or, in the case of our experiment, exogenously introduced methylated tryptamines would preferentially bind to membrane RNA, opening the ionic shutter mechanism and, simultaneously, entering into superconductive charge transfer with its resulting modulated ESR signal; beta-carbolines could then pass through the membrane via the RNA-ionic channel and intercalate into the neural DNA” (p. 104). Dennis McKenna has since become an experienced researcher on neurological receptors, but his work does not deal any further with DNA. Terence McKenna (1993) tells the story behind the conception of these visionary speculations.
19 The advances accomplished over the last twenty-five years regarding science’s understanding of neurological receptors can be gauged by reading Smythies (1970) on the possible nature of these receptors: “This makes deductions from the chemical relation between various agonists and antagonists to the possible nature of the receptor site tentative at best. Such arguments would be more cogent if anything were known, on independent grounds, of the chemical nature of the receptor site. Unfortunately very little is known” (p. 182). In those days, scientists could only advance on this question by groping in the dark; Symthies theorized, incorrectly, that the receptors were made of RNA.
20 For instance, in the most recent edition of the Psychedelics encyclopedia (Stafford 1992), there is no reference to DNA. To my knowledge, the only other mention of a link between hallucinogens and DNA is by Lamb (1985), who suggests in passing: “Perhaps on some unknown unconscious level the genetic encoder DNA provides a bridge to biological memories of all living things, an aura of unbounded awareness manifesting itself in the activated mind” (p. 2). Lamb elaborates no further on this.
21 See Rattemeyer et al. (1981), Popp (1986), Li (1992), Van Wijk and Van Aken (1992), Niggli (1992), Mei (1992), and Popp, Gu, and Li (1994).
22 Popp (1986, p. 207).
23 Popp (1986, pp. 209, 207). See also Popp, Gu, and Li (1994) regarding the coherence in biophoton emission.
24 Suren Erkman, personal communication, 1995.
25 Strassman et al. (1994, pp. 100-101).
26 Etymologically, “hallucination” comes from the Latin hallucinari, “to wander in the mind,” which corresponds quite precisely to the description I propose of the phenomenon induced by hallucinogens—namely, a shifting of consciousness away from ordinary reality toward the molecular level. The word hallucinari only acquired the pejorative meaning “to be mistaken” in the fifteenth century; but I do not consider this connotation a sufficient reason not to use a word which is commonly understood and the original etymology of which corresponds to the described phenomenon. Finally, and in opposition to a certain number of current scholars, I do not subscribe to the use of the newly coined word “entheogen” (to replace “hallucinogen”), because it jargonizes a difficult subject and loads it with divine (theos = “God”) connotations.
27 Popp, Gu, and Li (1994) write; “There is evidence of nonsubstantial biocommunication between cells and organisms by means of photon emission” (p. 1287). On biophoton emission as a cellular language, see Galle et al. (1991), Gu (1992), and Ho and Popp (1993). One of the most eloquent experiments in this field consists of placing two lots of unicellular organisms in a device which measures photon emission and separating them with a metal screen; under these circumstances, the graph of the first lot’s photon emission shows no relationship to that of the second lot. When the metal screen is removed, both graphs coincide to the highest degree—see Popp (1992a, p. 40). On the role of biophoton emission in plankton colonies, see Galle et al. (1991).
28 Ho and Popp (1993, p. 192).
29 Fritz-Albert Popp, personal communication, 1995.
30 On the precursory work of Alexander A. Gurvich, see the references in Popp, Gu, and Li (1994) as well as the writings of Anna A. Gurvich (1992, for example).
31 Reichel-Dolmatoff (1979, p. 117). On the importance of quartz crystals in shamanic practices, see also Harner (1980, pp. 138-140) and Eliade (1972).
32 Baer (1992) writes concerning the use of quartz crystals by Matsigenka shamans: “Light-colored or transparent stones, especially quartz crystals, are regarded as curative. They are called isere’pito. Although this designation is the same as that for the auxiliary spirits, it is more correct to view them as ‘bodies,’ ‘residences,’ or material manifestations of these spirits.... The Matsigenka say the shaman feeds his stones tobacco daily. If he does not do so, his auxiliary spirits, which materialize in the crystals, will leave him, and then the shaman will die” (pp. 86-87). The same practice is found among neighboring Ashaninca sheripiári (see Elick 1969, pp. 208-209).
33 Frank-Kamenetskii (1993, p. 31).
34 Blocker and Salem (1994) write: “In DNA, one finds four bases which are different and all quite complex. The structure of two of these bases, thymine (T) and cytosine (C), is hexagonal. The other two, adenine (A) and guanine (G), have a nine atom structure, with a hexagon placed next to a pentagon” (p. 55).
35 While I suggest the hypothesis that DNA’s “non-coding” repeat sequences serve, among other things, to pick up photons at different frequencies, it is worth mentioning that Rattemeyer et al. (1981) proposed, in the first article
published on DNA as a source of photon emission, that the non-coding parts of the genome could play an unsuspected electromagnetic role: “Only a very small proportion (about 0.1 and 2%) of DNA operates as genetic material and is organized in nucleotide sequences according to the genetic code. Models have, therefore, been proposed which suggest some regulatory role for the non-protein-coding DNA. Recently, this regulatory role is being seen more in terms of some basic physical mechanisms, particularly the coherent electromagnetic interactions between different DNA sections, rather than a biochemical store of information” (p. 573). Li (1992, p. 190) also suggests that the aperiodic nature of the DNA crystal facilitates the coherence of photon emission. I suggest here that the converse is also true and that the repeat sequences in the DNA crystal facilitate its capacity to pick up photons.
36 Of course, biophoton researchers are aware of the fact that photon emission, considered as a cellular language, necessarily implies a receptor. Ho and Popp (1993) write that this phenomenon “points to the existence of amplifying mechanisms in the organisms receiving the information (and acting on it). Specifically, the living system itself must also be organized by intrinsic electrodynamical fields, capable of receiving, amplifying, and possibly transmitting electromagnetic information in a wide range of frequencies—rather like an extraordinarily efficient and sensitive, and extremely broadband radio receiver and transmitter, much as Fröhlich has suggested” (p. 194). I write that biophoton reception has not been studied, but Li (1992, p. 167) and Niggli (1992, p. 236) both mention in passing the necessary existence of a photon-trapping mechanism.
37 Chwirot (1992) writes: “The properties of chromatin [the substance contained in the nucleus—that is, DNA and its coating of proteins], optical ones included, are very different in vivo and in vitro and depend on many factors which have not yet been fully understood” (pp. 274-275). Popp, Gu, and Li (1994) conclude their review of the biophoton literature by writing that “the mechanism [of biophoton emission] is not known in detail at present” (p. 1293).
38 Popp (1992b) writes: “The entity of all living systems (which can be considered as a more or less fully interlinked unit), rather than the individuals, is always developing” (p. 454).
10: BIOLOGY’S BLIND SPOT
1 Crick (1981, p. 58). Jones (1993) writes: “The ancestral message from the dawn of life has grown to an instruction manual containing three thousand million letters coded into DNA. Everyone has a unique edition of the manual which differs in millions of ways from that of their fellows. All this diversity comes from accumulated errors in copying the inherited message” (p. 79). Delsemme (1994) writes: “The mechanism [of evolution] is extraordinarily simple, as it rests on two principles: copying errors, which cause ‘mutations’; survival of the individual best adapted to its environment” (p. 185). Francis Crick coined the term “central dogma” in 1958. Blocker and Salem (1994) write regarding the central dogma: “However, . . . this principle can be seriously challenged. In fact, from a certain point of view, one can almost consider it to be wrong: information actually flows back from the proteins to the genes, but by a different means, that of regulation” (p. 66). Regarding resistance to the theory of natural selection until the middle of the twentieth century, Mayr (1982) writes: “Up to the 1920s and 1930s, virtually all the major books on evolution—those of Berg, Bertalanffy, Beurlen, Böker, Goldschmidt, Robson, Robson and Richards, Schindewolf, Willis, and those of all the French evolutionists, including Cuénot, Caullery, Vandel, Guyénot, and Rostand—were more or less strongly anti-Darwinian. Among nonbiologists Darwinism was even less popular. The philosophers, in particular, were almost unanimously opposed to it, and this opposition lasted until relatively recent years (Cassirer, 1950; Grene, 1959; Popper, 1972). Most historians likewise rejected selectionism (Radl, Nordenskiöld, Barzun, Himmelfarb)” (p. 549). Mayr goes on to describe an international symposium held in 1947: “All participants endorsed the gradualness of evolution, the preeminent importance of natural selection, and the populational aspect of the origin of diversity. Not all other biologists were completely converted. This is evident from the great efforts made by Fisher, Haldane, and Muller as late as the 1940s and 50s to present again and again evidence in favor of the universality of natural selection, and from some reasonably agnostic statements on evolution made by a few leading biologists such as Max Hartmann” (p. 569).
2 Crick (1966, p. 10) and Jacob (1974, p. 320).
3 Monod (1971, pp. 30-31).
4 Jakobson (1973, p. 61). He also writes: “Consequently, we can say that, of all the information-transmitting systems, the genetic code and the verbal code are the only ones that are founded on the use of discrete elements, which are, in themselves, devoid of meaning, but which are used to constitute the minimal units of significance, namely the entities endowed with a meaning that is their own in the code in question” (p. 52). See Shanon (1978) on the differences between the genetic code and human languages.
5 Calladine and Drew (1992) write: “The mass of DNA is surrounded in most cells by a strong membrane with tiny, selective holes, that allow some things to go in and out, but keep others either inside or outside. Important chemical molecules go in and out of these holes, like memos from the main office of a factory to its workshops; and indeed the individual cell is in many ways like an entire factory, on a very tiny scale. The space in the cell which is not occupied by DNA and the various sorts of machinery is filled with water” (p. 3). De Rosnay (1966) writes: “The cell is, indeed, a veritable molecular factory, but this ‘miracle’ factory is capable not only of looking after its own maintenance—as we have just seen—but also of building its own machines as well as the drivers of those machines” (p. 62). Pollack (1994) compares a cell to a city, rather than to a factory: “A cell is a busy place, a city of large and small molecules all constructed according to information encoded in DNA. The metaphor of a city may seem even more farfetched than that of a skyscraper for an invisibly small cell until you consider that a cell has room for more than a hundred million million atoms; that is plenty of space for millions of different molecules, since even the largest molecules in a cell are made of only a few hundred million atoms” (p. 18). In his book The machinery of life, Goodsell (1993) writes: “Like the machines of our modern world, these molecules are built to perform specific functions efficiently, accurately, and consistently. Modern cells build hundreds of thousands of different molecular machines, each performing one of hundreds of thousands of individual tasks in the process of living. These molecular machines are built according to four basic molecular plans. Whereas our macrosocopic machines are built of metal, wood, plastic and ceramic, the microscopic machines in cells are built of protein, nucleic acid, lipid, and polysaccharide. Each plan has a unique chemical personality ideally suited to a different role in the cell” (p. 13). De Rosnay (1966, p. 165) compares enzymes to “biological micro-computers” and to “molecular robots,” whereas Goodsell (1993, p. 29) calls them “automata.” Wills (1991) writes: “The genome is like a book that contains, among many other things, detailed instructions on how to build a machine that can make copies of it—and also instructions on how to build the tools needed to make the machine” (p. 41). For discussions of DNA as a “language” or a “text,” see, for example, Frank-Kamenetskii (1993, pp. 63-74), Jones (1993), or Pollack (1994). Atlan and Koppel (1990) reject the classical metaphor of DNA as a “program” and suggest instead that it is better understood as “data to a program embedded in the global geometrical and biochemical structure of the cell” (p. 338). Finally, Delsemme (1994, p. 205) writes that “we can consider with complete peace of mind that life is a normal physicochemical phenomenon.”
6 Piaget (1975) writes: “Thus the most developed science remains a continual becoming, and in every field nonbalance plays a functional role of prime importance since it necessitates re-equilibration” (p. 178).
7 Scott quoted in Freedman (1994), whose article inspired this paragraph. Goodsell (1993) writes that
“proteins are self-assembling machines,” which, among other functions, “form motors, turning huge molecular oars that propel bacterial cells” or “specific pumps [that] are built to pump amino acids in, to pump urea out, or to trade sodium for potassium” (pp. 18, 42).
8 Calladine and Drew (1992, p. 37). See Wills (1989, p. 166) on the speed of carbonic anhydrase. See Radman and Wagner (1988, p. 25) on the minute rate of error of repair enzymes. Science nominated DNA repair enzymes “molecules of the year 1994.” Recently, it was found that these enzymes are highly adaptable and that “repair” enzymes also participate in DNA replication, the control of the cell cycle, and the expression of genes. Similarly, enzymes that splice the double helix can do so in both chromosome recombination and repair operations. Enzymes that unwind DNA can act during transcription of the genetic text as well as repair (see Culotta and Koshland 1994). Wills (1991) writes on the speed of DNA duplication by enzymes called replisomes: “Replisomes work in pairs. As we watch, about 100 pairs of replisomes seize specific places on each of the chromosomes, and each pair begins to work in opposite directions. Since all the chromosomes are being duplicated at once, there are about ten thousand replisomes operating throughout the nucleus. They work at incredible speed, spewing out new DNA strands at the rate of 150 nucleotides per second.... At full bore, the DNA can be replicated at one and a half million nucleotides per second. Even at this rate, it would still take about half an hour to duplicate all six billion nucleotides” (pp. 113-114).