Hemi-Sync® Journal 1994-2 (Spring)

--- PAGE 1 (OCR) --- Vol. XII Spring 1994 A Publication of The Monroe Institute IN THIS ISSUE In this special issue, we are pleased to present excerpts from Dr. Beverly Rubik's address at the 1993 Professional Seminar. In her presentation, she focused on three areas of research at the forefront of the evolving new scientific paradigm. The Monroe Institute’s own area of concentration, the evolution of human consciousness, receives special emphasis. Ez LIFE AT THE EDGE OF SCIENCE by Beverly Rubik, PhD At The Monroe Institute's annual Professional Seminar, held in July of 1993, we were honored to have Beverly Rubik, PhD, as special guest speaker. Dr. Rubik received her PRD in biophysics from the University of California at Berkeley and was a faculty member at San Francisco State University from 1979 to 1988. She has been director of the Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University since 1988 and is presently a member of the advisory panel of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health. A deep interest in the reunion of science and spirit has led to research on consciousness interacting with the physical realm. In her presentation to the Professional Membership, Dr. Rubik addressed three frontier science areas under exploration by the Center that challenge the dominant paradigm. These are the mind- matter interrelationship (consciousness research), bioelectromagnet- ics, and complementary medicine (particularly energy medicine). An overview of the Center’s work for the past six years was also given, with @ strong focus on the mind-matter realm. This article is con- densed, with Dr. Rubik's permission, from “Three Frontier Areas of Science That Challenge the Paradigm” and includes the original ref- erences. The complete paper was published by The Center for Frontier Sciences in Frontier Perspectives, vol. 3, n0. 1 (Fall 1992). Life is distinguished by its capacity to move upstream, which is a sign of vigor and vitality. However, flowing along with the mainstream often prevails in the human domain. Fraught with extraordinary difficulties, working in science outside of the main- stream is rare. Our present systems have deterred unique approaches in science, technology, and medicine. The pursuit of research in frontier sciences such as bioelec- tromagnetics, novel medical therapies or diagnostics, new energy technology, consciousness studies—research in any area that challenges the dominant mainstream paradigm—poses unusual hardships for scientists. Expressing interest in these can destroy one’s reputation as a serious member of the scientific communi- ty, regardless of one’s stature. Even if one is willing to risk repu- tation, obtaining funding for frontier research projects is a seri- ous problem with negligible support from government and most private foundations. Another obstacle is publishing in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Publications in the frontier sciences may bring about unforeseen critical backlash from the scientific com- munity. Therefore, it is not surprising that ideas that depart from the mainstream have little chance of being recognized in their own time or carried through to fruition. Our present human institu- tional systems do not encourage novelty, creativity, and long- term evolutionary change. They behave more and more like closed systems. It goes without saying that the evolution of closed systems is the antithesis of life. © 1994 The Monroe Institute Route 1, Box 175, Faber, VA 22938-9749 804/361-1252 --- PAGE 2 (OCR) --- HEMI-SYNC® JOURNAL History has shown repeatedly that many major discoveries in science, medicine, and technology that have radically changed the world have resulted from seemingly far-fetched ideas or attempts to solve what seemed impossible at that time (Kuhn 1970). The rejection of innovative ideas has been typical and has included such luminaries as Galileo, Kepler, Franklin, Semmelweis, Bell, and discoveries such as x-rays, the theory of relativity, the existence of atoms, the theory of continental drift, and atomic energy. The present is no exception: geneticist Barbara McClintock unraveled the mysteries of the transposition of genes; Robert O. Becker pioneered research on the biological effects of low-intensi- ty nonionizing electromagnetic radiation; Linus Pauling researched megadose effects of vitamin C; Peter Duesberg, an expert on retroviruses, has criticized the oncogene hypothesis and the role of HIV in the etiology of AIDS; and Jacques Benveniste has demonstrated that extremely dilute solutions of antibodies produce biological effects incomprehensible from a conventional biochemical view. Many have experienced the exist- Industry, which thrives on competition and new ideas, presently does not support much research that would produce genuine innovation. ing system's preferred method of dealing with novel discoveries— profound disbelief, and accusations of heresy—and some have been subjected to extraordinary investigations including magicians. Although science is far from being a complete map of reality, scientism, the dogmatic acceptance of mainstream science as proven knowledge, tends to dominate. It is a self-satisfied dogma- tism that cherishes the delusion that our available knowledge is somehow infallible and final. However, this contradicts the very essence of science, in which the most exciting and significant dis- coveries lead to dramatic changes in world view (Kuhn 1970). Nonetheless, reception of novelty in science is typically analogous to the reaction incurred with foreign tissue in a host: rejection. Industry, which thrives on competition and new ideas, presently does not support much research that would produce genuine innovation. It appears that research and development now take a back seat to marketing. Of course, not all new ideas or discoveries are good enough to bear fruit. However, although they involve higher risk, history has shown repeatedly that the pursuit of novel approaches holds the greatest promise for cre- ative breakthroughs. Investment in high-risk scientific projects is comparable to high-risk investments in a diversified financial investment portfolio: to maximize profits in the long run. Failure to pay attention to new perspectives can be lethal. The Center for Frontier Sciences at Temple University was established in 1987 out of a recognized need for greater openness to novel approaches in science, medicine, and technology. The Center provides the appropriate setting to help legitimize inquiry into nonmainstream areas and to facilitate communication, net- working, education, and information exchange to advance research efforts. Based at a large state university, the Center appears to be unique. High academic standards with an appropri- ate level of scientific criticism are maintained in examining anomalous claims. One objective is to create an open forum to air novel ideas. One of the most difficult tasks in working at the edge of sci- ence is to choose promising clear paths. Major changes have been triggered not by isolated experimental findings but by collective evidence. Three broad frontier science areas have been identified by the Center. In each of them evidence that challenges contem- porary mainstream science has been accumulating from numer- ous sources. These areas constitute our main foci. They are con- sciousness research, bioelectromagnetics, and complementary medicine. All three are testable by standard scientific methods and share a relatedness in the challenges they pose to the domi- nant paradigm. Thus, they have been singled out as among the most likely to profoundly change our views of the universe, life, and the face of technology. Consciousness research involves inquiry on the nature of mind and its role in the physical and biological realms. It is a broad multidisciplinary area of inquiry where dramatic new results from many avenues are evident. All of life may be regarded as conscious or cognitive in a rudimentary sense, having the capability of sensing and responding to the smallest environmen- tal changes. In humans, different states of consciousness, beliefs, emotions, and intentionality have been shown to play active roles in bodily functions. Research on multiple personality disorders (MPD) indicates that the patient’s physiology shifts measurably with each personality (Putnam 1990). This includes changes in allergy profiles, disease states, visual acuity, and EEG, to name a few. MPD research implies that the body/mind is a fundamental indivisible unit. In engineering science, it is statistically well doc- umented that the conscious intention of operators can apparently influence the outcome of sensitive electronic or mechanical devices such as random event generators and pseudorandom number computer programs (Jahn, Dunne, and Nelson 1987; Schmidt 1982). Remote perception, or the capability to ascertain information nonlocally, has been demonstrated (Puthoff and Targ 1976). Psychosomatic medicine and psychoneuroimmunology both show a distinct role of mind in health and disease (Ader 1983). Biofeedback, hypnosis, the placebo effect, and autogenic training indicate that profound effects upon physiology can be elicited by subtle mental shifts (Benson et al. 1974). Dozens of studies have shown that the prayers and meditations of widely separated individuals correlate with a significant improvement of the health and well-being of others (Byrd 1988). Numerous inves- tigations in consciousness research suggest an inseparability of mind and body and a participatory role for mind interacting with matter that transcend the ordinary limitations of space-time. Another area of particular importance to the Center is the newly emerging science of bioelectromagnetics—the study of natural and artificial electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and their relation to life and health. Recent evidence shows a much greater sensitivity of life forms, especially developing ones, to low-level nonionizing EMFs than had been predicted from classical physics. Both positive and negative biological effects of such EMFs, rang- ing from extremely low frequency (ELF) to the radio and microwave regions, have been documented for many different life forms. Effects range from those at the molecular and cellular lev- els to tissue, organ, systemic, and behavioral changes (Becker 1975). Moreover, the well known phenomenon of dowsing may also be related to EMF effects. Research on dowsing suggests that the biological response in the form of a spontaneous twitch of a muscle, observed as a jerk of a rod held in the hand as one is moving over a geological gradient, is due to variations in extremely low intensity geophysical fields (Konig and Betz 1989). The biological effects of low intensity nonionizing EMFs, well below the threshold for thermal effects, are perplexing. In addi- tion, the potential hazards of external ELF such as 60 and 50 Hz, the electric power frequencies in the U.S. and elsewhere, are the focal point of an increasing number of studies. Other frequencies now utilized in modern technology, such as communications and radar waves, may also be promoting little known and poorly understood biological effects. In relation to this, resonant microwave frequencies have been observed for cellular systems that stimulate growth and cell division with highly nonlinear --- PAGE 3 (OCR) --- Spring 1994 dynamical responses (Grundler and Keilmann 1989). Apparently the natural geomagnetic field interacts with applied electromag- netic fields in eliciting certain biological effects (Adey 1984). In summary, the increasing evidence from the wide range of research in bioelectromagnetics suggests an intimacy of life with field interactions that is unbounded. It challenges the conven- tional discrete, biomolecular view of life in which living functions may be solely reduced to a complexity of biochemistry within the