The Next Pandemic: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

Where to turn if Bad Science is all we’ve got?

Any scientific methodology originating from refined methods, as our higher educational institutions nurture us to do, by design has to concentrate both method and perception. This is essential to create a demarcation between real science and pseudoscience. But is such a demarcation sufficient in protecting us from bad science, or will it inevitably arrest itself in its own duress? We must also today, more than in previous times, consider the powerful concentrating effect of sponsored institutionalised thinking and corporate funded research on science. Science is our untapped potential and only hope to constantly evolve a body of knowledge that can be applied to a growing list of new subjects.

It is generally accepted that empirical evidence is the evidence of the senses, of direct observation or measurement and the pillars of the science we develop. Compare that to rational evidence, which is evidence that is the result of deduction, experience or other reasoning, or anecdotal evidence which comes from personal testimony which may be reliable or not, its potential to reliability also deserving closer scrutiny. Most research in healthcare is based on empirical evidence coming from narrowly defined avenues— called evidence-based research. We must however agree, it is only when we pay heed to all approaches having potential value in scientific advances that we can reliably help to improve the human condition.

We should firstly contemplate what some science philosophers had to say on this matter. The Hungarian born science philosopher Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) suggested that the distinction between science and non-science, and between good and bad science, should be based on when a research program cannot predict anything new, or when its claims cannot be tested—the latter subsequently is bad science and might be degenerating to the point of pseudoscience.

Evidence-based research, our most acceptable approach to the scientific method, also serve to refine auxiliary conjectures and continues to be progressive for as long as new facts can be predicted, and new tests can emerge from data. The philosopher Sir Karl popper famously contributed to the philosophy of science with his claim that falsifiability of existing theories is the demarcation of science from non-science. In different terms it also implies that no methodology is entirely free from observational error and therefore can always be falsified and improved on. So far what all these claims have in common is that good science should be able to advance by learning from its errors and mistakes and result in something new to examine.

The foundations of good science get more insecure if science confirms that no observation (regardless of methodology) is entirely free from measurement error or bias, consequently we may question whether our experimental result was what it appeared to be. Things may also change as we measure them (Heisenberg principle aside), such change occurring in both the observer and the object being observed as they both continuously evolve. Quantum physics may add further confusion here when we consider recent claims by physicists that ‘light knows when we are looking at it and behaves differently when it is being observed’.  Slowly it is becoming clear that good science (or at least our expectations of it) is both ephemeral and elusive. In addition to this problem, as I explained in Spheres of perception (2020) besides the aforementioned challenges time and its inseparable companion change, play a significant role in the value and interpretation of all things historically observed and measured. Think of trying to land a plane on an air strip at Heathrow based on historic predictions of continental drift and weather patterns. Unavoidably good science has to progress from its previous flaws; crashing a plane when human lives are at stake is not a good method to eliminate bad science in order to learn more.

Should arrogantly we make the mistake of setting our believes concretely on an empirical science and its ‘flawless’ conclusions, the interactive chemical building blocks of life may soon be nearing saturation, broken down to their smallest measurable elements as based on our narrowly defined set interpretations. With scientific foundations set on such unfalsifiable theories , measured predictability and following concrete rules under fixed conditions — how shall we evolve a good science from here then? It seems Popper was right. In such a mechanistic evidence-based correctness in the physical world we are also (perhaps a surprise to many) in greater danger of advancing pseudoscience. Soon the concrete matter we so arduously tried to break down, measure under strictly applied set conditions and define down to its smallest components and cling to, may become inadequate. Unless we somehow allow for the fact that the subjects being measured and studied also evolve at different rates over time as they interact in a complex network. However, even this won't be enough, we also somehow need to create more scope for our perceptive abilities to continuously coevolve in all spheres attuned to the evolution of the subjects studied.

Lakatos proposed that a scientific revolution occurs when a dominant programme has completely degenerated and is incompetent in responding to accumulating anomalies – creating a crisis in confidence in either the methodology, the basis in approach of the measurer or both. A new scientific breakthrough is then needed to for a progressive science to explain emerging anomalies. I think we are close to such a revolution in the natural and physical sciences today. Lakatos pre-warned that such a revolution if and when it occurs should be driven by logic and method, not irrational mob psychology as is emerging today. Many still see both evolution and many outcomes in medical science as attempts to demarcate the physical from the metaphysical, subsequently when science fails them they rush to find comfort in the metaphysical or in the uncertainty of beliefs and remedies without any proof —this is dangerous under current needs and social demands. Should we perhaps blame science for being too realistically harsh, or too unrealistically demarcated from all spheres of existence? If we consider our current concept of a Darwinian based evolution as the cornerstone of much of contemporary biology and medical science, and place this under Lakatos’s, Popper’s and my own scrutiny here, then it is also overdue for an update. The reason for this is that the general perception is still of an evolution based on a crude ‘unconscious’ mechanical natural-selection searching for survival and reproduction in an egocentric gene. With many advanced techniques available and the genomes of various species now mapped, it is helping us to understand evolution more as interactive and 'perceptive' living system— interconnected to living environments. A new picture of a perceptive bionetwork continuously adjusting and fine-tuning itself as part of a communicative and interdependent bionetwork is emerging and we need urgent adjustments to rescue science, unless we surrender to a future of pseudoscience. If we continue to pursue this road, besides bad science inevitably leading to regression, we also miss out on a significant and overdue moral advancement as explained in my new book.

Lakatos’s concepts, Popperian falsification and Kuhn’s claim of science having a cultural drive that may mislead, all have one thing clearly in common, and that is the possibility that any strictly evidence-based research programme might exhibit changing fortunes over time and we need to be prepared for this. A cultural drive demarcating itself from the gains and benefits of science may in reverse be seen as an indicator of bad science, currently we see this emerge on many fronts. Darwinian based evolutionary theory fits the latter pattern in view of new advances in phylogenetics and the witnessing of a ‘communicative’ biochemistry as the essence of life. There is also however nothing to rule out the possibility that a degenerating programme could somehow stage a spectacular recovery. The latter does not imply manipulation or reinterpretation of research subjects, but rather adapting new perceptions and/or methodologies to help us better understand our evolutionary epistemology. We should pay heed to this as I pointed out in Spheres of Perception, by also widening our perceptions to circulate in freely evolving spheres, especially in healthcare. These three spheres being, the evidence-based physical world, the uncertain (unproven) and metaphysical (yet to be perceived). The should all be open to evolve together in a good science interacting within a progressive world. In such a science no demarcations or biases can hamper progressive understanding to reliably interconnect based on sound principles as part of a continuously evolving perceptive living network.

The philosophers all hinted that science should be non-restrictive. Lakatos’s warned scientists doggedly pursuing a degenerating research programme are guilty of an irrational commitment to a bad science. Popper tells us if nothing can be falsified it is bad science. Today exiting research fields have opened up in astrobiology, quantum mechanics/computing, on dark matter and dark energy, besides the above-mentioned escalating evidence of a flexible genome interactive within changing living environments. These exciting fields are still very much neglected, lost amongst an array of programs finding much more security in the familiarity of bad science with set values operating in inflexible theories, this offering more security to support financial investments.

It appears that unfortunately ‘bad science’ may be currently all that is available to take the next leap forward. In a post reductionist era where the material world and all our advancing means to perceive and measure it will become restrictive when dissected down to its smallest elements. Especially in biochemistry, physics and chemistry, solidity appear to be less concrete than expected. All we can turn to then is an interactive and interconnect all regarding concern driven by perceptions focussed on this escalating change in evolving complexity. The aim will become to gain better understanding of how all these narrowly defined elements interconnect and advance or regress in self-generated complexity. For this we will need new methodologies to create space for the undiscovered and unexpected. Such methodologies should simultaneously not be restrained by culturism or fad as Kuhn suggested, neither should it be based on set institutionalised thinking, existing methods or non-falsifiable set theory as Popper guided or be disabled in its ability to claim anything new (evolve new unrestricted ideas) as Lakatos indicated.

In conclusion we should not neglect including the valuable, seemingly indifferent, opinion on the topic from the American philosopher Larry Laudan in 1983 here. He claimed there is no hope of finding a necessary and sufficient criterion of something as heterogeneous as scientific methodology. This widely accepted conclusion of Lauden opened up more new doors that we should now all eagerly enter in our pursuit of good science.

There is now also growing recognition that the natural, social sciences and the humanities all function as parts of the same human heterogenous endeavour attempting to create systematic and critical investigation—all aimed at acquiring the best possible understanding of the workings of nature, objects and people in a rapidly evolving interconnected living network. The diverse disciplines that form this community of knowledge disciplines are increasingly interdependent as Hansson also implied in 2007. We now understand that all these components (including us) are constantly changing, interactive within a biostructure we are only beginning to understand.  Lauden was right in that 'empirical science is facing simultaneous dilemmas all at once as it can only function if perceptive to a heterogeneous environment'. In the current climate of knowledge explosion, and with fund-directed research attempting to gain its support in ‘institutionalised evidence-based’ research, the amount of unpredictable and marginalised axillary theories that lack funding may furthermore be easily under supported or even overlooked. With their potential value lost we are now dangerously close to be led by a demarcated pseudoscience operating in blind isolation.

In order to negate and advance into this vast new world with new opportunity and not despondency, we need to be armed with a reliable, free and truthful science in full acknowledgement of our world as perceptive and interconnected in progressive spheres of perception. These spheres, constantly evolving and adjusting to complexity, both in the physically evident (empirical ) and uncertainty, without neglecting the metaphysical. To do this we must be receptive to change without barriers as an interactive concern adjusting to rapidly evolving heterogeneity. We may define this need for new methodologies as a pending scientific revolution.

References

·         Bartley III, W. W., 1968. “Theories of demarcation between science and metaphysics”, pp. 40–64 in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965, volume 3, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

·         Cioffi, Frank, 1985. “Psychoanalysis, pseudoscience and testability”, pp 13–44 in Gregory Currie and Alan Musgrave, (eds.) Popper and the Human Sciences, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht.

·         Feleppa, Robert, 1990. “Kuhn, Popper, and the Normative Problem of Demarcation”, pp. 140–155 in Patrick Grim (ed.) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd ed, Albany: State University of New York Press.

·         Fuller, Steve, 1985. “The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly exaggerated”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66: 329–341.

·         Glymour, Clark and Stalker, Douglas, 1990. “Winning through Pseudoscience”, pp 92–103 in Patrick Grim (ed.) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd ed, Albany: State University of New York Press.

·         Grove , J.W., 1985. “Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience”, Minerva, 23: 216–240.

·         Gruenberger, Fred J., 1964. “A measure for crackpots”, Science, 145: 1413–1415.

·         Hansson, Sven Ove, 1983. Vetenskap och ovetenskap, Stockholm: Tiden. 1996. “Defining Pseudoscience”, Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–176.

·         Kuhn, Thomas S., 1974. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?”, pp. 798–819 in P.A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Karl Popper, The Library of Living Philosophers, vol xiv, book ii. La Salle: Open Court.

·         Lakatos, Imre, 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Research program”, pp 91–197 in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

·         –––, 1974a. “Popper on Demarcation and Induction”, pp. 241–273 in P.A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Karl Popper, The Library of Living Philosophers, vol xiv, book i. La Salle: Open Court.

·         –––, 1974b. “Science and pseudoscience”, Conceptus, 8: 5–9.

·         –––, 1981. “Science and pseudoscience”, pp. 114–121 in S Brown et al. (eds.) Conceptions of Inquiry: A Reader London: Methuen.

·         Laudan, Larry, 1983. “The demise of the demarcation problem”, pp. 111–127 in R.S. Cohan and L. Laudan (eds.), Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis, Dordrecht: Reidel.

·         Reisch, George A., 1998. “Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of Pseudoscience”, Philosophy of Science, 65: 333–348.

·         Ruse, Michael (ed.), (1996). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

·         Settle, Tom, 1971. “The Rationality of Science versus the Rationality of Magic”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 173–194.

·         Thagard, Paul R., 1978. “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience”, Philosophy of Science Association (PSA 1978), 1: 223–234.

·         –––, 1988. Computational Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

A major paradigm shift in the biosciences

Imagine a world in which everything constantly adjusts, realigns and harmonizes itself with all its contents. As a perceptive network, such a world continuously intercommunicates, and in accordance with continuous change, congruously adjusts itself on all levels while growing in complexity and intelligence. If we knew we lived in such a world, wouldn’t our ambition be to progress our knowledge and understanding, and therefore live more principled lives, in accordance with such consonance and intelligence?  

In recent years, and also thanks to significant advances in technology, scientists are able to enter the cellular and molecular worlds on levels previously undreamt-of. Likewise, our understanding in physics, chemistry, and of the universe has taken giant leaps. In this new setting, now entering a post-reductionist era, focus has ambitiously turned to how these atoms and molecules that make up our world and us interconnect and communicate. Much research is now dedicated to discovering how different signals and intercellular pathways behave and increase in complexity as they interact. Scientists and medical practitioners are starting to understand the cellular world as a pliable network of interconnected links recruiting proteins and chemical methods for communication, with disease occurring when these connections break down. Besides the enormous future medical benefits of such renewed focus, this understanding is also shedding new light on our evolutionary origins.

Research scientists are finding considerable evidence that the development of principled communication networks amongst cells is part of the overall process of a perceptive evolution. All cells have some means of reacting to a signal or signals coming from neighbouring cells, other parts of the body, and the external environment. For this, they have evolved numerous methods and receptors cascading in techniques to ‘talk’ to each other, constantly adjusting their genetic material to changing environments in this evolving web of life. Fine-tuned cell-to-cell communications guarantee concord among many different cell types. Evolutionary biologists, and biologists in general, have come to understand that the ability of cells to interconnect with each other and their environments through chemical signals was crucial for the evolution of primitive cells into multicellular organisms. Current evolutionary biology and medical science now base their foundations on this concept of intercellular communication.

During the evolutionary process, numerous signalling methods have slowly progressed and advanced in multicellular organisms to ensure smooth communication and contact between internal and external environments. From unicellular organisms up to complex bodies, all living elements must communicate with the surrounding world to exist as part of a complex, interconnected living system — being alive means being perceptive and interconnected. To signal each other, all living elements, from single cellular organisms up, use innovative methods to conduct extracellular molecules for such molecule-mediated cell-to-cell interactions.

In higher mammals (and us), four principle signalling methods are recognized as orchestrating and harmonizing molecules into performing complex functions in a composite network. Defined in basic biology today as neuronal, endocrine, juxtacrine, and paracrine, these signals help turn individualized chaos into a concordant flow of interconnected events in order to be perceptive to constantly changing environments.

The endocrine (or hormone) and neuronal signals, besides being a direct means of distant signalling to internal systems, also have a cascade of indirect effects on all cells in the body. External signals are relayed by nerves and neurons (nerve cells) to stimulate cells and molecules to relay messages to remote cells. All cells have various membrane reception methods, some unchanged and traced back to ancient unicellular ancestors. With neuronal signalling, external factors like stress, anger, or falling in love can affect a network of extracellular molecules to, in turn, stimulate release of proteins acting as messengers, triggering responses in numerous receptive cells all over the body. Various hormones (also proteins) are released by different glands and travel throughout the body via blood vessels to further stimulate receptive cells as another form of distant communication— we all have some idea of the impact of hormones on social interaction. This so-called endocrine signalling can also indirectly interact with external factors via neuronal input. The important and complex effect of external stimuli and how they interact to affect cells as an interconnected concern is a promising field of research. One thing is clearly coming from all levels: it[T1]  is enormously more interdependent, perceptive, interconnected and communicative, both internally and externally, with more complex social implications and principled obligations than previously thought.

Proteins are also employed for more localized signalling, called juxtacrine signalling. Here, cells can react with receptor proteins of adjacent responsive cells. With this form of communication, the inducer does not diffuse from the cell producing it. Instead, it instructs surface proteins via messenger RNA to communicate with neighbours. In this instance, an extracellular protein on one cell is conducted by its DNA to bind to its receptor on the adjacent cell. It can also recruit proteins released by other cells to communicate messages. A signal can also be transmitted directly from the cytoplasm of one cell through small conduits into the cytoplasm of an adjacent cell—'neighbour chat’. Even here, we now witness how new proteins may occasionally originate due to minor changes in the genome of one of the inducing cells to adjust to a change, affecting its local neighbourhood as an interconnected concern. Although acting locally, [T2] outcomes are also affected and interconnected to hormones and neuronal input.

Producing their own internal (intracytoplasmic) signalling molecules to communicate with their neighbours, referred to as paracrine signalling, internal mechanisms give these paracrine cells the ability to relay messages that directly affect their neighbours. The binding of a specific protein molecule to a cell-wall receptor starts a series of molecular transformations, called signal transduction, which relay the signal through the cell. These receptors transduce the signal from the cell membrane to the internal membrane surface where it activates protein messengers. These messengers trigger a cascade of chemical reactions inside the cell, often involving the addition of a very basic element like a phosphate group. This is the signal that passes through the cytoplasm and into the nucleus, where DNA is harboured. In the decisive step of this signal transduction, DNA-binding proteins in the cell nucleus then attach to regulatory sequences and start DNA replication, or transcription of a messenger RNA, to produce new proteins in response to specific signals received. In a system carrying age-old wisdom, in consonance with persistently evolving environments, these proteins in turn communicate ‘little perceptions’ to surrounding cells, affecting goal directed functions, like making a muscle contract or trigger a memory. Intercommunicating on all levels, internally, externally, and transgenerationally, and as a network in unison and perceptive to change, it constantly evolves and grows in its own complexity

DNA is now the commonly accepted blueprint for all life on Earth. More pliable and perceptive than previously thought, it constantly adjusts to input and change. Interconnected and principled from within and as a part of a concordant network, it operates in harmony with its changing surroundings. All cells also have the potential to come up with ‘novel perceptions’ with only minor adjustments in the genome or the transcription process. While this often causes disease, at times such a stir may also be better suited to adjust to changes in this progression of life, such as in the example of a bacterium developing resistance to a specific antibiotic by producing a new enzyme (protein), or a single strand of enveloped DNA we call a virus causing so much suffering until the immune system establishes a status quo. Another more recently discovered example is seen in alterations in what geneticists refer to as the CCR5 gene. This alteration, stretching back to bubonic plaque days, and produced by immune cells called macrophages, was recently found to offer a level of protection against the spread of HIV. Searching for accord, this gene offers transgenerational support in the body of patients that inherited its century old wisdom. 

We are only beginning to see how evolution is an interconnected, active, perceptive and ongoing communication-process stretching transgenerationally on all levels. Centred around molecular arrangements with DNA as the ultimate conductor, in a network of ancestral ideas, it remains perceptive and responsive to establish consonance while adjusting to continuous change. Carried from generation to generation, it persistently strives to find accord in this ongoing change, with survival a necessary tool rather than a narrowly set end-goal to benefit solipsistic survivors, as previously misunderstood.

The immune system is another example of such an age-old collaboration. One familiar instance is the vital symbiosis between our gut flora and us – we cannot survive if we destroy this ancient bond. The current estimate, made by Dr. Martin J. Blaser at the New York University School of Medicine, is that humans have 10 trillion human cells and about 100 trillion bacterial cells. We coexist in harmony with our immune systems, and, should we destroy these bacteria completely, we die. Even with only some bacteria affected, we get sick – dermatitis of the skin and inflammatory bowel disease of the gut. It is not in the scope of this book to discuss the immune system and all its diseases, but suffice it to say, for purposes here, it, too, strives for creating harmonious interaction in respect to age-old principles connecting internal and external changes. It is becoming clear that life is not a mere primitive battle to survive but an evolving intelligence aimed at consonance and progressive complexity.

The immune system also has a memory – both a short term and long-term one. The vaccination process is an example of this. Toll receptors act as recognition methods to prevent the immune system from attacking our commensal gut flora, and if things go wrong on this level, we get sick. Inflammatory bowel disease (a form of colitis) is an example of this miscommunication, often triggered by environmental factors. There is an expansive and growing list of such errors in communication between local or systemic cells and/or their co-inhabitants (microbiome) on all levels, causing infirmity such as allergies, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. It does not seem surprising, if we think of the complexity of our recently created environments and novel diets, that allergies and cancers are on the increase in both humans and our heavily inbred pets. Albeit at times useful or even lifesaving, these chemicals we so commonly surround ourselves with are subtly moulding a rather befuddled genome.

If we consider the dreaded cancer cells, they also progress in response to errors in local interactions and we can now see cancer as a communication breakdown between cells. Cancer cells, as descendants of healthy ones, are products of disjointed responses to interconnected concerns. They thrive and proliferate because they narrowly exploit and break established rules of communication (ethic) set by their ancestors and peers. Such miscommunication allows them to find comfortable neighbourhoods in which to metastasise and summon a blood supply for their self-indulgent needs. It is when these cells disarm their immune-system relatives and turn off the communication and act independently in isolation that they become cancerous. In what can only be interpreted as a lack of acumen or desperation, they break down communication links with other cells and disconnect from united demands. With such a solipsistic approach, they become malignant and systematically eventually destroy the body they exploit. This can also be seen as evolution at play in an attempt to respond to the overwhelming new chemical environments we have created. Either way, a better understanding of this communication and a re-establishing of harmony is what holds the future potential to regulate the growth of these cancer cells — sadly, currently further chemical destruction (chemotherapy) is our defence. We have much to learn from this intracellular world, both as a society and in the future direction our healthcare systems will take.

Research scientists now also see enormous therapeutic potential in improved understanding of this communication network. With growing understanding of these interconnections and communications, new options are recognized. Rather than crudely killing these cancer cells with a flow of more harmful chemicals or radiation, re-establishing consonance through re-establishing connections appears more promising. We now have a future option and potential to control cancer by more specifically disrupting these segregated networks, re-establishing normal interconnections, and directing select components of our immune systems to help in the battle against these greedy little breakaways. We have much to learn from these cancer cells, and simultaneously, perhaps, we can soon conduct our own DNA and immune system, through nanotechnology or other means, to help reduce much of the current suffering still caused by this dreaded disease, perhaps in response to our own environmental exploitation and greed.

One of the most dramatic events science has unraveled recently is how DNA is much more flexible and responsive in the living cell than previously thought. We have come a long way from the famous DNA helix as revealed to the world by Watson and Crick in 1953.

Immediately following this life-changing discovery came a reductionist era, where a set DNA was regarded as a fixed blueprint for mechanically creating life. It was only with the marriage of genetics and molecular biology that scientists started deciphering the molecular reactions inside the cells and a new threshold was again reached. With new technologies developed to map the gene, it became apparent how all living things overlap and share large parts of their genes with pooled interests. Suddenly, amazing things came to light, as, in one example, it became apparent that the same gene linked to human speech is also found in birds. It was revealed, along with other data, how the meaning of signals to cells and organisms depends on which cell in which organism receives it. The essential role of the gene is now inarguably established, as is evolution in science, but the DNA helix is now appearing less appropriate as the all-important set blueprint for life. There are also large chunks of the genome containing surplus, or previously referred to as ‘junk,’ DNA. With this non-coding DNA making up almost 98% of the human genome, it is reasonable to suggest that evolution is much too smart and perceptive to have no greater purpose for this yet unexplored entity and its enormous opportunity to adjust to change.

With more and more biologists now seeing repetitive elements as genomic potential, it appears that these transposable elements are not junk after all. Instead, they opportunistically interact with the surrounding genomic environment and increase the ability of the organism to evolve by serving as hubs and a reserve for potential genetic recombination while giving new and important signals for regulating gene expression. As scientists are only beginning to understand the vast potential of a previously much constrained DNA, we can now welcome in an era of new possibility. We have to confront the alternative concept of an interactive, ‘perceptive’ evolution, interconnected on all levels, perceptively adjusting to joint concerns. This also comes with unexpected and progressive new moral demands.

Now leaving the reductionist phase and slowly emerging into a post-technocratic era, our rapidly evolving epistemology will inevitably have to confront how to adapt itself as a principled, interconnected, and progressive perceptive network, in unison. An ethic in which self-serving short-term needs in a historic battle to survive was paramount now appears as vacuous and barbaric, and will no longer suffice to explain this evolving complexity we are all part of.[T4] 

In a publication of a journal in genetics, Mobile DNA, 2010, 1:4. Jan 25, 2010. Doi: 10.1186/1759-8753-1-4, James A, Shapiro aptly summarized this new era in biology as follows:

‘This 21st century scenario assumes a major role for the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic responses emphasized by McClintock in her 1984 Nobel Prize address. Such a cognitive component is absent from conventional evolutionary theory because 19th and 20th century evolutionists were not sufficiently knowledgeable about cellular response and control networks. This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions. It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science.’  (Italics added by the author here).

Evolution of our cognition.

---

Deception, false dreams, life, positivism and truth