fusion energy foundation

change accompanied by an at leasttemporary increase of DNA per cell,implying a significant change in globalchromosome geometry in flax nuclei—achievedby increased biologicalenergy throughput under optimalgrowing conditions. This is contrastedwith cancer—inherited geneticchange by entropic changes in biologicalenergy throughput—and withthe necrotic cell, in which suddencollapse in energy throughputchanges cell geometry dramaticallytoward quasi-crystalline structureslike those found in inorganic chemistry.Biological "space" is a geometrycorresponding to a higher energyflow than that of the inorganic realmat comparable temperatures. Thehighly ordered, highly differentiatedgeometries of eukaryotic nuclei aresusceptible to both entropic and negentropicchange based on biologicalenergy throughput. The flax case, infact, corresponds to the "singularities"through which the biosphereevolved in the Cenozoic: chromosomalchange under conditions of increasingbiological energy throughputand higher states of organizationresulting (uniquely) in speciation.Dobzhansky Vs. CausalityIt is most useful that Dr. Bonnerraises the issue of Theodosius Dobzhansky,his mentor. Dobzhanskytrained under circles at Kiev associatedwith the Societas Jesu; in 1969,he was president of the Teilhard deChardin Association, of which he wasa member of long standing; and he isthe exemplar in molecular biology ofthat apparently contradictory combinationof Jesuit empiricism and mysticismthat logically ensues from thesubstitution of statistical correlationfor causality in science.In contrast, the Neoplatonic traditionlocates the emergence of man inhis unique powers of Reason. Conspiraciesof Reason have generatedthe Renaissances that have repeatedlytransformed the biosphere itself byqualitative leaps in the pace of humanscientific and technological activity.These leaps lift the human speciesfrom the burden of beastlike pursuitof sustenance to its highest creativepotential. This, in turn, becomes theprimary force for continued evolutionof the lower-order inorganic and organicdomains.This is certainly not the worldviewof Malthus, nor the pseudoevolutionistsDarwin and Dobzhansky. As oneof this century's most respected expertson genetics and "evolution," ashe terms it, Dobzhansky conductedexperiments in an "equilibrium" fishbowl,effecting genetic mutations ontotally inbred laboratory Drosophila,without a thought for the actual historicprocesses of evolution and theircauses. With causality stripped out,the evolutionary process is renderedinexplicable and man is relegated tobestialism and the supernatural."To many, Darwin seemed to havedelivered the heaviest blow, makingthe schism in man's soul irreparable:Flax: Fourth-generation flax plantsderived from a single set of parents,showing nonmutational heritablechanges that refute current neo-Darwiniandogma.far from the world having been madefor man, man himself proved to bemerely one of some two million biologicalspecies . . . and a relative ofcreatures as disreputable as monkeysand apes," wrote Dobzhansky in hisoft-quoted Mankind Evolving.There is, however, "a source ofhope in the abyss of despair." Dobzhanskycontinued: "Teilhard deChardin saw that evolution of matter,the evolution of life, and the evolutionof man are integral parts of asingle process of cosmic development.... He chose to designate thedirection in which evolution is goingas 'The Point Omega' ... 'a harmonizedcollectivity of consciousness'... a kind of superconsciousness. . . .The plurality of individual thoughtscombine and mutually reinforce eachother in a single act of unanimousThought. ... In the dimension ofthought, as in that of Time and Space,can the Universe reach consummationin anything but the Measureless?. . . This is nothing less than afundamental vision. And I shall leaveit at that."But Dobzhansky did not leave itquite at that—an "equilibrium" worldwhere all evolution ends and man justmeditates with Teilhard and,the restof the Aquarians. For example, hewrote:"Despite having been temporarilyperverted by racists, the eugenicalidea has a sound core: human welfare,both with individuals and withsocieties, is predicated upon thehealth of the genetic endowment ofhuman populations," Dobzhanskywrote in the same source. "Osborn(1951) has rightly said that 'eugenicsis not in opposition to efforts to improvethe environment, but in manycases a necessary supplement to theirsuccess.'"Quite predictably, the outcome ofDobzhansky's Darwinian method iseugenics, dividing the world into the"fit" and the "unfit." Do not mistakemy meaning. We must pursue allpromising avenues of genetic and recombinantDNA research to achieveall the obvious benefits in medicaland agricultural practice. But we mustalso have the larger theoretical basisfor making the fundamental researchbreakthroughs we need to cure cancer,to develop more productive agriculture—inshort, to make possiblenew leaps forward for future generations.Dobzhansky's Darwinian geneticslead only to the depopulationschemes of the Malthusians.Is this really what you want, Dr.Bonner?Carol ClearySeptember 1980 FUSION 9