The Body Electric - DR Becker

Contents
Acknowledgments 7
Co-author's Note 9
Introduction: The Promise of the Art 17
Part 1 Growth and Regrowth 23
1 Hydra's Heads and Medusa's Blood 25
Failed Healing in Bone 29
A Fable Made Fact 32
2 The Embryo at the Wound 40
Mechanics of Growth 42
Control Problems 47
Nerve Connections 55
Vital Electricity 60
3 The Sign of the Miracle 68
The Tribunal 69
The Reversals 71
Part 2 The Stimulating Current 77
4 Life's Potentials 79
Unpopular Science 82
12 The Body Electric
Undercurrents in Neurology 85
Conducting in a New Mode 91
Testing the Concept 94
5 The Circuit of Awareness 103
Closing the Circle 103
The Artifact Man and a Friend in Deed 106
The Electromagnetic Brain 110
6 The Ticklish Gene 118
The Pillars of the Temple 118
The Inner Electronics of Bone 126
A Surprise in the Blood 135
Do-It-Yourself Dedifferentiation 141
The Genetic Key 144
7 Good News for Mammals 150
A First Step with a Rat Leg 152
Childhood Powers, Adult Prospects 155
Part 3 Our Hidden Healing Energy 161
8 The Silver Wand 163
Minus for Growth, Plus for Infection 163
Positive Surprises169
The Fracture Market 175
9 The Organ Tree 181
Cartilage 187
Skull Bones 188
Eyes 190
Muscle 191
Abdominal Organs 192
10 The Lazarus Heart 196
The Five-Alarm Blastema 197
1 1 The Self-Mending Net 203
Peripheral Nerves206
The Spinal Cord 207
The Brain 213
12 Righting a Wrong Turn 215
A Reintegrative Approach 219
Part 4 The Essence of Life 227
13 The Missing Chapter 229
The Constellation of the Body 233
Unifying Pathways 238
Contents 13
14 Breathing with the Earth 243
The Attractions of Home 250
The Face of the Deep 255
Crossroads of Evolution 261
Hearing Without Ears 264
15 Maxwell's Silver Hammer 271
Subliminal Stress 276
Power Versus People 278
Fatal Locations 284
The Central Nervous System 284
The Endocrine, Metabolic, and Cardiovascular
Systems 288
Growth Systems and Immune Response 292
Conflicting Standards 304
Invisible Warfare 317
Critical Connections 326
Postscript: Political Science 330
Glossary 348
Index 353
Introduction:
The Promise of the Art
I remember how it was before penicillin. I was a medical student at the

end of World War II, before the drug became widely available for civil-
ian use, and I watched the wards at New York's Bellevue Hospital fill to
overflowing each winter. A veritable Byzantine city unto itself, Bellevue
sprawled over four city blocks, its smelly, antiquated buildings jammed
together at odd angles and interconnected by a rabbit warren of under-
ground tunnels. In wartime New York, swollen with workers, sailors,
soldiers, drunks, refugees, and their diseases from all over the world, it
was perhaps the place to get an all-inclusive medical education. Belle-
vue's charter decreed that, no matter how full it was, every patient who
needed hospitalization had to be admitted. As a result, beds were packed
together side by side, first in the aisles, then out into the corridor. A
ward was closed only when it was physically impossible to get another
bed out of the elevator.
Most of these patients had lobar (pneumococcal) pneumonia. It didn't
take long to develop; the bacteria multiplied unchecked, spilling over
from the lungs into the bloodstream, and within three to five days of the
first symptom the crisis came. The fever rose to 104 or 105 degrees
Fahrenheit and delirium set in. At that point we had two signs to go by:
If the skin remained hot and dry, the victim would die; sweating meant
the patient would pull through. Although sulfa drugs often were effec-
tive against the milder pneumonias, the outcome in severe lobar pneu-
monia still depended solely on the struggle between the infection and
the patient's own resistance. Confident in my new medical knowledge, I
was horrified to find that we were powerless to change the course of this
infection in any way.
It's hard for anyone who hasn't lived through the transition to realize
the change that penicillin wrought. A disease with a mortality rate near
50 percent, that killed almost a hundred thousand Americans each year,
that struck rich as well as poor and young as well as old, and against
which we'd had no defense, could suddenly be cured without fail in a
few hours by a pinch of white powder. Most doctors who have graduated
since 1950 have never even seen pneumococcal pneumonia in crisis.
Although penicillin's impact on medical practice was profound, its
impact on the philosophy of medicine was even greater. When Alex-
ander Fleming noticed in 1928 that an accidental infestation of the mold
Penicillium notatum had killed his bacterial cultures, he made the crown-
ing discovery of scientific medicine. Bacteriology and sanitation had al-
ready vanquished the great plagues. Now penicillin and subsequent
antibiotics defeated the last of the invisibly tiny predators.
The drugs also completed a change in medicine that had been gather-
ing strength since the nineteenth century. Before that time, medicine
had been an art. The masterpiece—a cure—resulted from the patient's
will combined with the physician's intuition and skill in using remedies
culled from millennia of observant trial and error. In the last two cen-
turies medicine more and more has come to be a science, or more accu-
rately the application of one science, namely biochemistry. Medical
techniques have come to be tested as much against current concepts in
biochemistry as against their empirical results. Techniques that don't fit
such chemical concepts—even if they seem to work—have been aban-
doned as pseudoscientific or downright fraudulent.
At the same time and as part of the same process, life itself came to be
defined as a purely chemical phenomenon. Attempts to find a soul, a
vital spark, a subtle something that set living matter apart from the
nonliving, had failed. As our knowledge of the kaleidoscopic activity
within cells grew, life came to be seen as an array of chemical reactions,
fantastically complex but no different in kind from the simpler reactions
performed in every high school lab. It seemed logical to assume that the
ills of our chemical flesh could be cured best by the right chemical
antidote, just as penicillin wiped out bacterial invaders without harming
human cells. A few years later the decipherment of the DNA code
seemed to give such stout evidence of life's chemical basis that the dou-
ble helix became one of the most hypnotic symbols of our age. It seemed
the final proof that we'd evolved through 4 billlion years of chance mo-
lecular encounters, aided by no guiding principle but the changeless
properties of the atoms themselves.
The philosophical result of chemical medicine's success has been belief
in the Technological Fix. Drugs became the best or only valid treat-
ments for all ailments. Prevention, nutrition, exercise, lifestyle, the pa-
tient's physical and mental uniqueness, environmental pollutants—all
were glossed over. Even today, after so many years and millions of dol-
lars spent for negligible results, it's still assumed that the cure for cancer
will be a chemical that kills malignant cells without harming healthy
ones. As surgeons became more adept at repairing bodily structures or
replacing them with artificial parts, the technological faith came to in-
clude the idea that a transplanted kidney, a plastic heart valve, or a
stainless-steel-and-Teflon hip joint was just as good as the original—or
even better, because it wouldn't wear out as fast. The idea of a bionic
human was the natural outgrowth of the rapture over penicillin. If a
human is merely a chemical machine, then the ultimate human is a
robot.
No one who's seen the decline of pneumonia and a thousand other
infectious diseases, or has seen the eyes of a dying patient who's just
been given another decade by a new heart valve, will deny the benefits of
technology. But, as most advances do, this one has cost us something
irreplaceable: medicine's humanity. There's no room in technological
medicine for any presumed sanctity or uniqueness of life. There's no
need for the patient's own self-healing force nor any strategy for enhanc-
ing it. Treating a life as a chemical automaton means that it makes no
difference whether the doctor cares about—or even knows—the patient,
or whether the patient likes or trusts the doctor.
Because of what medicine left behind, we now find ourselves in a real
technological fix. The promise to humanity of a future of golden health
and extended life has turned out to be empty. Degenerative diseases—
heart attacks, arteriosclerosis, cancer, stroke, arthritis, hypertension, ul-
cers, and all the rest—have replaced infectious diseases as the major
enemies of life and destroyers of its quality. Modern medicine's incredi-
ble cost has put it farther than ever out of reach of the poor and now
threatens to sink the Western economies themselves. Our cures too often
have turned out to be double-edged swords, later producing a secondary
disease; then we search desperately for another cure. And the de-
humanized treatment of symptoms rather than patients has alienated
many of those who can afford to pay. The result has been a sort of
medical schizophrenia in which many have forsaken establishment medi-
cine in favor of a holistic, prescient type that too often neglects
technology's real advantages but at least stresses the doctor-patient rela-
tionship, preventive care, and nature's innate recuperative power.
The failure of technological medicine is due, paradoxically, to its suc-
cess, which at first seemed so overwhelming that it swept away all as-
pects of medicine as an art. No longer a compassionate healer working at
the bedside and using heart and hands as well as mind, the physician has
become an impersonal white-gowned ministrant who works in an office
or laboratory. Too many physicians no longer learn from their patients,
only from their professors. The breakthroughs against infections con-
vinced the profession of its own infallibility and quickly ossified its be-
liefs into dogma. Life processes that were inexplicable according to
current biochemistry have been either ignored or misinterpreted. In
effect, scientific medicine abandoned the central rule of science—revi-
sion in light of new data. As a result, the constant widening of horizons
that has kept physics so vital hasn't occurred in medicine. The mecha-
nistic assumptions behind today's medicine are left over from the turn of
the century, when science was forcing dogmatic religion to see the evi-
dence of evolution. (The reeruption of this same conflict today shows
that the battle against frozen thinking is never finally won.) Advances in
cybernetics, ecological and nutritional chemistry, and solid-state physics
haven't been integrated into biology. Some fields, such as parapsychol-
ogy, have been closed out of mainstream scientific inquiry altogether.
Even the genetic technology that now commands such breathless admi-
ration is based on principles unchallenged for decades and unconnected
to a broader concept of life. Medical research, which has limited itself
almost exclusively to drug therapy, might as well have been wearing
blinders for the last thirty years.
It's no wonder, then, that medical biology is afflicted with a kind of
tunnel vision. We know a great deal about certain processes, such as the
genetic code, the function of the nervous system in vision, muscle move-
ment, blood clotting, and respiration on both the somatic and the cel-
lular levels. These complex but superficial processes, however, are only
the tools life uses for its survival. Most biochemists and doctors aren't
much closer to the "truth" about life than we were three decades ago. As
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, the discoverer of vitamin C, has written, "We
know life only by its symptoms." We understand virtually nothing
about such basic life functions as pain, sleep, and the control of cell
differentiation, growth, and healing. We know little about the way
every organism regulates its metabolic activity in cycles attuned to the
fluctuations of earth, moon, and sun. We are ignorant about nearly
every aspect of consciousness, which may be broadly defined as the self-
interested integrity that lets each living thing marshal its responses to
eat, thrive, reproduce, and avoid danger by patterns that range from the
tropisms of single cells to instinct, choice, memory, learning, individ-
uality, and creativity in more complex life-forms. The problem of when
to "pull the plug" shows that we don't even know for sure how to
diagnose death. Mechanistic chemistry isn't adequate to understand
these enigmas of life, and it now acts as a barrier to studying them.
Erwin Chargaff, the biochemist who discovered base pairing in DNA
and thus opened the way for understanding gene structure, phrased our
dilemma precisely when he wrote of biology, "No other science deals in
its very name with a subject that it cannot define."
Given the present climate, I've been a lucky man. I haven't been a
good, efficient doctor in the modern sense. I've spent far too much time
on a few incurable patients whom no one else wanted, trying to find out
how our ignorance failed them. I've been able to tack against the pre-
vailing winds of orthodoxy and indulge my passion for experiment. In so
doing I've been part of a little-known research effort that has made a
new start toward a definition of life.
My research began with experiments on regeneration, the ability of
some animals, notably the salamander, to grow perfect replacements for
parts of the body that have been destroyed. These studies, described in
Part 1, led to the discovery of a hitherto unknown aspect of animal
life—the existence of electrical currents in parts of the nervous system.
This breakthrough in turn led to a better understanding of bone fracture
healing, new possibilities for cancer research, and the hope of human
regeneration—even of the heart and spinal cord—in the not too distant
future, advances that are discussed in Parts 2 and 3. Finally, a knowl-
edge of life's electrical dimension has yielded fundamental insights (con-
sidered in Part 4) into pain, healing, growth, consciousness, the nature
of life itself, and the dangers of our electromagnetic technology.
I believe these discoveries presage a revolution in biology and medi-
cine. One day they may enable the physician to control and stimulate
healing at will. I believe this new knowledge will also turn medicine in
the direction of greater humility, for we should see that whatever we
achieve pales before the self-healing power latent in all organisms. The
results set forth in the following pages have convinced me that our un-
derstanding of life will always be imperfect. I hope this realization will
make medicine no less a science, yet more of an art again. Only then can
it deliver its promised freedom from disease.
Part 1
Growth and
Regrowth
Salamander: energy's seed sleeping interred in the

marrow . . .
—Octavio Paz
One
Hydra's Heads and
Medusa's Blood
There is only one health, but diseases are many. Likewise, there appears
to be one fundamental force that heals, although the myriad schools of
medicine all have their favorite ways of cajoling it into action.
Our prevailing mythology denies the existence of any such generalized
force in favor of thousands of little ones sitting on pharmacists' shelves,
each one potent against only a few ailments or even a part of one. This
system often works fairly well, especially for treatment of bacterial dis-
eases, but it's no different in kind from earlier systems in which a spe-
cific saint or deity, presiding over a specific healing herb, had charge of
each malady and each part of the body. Modern medicine didn't spring
full-blown from the heads of Pasteur and Lister a hundred years ago.
If we go back further, we find that most medical systems have com-
bined such specifics with a direct, unitary appeal to the same vital prin-
ciple in all illnesses. The inner force can be tapped in many ways, but all
are variations of four main, overlapping patterns: faith healing, magic
healing, psychic healing, and spontaneous healing. Although science de-
rides all four, they sometimes seem to work as well for degenerative
diseases and long-term healing as most of what Western medicine can
offer.
Faith healing creates a trance of belief in both patient and practi-
tioner, as the latter acts as an intercessor or conduit between the sick
mortal and a presumed higher power. Since failures are usually ascribed
to a lack of faith by the patient, this brand of medicine has always been a
gold mine for charlatans. When bona fide, it seems to be an escalation of
the placebo effect, which produces improvement in roughly one third of
subjects who think they're being treated but are actually being given
dummy pills in tests of new drugs. Faith healing requires even more
confidence from the patient, so the disbeliever probably can prevent a
cure and settle for the poor satisfaction of "I told you so." If even a few
of these oft-attested cases are genuine, however, the healed one suddenly
finds faith turned into certainty as the withered arm aches with unac-
customed sensation, like a starved animal waking from hibernation.
Magical healing shifts the emphasis from the patient's faith to the
doctor's trained will and occult learning. The legend of Teta, an Egyp-
tian magician from the time of Khufu (Cheops), builder of the Great
Pyramid, can serve as an example. At the age of 110, Teta was sum-
moned into the royal presence to demonstrate his ability to rejoin a
severed head to its body, restoring life. Khufu ordered a prisoner be-
headed, but Teta discreetly suggested that he would like to confine him-
self to laboratory animals for the moment. So a goose was decapitated.
Its body was laid at one end of the hall, its head at the other. Teta
repeatedly pronounced his words of power, and each time, the head and
body twitched a little closer to each other, until finally the two sides of
the cut met. They quickly fused, and the bird stood up and began cack-
ling. Some consider the legendary miracles of Jesus part of the same
ancient tradition, learned during Christ's precocious childhood in Egypt.
Whether or not we believe in the literal truth of these particular ac-
counts, over the years so many otherwise reliable witnesses have testified
to healing "miracles" that it seems presumptuous to dismiss them all as
fabrications. Based on the material presented in this book, I suggest
Coleridge's "willing suspension of disbelief" until we understand heal-
ing better. Shamans apparently once served at least some of their pa-
tients well, and still do where they survive on the fringes of the
industrial world. Magical medicine suggests that our search for the heal-
ing power isn't so much an exploration as an act of remembering some-
thing that was once intuitively ours, a form of recall in which the
knowledge is passed on or awakened by initiation and apprenticeship to
the man or woman of power.
Sometimes, however, the secret needn't be revealed to be used. Many
psychic healers have been studied, especially in the Soviet Union, whose
gift is unconscious, unsought, and usually discovered by accident. One
who demonstrated his talents in the West was Oskar Estebany. A Hun-
garian Army colonel in the mid-1930s. Estebany notices that horses he
groomed got their wind back and recovered from illnesses faster than
Hydra's Heads and Medusa's Blood 27
those cared for by others. He observed and used his powers informally
for years, until, forced to emigrate after the 1956 Hungarian revolution,
he settled in Canada and came to the attention of Dr. Bernard Grad, a
biologist at McGill University. Grad found that Estebany could acceler-
ate the healing of measured skin wounds made on the backs of mice, as
compared with controls. He didn't let Estebany touch the animals, but
only place his hands near their cages, because handling itself would have
fostered healing. Estebany also speeded up the growth of barley plants
and reactivated ultraviolet-damaged samples of the stomach enzyme
trypsin in much the same way as a magnetic field, even though no
magnetic field could be detected near his body with the instruments
of that era.
The types of healing we've considered so far have trance and touch as
common factors, but some modes don't even require a healer. The spon-
taneous miracles at Lourdes and other religious shrines require only a
vision, fervent prayer, perhaps a momentary connection with a holy rel-
ic, and intense concentration on the diseased organ or limb. Other re-
ports suggest that only the intense concentration is needed, the rest
being aids to that end. When Diomedes, in the fifth book of the Iliad,
dislocates Aeneas' hip with a rock, Apollo takes the Trojan hero to a
temple of healing and restores full use of his leg within minutes. Hector
later receives the same treatment after a rock in the chest fells him. We
could dismiss these accounts as the hyperbole of a great poet if Homer
weren't so realistic in other battlefield details, and if we didn't have
similar accounts of soldiers in recent wars recovering from "mortal"
wounds or fighting on while oblivious to injuries that would normally
cause excruciating pain. British Army surgeon Lieutenant Colonel H. K.
Beecher described 225 such cases in print after World War II. One
soldier at Anzio in 1943, who'd had eight ribs severed near the spine by
shrapnel, with punctures of the kidney and lung, who was turning blue
and near death, kept trying to get off his litter because he thought he
was lying on his rifle. His bleeding abated, his color returned, and the
massive wound began to heal after no treatment but an insignificant dose
of sodium amytal, a weak sedative given him because there was no mor-
phine.
These occasional prodigies of battlefield stress strongly resemble the
ability of yogis to control pain, stop bleeding, and speedily heal wounds
with their will alone. Biofeedback research at the Menninger Foundation
and elsewhere has shown that some of this same power can be rapped in
people with no yogic training. That the will can be applied to the body's
ills has also been shownb by Norman Cousing in his resolute conquest by
laugh therapy of ankylosing spondylitis, a crippling disease in which
the spinal discs and ligaments solidify like bone, and by some similar
successes by users of visualization techniques to focus the mind against
cancer.
Unfortunately, no approach is a sure thing. In our ignorance, the
common denominator of all healing—even the chemical cures we profess
to understand—remains its mysteriousness. Its unpredictability has be-
deviled doctors throughout history. Physicians can offer no reason why
one patient will respond to a tiny dose of a medicine that has no effect
on another patient in ten times the amount, or why some cancers go into
remission while others grow relentlessly unto death.
By whatever means, if the energy is successfully focused, it results in
a marvelous transformation. What seemed like an inexorable decline
suddenly reverses itself. Healing can almost be defined as a miracle. In-
stant regrowth of damaged parts and invincibility against disease are
commonplaces of the divine world. They continually appear even in
myths that have nothing to do with the theme of healing itself. Dead
Vikings went to a realm where they could savor the joys of killing all
day long, knowing their wounds would heal in time for the next day's
mayhem. Prometheus' endlessly regrowing liver was only a clever torture
arranged by Zeus so that the eagle sent as punishment for the god's
delivery of fire to mankind could feast on his most vital organ forever—
although the tale also suggests that the prehistoric Greeks knew some-
thing of the liver's ability to enlarge in compensation for damage to it.
The Hydra was adept at these offhand wonders, too. This was the
monster Hercules had to kill as his second chore for King Eurystheus.
The beast had somewhere between seven and a hundred heads, and each
time Hercules cut one off, two new ones sprouted in its place—until the
hero got the idea of having his nephew Iolaus cauterize each neck as soon
as the head hit the ground.
In the eighteenth century the Hydra's name was given to a tiny
aquatic animal having seven to twelve "heads," or tentacles, on a hol-
low, stalklike body, because this creature can regenerate. The mythic
Hydra remains a symbol of that ability, possessed to some degree by
most animals, including us.
Generation, life's normal transformation from seed to adult, would
seem as unearthly as regeneration if it were not so commonplace. We see
the same kinds of changes in each. The Greek hero Cadmus grows an
army by sowing the teeth of a dragon he has killed. The primeval ser-
pent makes love to the World Egg, which hatches all the creatures of
the earth. God makes Adam from Eve's rib, or vice versa in the later
version. The Word of God commands life to unfold. The genetic words
encoded in DNA spell out the unfolding. At successive but still limited
levels of understanding, each of these beliefs tries to account for the
beautifully bizarre metamorphosis. And if some savage told us of a mag-
ical worm that built a little windowless house, slept there a season, then
one day emerged and flew away as a jeweled bird, we'd laugh at such
superstition if we'd never seen a butterfly.
The healer's job has always been to release something not understood,
to remove obstructions (demons, germs, despair) between the sick pa-
tient and the force of life driving obscurely toward wholeness. The
means may be direct—the psychic methods mentioned above—or indi-
rect: Herbs can be used to stimulate recovery; this tradition extends
from prehistoric wisewomen through the Greek herbal of Dioscorides
and those of Renaissance Europe, to the prevailing drug therapies of the
present. Fasting, controlled nutrition, and regulation of living habits to
avoid stress can be used to coax the latent healing force from the sick
body; we can trace this approach back from today's naturopaths to Galen
and Hippocrates. Attendants at the healing temples of ancient Greece
and Egypt worked to foster a dream in the patient that would either
start the curative process in sleep or tell what must be done on awaken-
ing. This method has gone out of style, but it must have worked fairly
well, for the temples were filled with plaques inscribed by grateful pa-
trons who'd recovered. In fact, this mode was so esteemed that
Aesculapius, the legendary doctor who originated it, was said to have
been given two vials filled with the blood of Medusa, the snaky-haired
witch-queen killed by Perseus. Blood from her left side restored life,
while that from her right took it away—and that's as succinct a descrip-
tion of the tricky art of medicine as we're likely to find.
The more I consider the origins of medicine, the more I'm convinced
that all true physicians seek the same thing. The gulf between folk ther-
apy and our own stainless-steel version is illusory. Western medicine
springs from the same roots and, in the final analysis, acts through the
same little-understood forces as its country cousins. Our doctors ignore
this kinship at their—and worse, their patients'—peril. All worthwhile
medical research and every medicine man's intuition is part of the same
quest for knowledge of the same elusive healing energy.
Failed Healing in Bone
As an orthopedic surgeon, I often pondered one particular breakdown of

that energy, my specialty's major unsolved problem—nonunion of frac-
tures. Normally a broken bone will begin to grow together in a few
weeks if the ends are held close to each other without movement. Occa-
sionally, however, a bone will refuse to knit despite a year or more of
casts and surgery. This is a disaster for the patient and a bitter defeat for
the doctor, who must amputate the arm or leg and fit a prosthetic sub-
stitute.
Throughout this century, most biologists have been sure only chemi-
cal processes were involved in growth and healing. As a result, most
work on nonunions has concentrated on calcium metabolism and hor-
mone relationships. Surgeons have also "freshened," or scraped, the frac-
ture surfaces and devised ever more complicated plates and screws to
hold the bone ends rigidly in place. These approaches seemed superficial
to me. I doubted that we would ever understand the failure to heal
unless we truly understood healing itself.
When I began my research career in 1958, we already knew a lot
about the logistics of bone mending. It seemed to involve two separate
processes, one of which looked altogether different from healing else-
where in the human body. But we lacked any idea of what set these
processes in motion and controlled them to produce a bone bridge across
the break.
STAGES OF FRACTURE HEALING

Every bone is wrapped in a layer of tough, fibrous collagen, a protein
that's a major ingredient of bone itself and also forms the connective
tissue or "glue" that fastens all our cells to each other. Underneath the
collagen envelope are the cells that produce it, right next ro the bone;
together the two layers form the periosteum. When a bone breaks, these
periosteal cells divide in a particular way. One of the daughter cells stays
where it is, while the other one migrates into the blood clot surrounding
the fracture and changes into a closely related type, an osteoblast, or
bone-forming cell. These new osteoblasts build a swollen ring of bone,
called a callus, around the break.
Another repair operation is going on inside the bone, in its hollow
center, the medullary cavity. In childhood the marrow in this cavity
actively produces red and white blood cells, while in adulthood most of
the marrow turns to fat. Some active marrow cells remain, however, in
the porous convolutions of the inner surface. Around the break a new
tissue forms from the marrow cells, most readily in children and young
animals. This new tissue is unspecialized, and the marrow cells seem to
form it not by increasing their rate of division, as in the callus-forming
periosteal cells, but by reverting to a primitive, neo-embryonic state.
The unspecialized former marrow cells then change into a type of primi-
tive cartilage cells, then into mature cartilage cells, and finally into new
bone cells to help heal the break from inside. Under a microscope, the
changes seen in cells from this internal healing area, especially from
children a week or two after the bone was broken, seem incredibly cha-
otic, and they look frighteningly similar to highly malignant bone-can-
cer cells. But in most cases their transformations are under control, and
the bone heals.
Dr. Marshall Urist, one of the great researchers in orthopedics, was to
conclude in the early 1960s that this second type of bone healing is an
evolutionary throwback, the only kind of regeneration that humans share
with all other vertebrates. Regeneration in this sense means the re-
growth of a complex body part, consisting of several different kinds of
cells, in a fashion resembling the original growth of the same part in the
embryo, in which the necessary cells differentiate from simpler cells or
even from seemingly unrelated types. This process, which I'll call true
regeneration, must be distinguished from two other forms of healing.
One, sometimes considered a variety of regeneration, is physiological
repair, in which small wounds and everyday wear within a single tissue
are made good by nearby cells of the same type, which merely proliferate
to close the gap. The other kind of healing occurs when a wound is too
big for single-tissue repair but the animal lacks the true regenerative
competence to restore the damaged part. In this case the injury is simply
patched over as well as possible with collagen fibers, forming a scar.
Since true regeneration is most closely related to embryonic development
and is generally Strongest in simple animals, it may be considered the
most fundamental mode of healing.
Nonunions failed to knit, I reasoned, because they were missing
something that triggered and controlled normal healing. I'd already be-
gun to wonder if the inner area of bone mending might be a vestige of
true regeneration. If so, it would likely show the control process in a
clearer or more basic form than the other two kinds of healing. I figured
I stood little chance of isolating a clue to it in the multilevel turmoil of a
broken bone itself, so I resolved to study regeneration alone, as it oc-
curred in other animals.
A Fable Made Fact
Regeneration happens all the time in the plant kingdom. Certainly this
knowledge was acquired very early in mankind's history. Besides locking
up their future generations in the mysterious seed, many plants, such as
grapevines, could form a new plant from a single part of the old. Some
classical authors had an inkling of animal regeneration—Aristotle men-
tions that the eyes of very young swallows recover from injury, and Pliny
notes that lost "tails" of octopi and lizards regrow. However, regrowth
was thought to be almost exclusively a plant prerogative.
The great French scientist Rene Antoine Ferchault de Reaumur made
the first scientific description of animal regeneration in 1712. Reaumur
devoted all his life to the study of "insects," which at that time meant
all invertebrates, everything that was obviously "lower" than lizards,
frogs, and fish. In studies of crayfish, lobsters, and crabs, Reaumur
proved the claims of Breton fishermen that these animals could regrow
lost legs. He kept crayfish in the live-bait well of a fishing boat, remov-
ing a claw from each and observing that the amputated extremity reap-
peared in full anatomical detail. A tiny replica of the limb took shape
inside the shell; when the shell was discarded at the next molting sea-
son, the new limb unfolded and grew to full size.
Reaumur was one of the scientific geniuses of his time. Elected to the
Royal Academy of Sciences when only twenty-four, he went on to invent
tinned steel, Reaumur porcelain (an opaque white glass), imitation
pearls, better ways of forging iron, egg incubators, and the Reaumur
thermometer, which is still used in France. At the age of sixty-nine he
isolated gastric juice from the stomach and described its digestive func-
tion. Despite his other accomplishments, "insects" were his life's love
(he never married), and he probably was the first to conceive of the vast,
diverse population of life-forms that this term encompassed. He re-
discovered the ancient royal purple dye from Murex trunculus (a marine
mollusk), and his work on spinning a fragile, filmy silk from spider
webs was translated into Manchu for the Chinese emperor. He was the
first to elucidate the social life and sexually divided caste system of bees.
Due to his eclipse in later years by court-supported scientists who valued
"common sense" over observation, Reaumur's exhaustive study of ants
wasn't published until 1926. In the interim it had taken several genera-
tions of formicologists to cover the same ground, including the descrip-
tion of winged ants copulating in flight and proof that they aren't a
separate species but the sexual form of wingless ants. In 1734 he pub-
lished the first of six volumes of his Natural History of Insects, a milestone
in biology.
Reaumur made so many contributions to science that his study of
regeneration was overlooked for decades. At that time no one really
cared what strange things these unimportant animals did. However, all
of the master's work was well known to a younger naturalist, Abraham
Trembley of Geneva, who supported himself, as did many educated men
of that time, by serving as a private tutor for sons of wealthy families. In
1740, while so employed at an estate near The Hague, in Holland,
Trembley was examining with a hand lens the small animals living in
freshwater ditches and ponds. Many had been described by Reaumur,
but Trembley chanced upon an odd new one. It was no more than a
quarter of an inch long and faintly resembled a squid, having a cylin-
drical body topped with a crown of tentacles. However, it was a star-
tling green color. To Trembley, green meant vegetation, but if this was
a plant, it was a mighty peculiar one. When Trembley agitated the
water in its dish, the tentacles contracted and the body shrank down to a
nubbin, only to reexpand after a period of quiet. Strangest of all, he saw
that the creature "walked" by somersaulting end over end.
Since they had the power of locomotion, Trembley would have as-
sumed that these creatures were animals and moved on to other observa-
tions, if he hadn't chanced to find a species colored green by symbiotic
algae. To settle the animal-plant question, he decided to cut some in
half. If they regrew, they must be plants with the unusual ability to
walk, while if they couldn't regenerate, they must be green animals.
Trembley soon entered into a world that exceeded his wildest dreams.
He divided the polyps, as he first called them, in the middle of their
stalks. He then had two short pieces of stalk, one with attached tenta-
cles, each of which contracted down to a tiny dot. Patiently watching,
Trembley saw the two pieces later expand. The tentacle portion began to
move normally, as though it were a complete organism. The other por-
tion lay inert and apparently dead. Something must have made Trem-
bley continue the experiment, for he watched this motionless object for
nine days, during which nothing happened. He then noted that the cut
TREMBLEY'S DISCOVERY: ANIMAL OR PLANT?

end had sprouted three little "horns," and within a few more days the
complete crown of tentacles had been restored. Trembley now had two
complete polyps as a result of cutting one in half! However, even though
they regenerated, more observations convinced Trembley that the crea-
tures were really animals. Not only did they move and walk, but their
arms captured tiny water fleas and moved them to the "mouth," located
in the center of the ring of tentacles, which promptly swallowed the
prey.
Trembley, then only thirty-one, decided to make sure he was right by
having the great Reaumur confirm his findings before he published them
and possibly made a fool of himself. He sent specimens and detailed
notes to Reaumur, who confirmed that this was an animal with amazing
powers of regeneration. Then he immediately read Trembley's letters
and showed his specimens to an astounded Royal Academy early in
1741. The official report called Trembley's polyp more marvelous than
the phoenix or the mythical serpent that could join together after being
cut in two, for these legendary animals could only reconstitute them-
selves, while the polyp could make a duplicate. Years later Reaumur was
still thunderstruck. As he wrote in Volume 6 of his series on insects,
"This is a fact that I cannot accustom myself to seeing, after having seen
and re-seen it hundrts of times."
This was just the beginning, however. Trembley's polyps performed
even more wondrous feats. When cut lengthwise, each half of the stalk
healed over without a scar and proceeded to regrow the missing tenta-
cles. Trembley minced some polyps into as many pieces as he could
manage, finding that a complete animal would regrow from each piece,
as long as it included a remnant of the central stalk. In one instance he
quartered one of the creatures, then cut each resulting polyp into three
or four pieces, until he had made fifty animals from one.
REGENERATION BY A HYDRA CUT IN HALF LENGTHWISE

His most famous experiment was the one that led him to name his
polyp "hydra." He found that by splitting the head lengthwise, leaving
the stalk intact, he could produce one animal with two crowns of tenta-
cles. By continuing the process he was able to get one animal with seven
heads. When Trembley lopped them off, each one regrew, just like the
mythical beast's. But nature went legend one better: Each severed head
went on to form a complete new animal as well.
Such experiments provided our first proof that entire animals can re-
generate, and Trembley went on to observe that hydras could reproduce
by simple budding, a small animal appearing on the side of the stalk
and growing to full size. The implications of these discoveries were so
revolutionary that Trembley delayed publishing a full account of his
work until he'd been prodded by Reaumur and preceded in print by
several others. The sharp division between plant and animal suddenly
grew blurred, suggesting a common origin with some kind of evolution;
basic assumptions about life had to be rethought. As a result, Trem-
bley's observations weren't enthusiastically embraced by all. They in-
flamed several old arguments and offended many of the old guard. In
this respect Trembley's mentor Reaumur was a most unusual scientist
for his time, and indeed tor all time. Despite his prominence, he was
ready to espouse radically new ideas and, most important, he didn't steal
the ideas of others, an all too common failing among scientists.
A furious debarte was raging at the time of Trembley's announcement.
It concerned the origin of the individual - how the chicken came from
A HYDRA REGROWS ITS MOUTH AND TENTACLES
A PARTIALLY SPLIT HYDRA'S BODY GROWS TWO "HEADS"

the egg, for example. When scientists examined the newly laid egg,
there wasn't much there except two liquids, the white and the yolk,
neither of which had any discernible structure, let alone anything resem-
bling a chicken.
There were two opposite theories. The older one, derived from Aris-
totle, held that each animal in all its complexity developed from simple
organic matter by a process called epigenesis, akin to our modern con-
cept of cell differentiation. Unfortunately, Trembley himself was the
first person to witness cell division under the microscope, and he didn't
realize that it was the normal process by which all cells multiplied. In an
era knowing nothing of genes and so little of cells, yet beginning to
insist on logical, scientific explanations, epigenesis seemed more and
more absurd. What could possibly transform the gelatin of eggs and
sperm into a frog or a human, without invoking that tired old deus ex
machina the spirit, or inexplicable spark of life—unless the frog or per-
son already existed in miniature inside the generative slime and merely
grew in the course of development?
The litter idea, called preformation, had been ascendant for at least
fifty years. It was so widely accepted that when the early microscopists
studied drops of semen, they dutifully reported a little man, called a
homunculus, encased in the head of each sperm - a fine example of sci-
ence's capacity for self-delusion. Even Reaumur, when he failed to find
tiny butterfly wings inside caterpillars, assumed they were there but
were too small to be seen. Only a few months before Trembley began
slicing hydras, his cousin, Genevan naturalist Charles Bonnet, had
proven (in an experiment suggested by the omnipresent Reaumur) that
female aphids usually reproduced parthenogenetically (without mating).
To Bonnet this demonstrated that the tiny adult resided in the egg, and
he became the leader of the ovist preformationists.
The hydra's regeneration, and similar powers in starfish, sea ane-
mones, and worms, put the scientific establishment on the defensive.
Reaumur had long ago realized that preformation couldn't explain how a
baby inherited traits from both father and mother. The notion of two
homunculi fusing into one seed seemed farfetched. His regrowing
crayfish claws showed that each leg would have to contain little pre-
formed legs scattered throughout. And since a regenerated leg could be
lost and replaced many times, the proto-legs would have to be very
numerous, yet no one had ever found any.
Regeneration therefore suggested some form of epigenesis—perhaps
without a soul, however, for the hydra's anima, if it existed, was divisi-
ble along with the body and indistinguishable from it. It seemed as
though some forms of matter itself possessed the spark of life. For lack of
knowledge of cells, let alone chromosomes and genes, the epigeneticists
were unable to prove their case. Each side could only point out the
other's inconsistencies, and politics gave preformationism the edge.
No wonder nonscientists often grew impatient of the whole argu-
ment. Oliver Goldsmith and Tobias Smollett mocked the naturalists for
missing nature's grandeur in their myopic fascination with "muck-flies."
Henry Fielding lampooned the discussion in a skit about the regenera-
tion of money. Diderot thought of hydras as composite animals, like
swarms of bees, in which each particle had a vital spark of its own, and
lightheartedly suggested there might be "human polyps" on Jupiter and
Saturn. Voltaire was derisively skeptical of attempts to infer the nature
of the soul, animal or human, from these experiments. Referring in
1768 to the regenerating heads of snails, he asked, "What happens to its
sensorium, its memory, its store of ideas, its soul, when its head has
been cut off? How does all this come back? A soul that is reborn is an
extremely curious phenomenon." Profoundly disturbed by the whole af-
fair, for a long time he simply refused to believe in animal regeneration,
calling the hydra " a kind of small rush."
It was no longer possible to doubt the discovery after the work of
Lazzaro Spallanzani, an italian priest for whom science was a full-time
hobby. In a career spanning the second half of the eighteenth century,
Spallanzani discovered the reversal of plant transpiration between light
and darkness, and advanced our knowledge of digestion, volcanoes,
blood circulation, and the senses of bats, but his most important work
concerned regrowth. In twenty years of meticulous observation, he stud-
ied regeneration in worms, slugs, snails, salamanders, and tadpoles. He
set new standards for thoroughness, often dissecting the amputated parts
to make sure he'd removed them whole, then dissecting the replace-
ments a few months later to confirm that all the parts had been restored.
Spallanzani's most important contribution to science was his discovery
of the regenerative abilities of the salamander. It could replace its tail
and limbs, all at once if need be. A young one performed this feat for
Spallanzani six times in three months. He later found that the sala-
mander could also replace its jaw and the lenses of its eyes, and then
went on to establish two general rules of regeneration: Simple animals
can regenerate more fully than complex ones, or, in modern terms, the
ability to regenerate declines as one moves up the evolutionary scale.
(The salamander is the main exception.) In ontogenetic parallel, if a
specias can regenerate, younger individuals do it better than older ones.
THE SALAMANDER'S SKELETON - AS COMPLEX AS OURS

THE SALAMANDER'S NERVOUS SYSTEM—FORERUNNER OF OURS

This early regeneration research, Spallanzani's in particular, was a
benchmark in modern biology. Gentlemanly observations buttressed by
"common sense" gave way to a more rigorous kind of examination in
which nothing was taken for granted. It had been "known" for perhaps
ten thousand years that plants could regenerate and animals couldn't. To
many zoologists, even twenty years after Trembley's initial discovery,
the few known exceptions only proved the rule, for octopi, crayfish,
hydras, worms, and snails seemed so unlike humans or the familiar
mammals that they hardly counted. The lizard, the only other vertebrate
regenerator then known, could manage no more than an imperfect tail.
But the salamander—here was an animal we could relate to! This was no
worm or snail or microscopic dot, but a four-limbed, two-eyed verte-
brate that could walk and swim. While its legendary ability to with-
stand fire had been disproven, its body was big enough and its anatomy
similar enough CO ours to be taken seriously. Scientists could no longer
assume that the underlying process had nothing to do with us. In fact,
the questions with which Spallanzani ended his first report on the sala-
mander have haunted biologists ever since: "Is it to be hoped that
[higher animals] may acquire [the same power] by some useful disposi-
tions? and should the flattering expectation of obtaining this advantage
for ourselves be considered entirely as chimerical?"
Two
I The Embryo at the
Wound
Reneration was largely forgotten for a century. Spallanzani had been

so thorough that little else could be learned about it with the techniques
of the ime. Moreover, although his work strongly supported epigenesis,
its impact was lost because the whole debate was swallowed up in the
much larger philosophical conflict between vitalism and mechanism.
Since biology includes the study of our own essence, it's the most emo-
tional science, and it has been the battleground for these two points of
view throughout its history. Briefly, the vitalists believed in a spirit,
called the anima or elan vital, that made living things fundamentally
different from other substances. The mechanists believed that life could
ultimately be understood in terms of the same physical and chemical
laws that governed nonliving matter, and that only ignorance of these
forces led people to invoke such hokum as a spirit. We'll take up these
issues in more detail later, but for now we need only note that the
vitalists favored epigenesis, viewed as an imposition of order on the
chaos of the egg by some intangible "vital" force. The mechanists fa-
vored formation. Since science insisted increasingly on material expla-
nations for everything, epigenesis lost out despite the evidence of
regeneration.
Mechanism dominated biology more and more, but some problems
remained. The main one was the absence of the little man in the sperm.
Advances in the power and resolution of microscopes had clearly shown
that no one was there. Biologists were faced with the generative slime
The Embryo at the Wound 41
again, featureless goo from which, slowly and magically, an organism
appeared.
After 1850, biology began to break up into various specialties. Em-
bryology, the study of development, was named and promoted by Dar-
win himself, who hoped (in vain) that it would reveal a precise history of
evolution (phylogeny) recapitulated in the growth process (ontogeny). In
the 1880s, embryology matured as an experimental science under the
leadership of two Germans, Wilhelm Roux and August Weismann.
Roux studied the stages of embryonic growth in a very restricted, mech-
anistic way that revealed itself even in the formal Germanic title, Ent-
wicklungsmechanik ("developmental mechanics"), that he applied to the
whole field. Weismann, however, was more interested in how inheri-
tance passed the instructions for embryonic form from one generation to
the next. One phenomenon—mitosis, or cell division—was basic to
both transactions. No matter how embryos grew and hereditary traits
were transferred, both processes had to be accomplished by cellular ac-
tions.
Although we're taught in high school that Robert Hooke discovered
the cell in 1665, he really discovered that cork was full of microscopic
holes, which he called cells because they looked like little rooms. The
idea that they were the basic structural units of all living things came
from Theodor Schwann, who proposed this cell theory in 1838. How-
ever, even at that late date, he didn't have a clear idea of the origin of
cells. Mitosis was unknown to him, and he wasn't too sure of the dis-
tinction between plants and animals. His theory wasn't fully accepted
until two other German biologists, F. A. Schneider and Otto Butschli,
reintroduced Schwann's concept and described mitosis in 1873.
Observations of embryogenesis soon confirmed its cellular basis. The
fertilized egg was exactly that, a seemingly unstructured single cell.
Embryonic growth occurred when the fertilized egg divided into two
other cells, which promptly divided again. Their progeny then divided,
and so on. As they proliferated, the cells also differentiated; that is, they
began to show specific characteristics of muscle, cartilage, nerve, and so
forth. The creature that resulted obviously had several increasingly com-
plex levels of organization; however, Roux and Weismann had no alter-
native but to concentrate on the lowest one, the cell, and try to imagine
how the inherited material worked at that level.
Weismann proposed a theory of "determiners," specific chemical
structures coded for each cell type The fertilized egg contained all the
determiners, both in type and in number, needed to produce every cell
in the body. As cell division proceeded, the daughter cells each received
half of the previous stock of determiners, until in the adult each cell
possessed only one. Muscle cells contained only the muscle determiner,
nerve cells only the one for nerves, and so on. This meant that once a cell's
function had been fixed, it could never be anything but that one kind of cell.
In one of his first experiments, published in 1888, Roux obtained
powerful support for this concept. He took fertilized frog eggs, which
were large and easy to observe, and waited until the first cell division
had occured. He then separated the two cells of this incipient embryo,
According to the theory, each cell contained enough determiners to
make half an embryo, and that was exactly what Roux got—two half-
embryos. It was hard to argue with such a clear-cut result, and the
determiner theory was widely accepted. Its triumph was a climactic vic-
tory for mechanistic concept of life, as well.
One of vitalism's last gasps came from the work of another German
embryologist, Hans Driesch. Initially a firm believer in Entivicklungs-
mechanik, Driesch later found its concepts deficient in the face of life's
continued mysteries. For example, using sea urchin eggs, he repeated
Roux's famous experiment and obtained a whole organism instead of a
half. Many other experiments convinced Driesch that life had some spe-
cial innate drive, a process that went against known physical laws.
Drawing on the ancient Greek idea of the anima, he proposed a non-
material, vital factor that he called entelechy. The beginning of the
twentieth century wasn't a propitious time for such an idea, however,
and it wasn't popular.
Mechanics of Growth
As the nineteenth century drew to a close and the embryologists con-

tinued to struggle with the problems of inheritance, they found they
still needed a substitute for the homunculus. Weismann's determiners
worked fine for embryonic growth, but regeneration was a glaring excep-
tion, and one that didn't prove the rule. The original theory had no
provision for a limited replay of growth to replace a part lost after devel-
opment was finshed. Oddly enough, the solution had already been pro-
vided by a man almost totally forgotten today, Theodor Heinrich
Boveri.
Working at the University of Munich in the 1880s, Boveri discovered
almost every detail of cell division, including the chromosomes. Not
until the invention of the electron microscope did anyone add meterially
to his original descriptions. Boveri found that all nonsexual cells of any
one species contained the same number of chromosomes. As growth pro-
ceeded by mitosis, these chromosomes split lengthwise to make two of
each so that each daughter cell then had the same number of chro-
mosomes. The egg and sperm, dividing by a special process called
meiosis, wound up with exactly half that number, so that the fertilized
egg would start out with a full complement, half from the father and
half from the mother. He reached the obvious conclusions that the chro-
mosomes transmitted heredity, and that each one could exchange smaller
units of itself with its counterpart from the other parent.
MEIOSIS—FORMATION OF SEX CELLS

At first this idea wasn't well received. It was strenuously opposed by

Thomas Hunt Morgan, a respected embryologist at Columbia University
and the first American participant in this saga. Later, when Morgan
found that the results of his own experiments agreed with Boveri's, he
went on to describe chromosome structure in more detail, charting spe-
cific positions, which he called genes, for inherited characteristics. Thus
the science of genetics was born, and Morgan received the Nobel Prize
in 1933. So much for Boveri.
Although Morgan was most famous for his genetics research on fruit
flies, he got his start by studying salamander limb regeneration, about
which he made a crucial observation. He found that the new limb was
preceded by a mass of cells that appeared on the stump and resembled
the unspecialized cell mass of the early embryo. He called this structure
the blastema and later concluded that the problem of how a regenerated
limb formed was identical to the problem of how an embryo developed
from the egg.
Morgan postulated that the chromosomes and genes contained not
only the inheritable characteristics but also the code for cell differentia-
tion. A muscle cell, for example, would be formed when the group of
genes specifying muscle were in action. This insight led directly to our
modern understanding of the process: In the earliest stages of the em-
bryo, every gene on every chromosome is active and available to every
cell. As the organism develops, the cells form three rudimentary tissue
layers—the endoderm, which develops into the glands and viscera; the
mesoderm, which becomes the muscles, bones, and circulatory system;
and the ectoderm, which gives rise to the skin, sense organs, and ner-
vous system. Some of the genes are already being turned off, or re-
pressed, at this stage. As the cells differentiate into mature tissues, only
one specific set of genes stays switched on in each kind. Each set can
make only certain types of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), the "ex-
ecutive secretary" chemical by means of which DNA "instructs" the
ribosomes (the cell's protein-factory organelles) to make the particular
proteins that distinguish a nerve cell, for example, from a muscle or
There's a superficial similarity between this genetic mechanism and

the old determiner theory. The crucial difference is that, instead of de-
terminers being segregated until only one remains in each cell, the genes
are repressed until only one set remains active in each cell. However, the
entire genetic blueprint is carried by every cell nucleus.
Science is a bit like the ancient Egyptian religion, which never threw
old gods away but only tacked them onto newer deities until a bizarre
hodgepodge developed. For some strange reason, science is equally reluc-
tant to discard worn-out theories, and, even though there was absolutely
no evidencc to support it, one of Weismann's ideas was swallowed whole
DIFFERENTIATION—FROM EGG TO SPECIALIZED CELLS

by the new science of genetics. This was the notion that differentiation
was still a "one-way street," that cells could never dedifferentiate, that
is, retrace their steps from a mature, specialized state to a primitive,
unspecialized form. This assumption was made despite the fact that
chromosomes now provided a plausible means for the reversal. Re-
member, all cells of the adult (except the egg and sperm) contain the
full array of chromosomes. All the genes are still there, even though
most of them are repressed.
It seems logical that what has been locked might also be unlocked
when new cells are needed, but this idea was fought with unbelievable
ferocity by the scientific establishment. It's difficult now to see why,
since no principle of real importance was involved, except possibly a bit
of the supremacy of the mechanistic outlook itself. The mechanists
greeted the discovery of genes and chromosomes joyfully. Here at last
was a replacement for the little man in the sperm! Perhaps it seemed
that admitting dedifferentiation would have given life too much control
over its own functions. Perhaps, once genes were considered the sole
mechanism of life, they had to work in a nice, simple, mechanical way.
As we shall see, this dogma created terrible difficulties for the study of
regeneration.
DEDIFFERENTIATE—FROM SPECIALIZED CELLS BACK TO NEO-

EMBRYONIC CELLS
Control Problems
After Morgan's work on salamander limb regrowth early in this century,

hundreds of other experimenters studied the miracle again and again in
many kinds of animals. Their labors revealed a number of general princi-
ples, such as:
Polarity. A creature's normal relationships of front to back and top
to bottom are preserved in the regenerate.
Gradients. Regenerative ability is strongest in one area of an ani-
mal's body, gradually diminishing in all directions.
• Dominance. Some one particular section of the lost part is replaced
first, followed by the others in a fixed sequence.
• Induction. Some parts actively trigger the formation of others later
in the sequence.
• Inhibition. The presence of any particular part prevents the forma-
tion of a duplicate of itself or of other parts that come before that
part in the sequence.
All the experiments led to one unifying conclusion: The overall struc-
ture, the shape, the pattern, of any animal is as real a part of its body as
are its cells, heart, limbs, or teeth. Living things are called organisms
because of the overriding importance of organization, and each part of
the pattern somehow contains the information as to what it is in relation
to the whole. The ability of this pattern to maintain itself reaches its
height in the newts, mud puppies, and other amphibians collectively
called salamanders.
The salamander, directly descended from the evolutionary prototype
of all land vertebrates, is a marvelously complex animal, almost as com-
plicated as a human. Its forelimb is basically the same as ours. Yet all its
interrelated parts grow back in the proper order—the same interlocking
bones and muscles, all the delicate wrist bones, the coordinated fin-
gers—and they're wired together with the proper nerve and blood vessel
connections.
The same day the limb is cut off, debris from dead cells is carried
away in the bloodstream. Then some of the intact tissue begins to die
back a short distance from the wound. During the first two or three
days, cells of the epidermis—the outer layer of skin—begin to prolifer-
ate and migrate inward, covering the wound surface. The epidermis then
thickens over the apex of the stump into a transparent tissue called the
apical cap. This stage is finished in about a week.
By then, the blastema, the little ball of undifferentiated cells de-
scribed by Morgan, has started to appear beneath the apical cap. This is
the "organ" of regeneration, forming on the wound like a miniature
embryo and very similar to the embryonic limb bud that gave rise to the
leg in the first place. Its cells are totipotent, able to develop into all the
different kinds of cells needed to reconstitute the limb.
The blastema is ready in about two weeks. Even as it's forming, the
cells at its outer edge start dividing rapidly, changing the blastema's
shape to a cone and providing a steady source of raw material—new
cells—for growth. After about three weeks, the blastema cells at the
inner edge begin to differentiate into specialized types and arrange
themselves into tissues, beginning with a cartilage collar around the old
bone shaft. Other tissues then form, and the new limb—beginning with
a characteristic paddle shape that will become the hand—appears as
though out of a mist. The elbow and long parts of the limb coalesce
behind the hand, and the regrowth is complete (except for some slight
enlargement) when the four digits reappear after about eight weeks.
This process, exquisitely beautiful and seemingly simple, is full of
problems for biology. What organizes the growth? What is the control
factor? How does the blastema "know" that it must make a foreleg in-
stead of a bind leg? (The salamander never makes a mistake.) How does
all the information about the missing parts get to these undifferentiated
cells, telling them what to become, which genes to activate, what pro-
teins to make, where to position themselves? It's as if a pile of bricks
were to spontaneously rearrange itself into a building, becoming not
only walls but windows, light sockets, steel beams, and furniture in the
process.
Answers were sought by transplanting the blastema to other positions
on the animal. The experiments only made matters worse. If the
blastema was moved within live to seven days after it first appeared, and
grafted near the hind leg, it grew into a second hind leg, even though it
came from an amputated foreleg. Well, that was okay. The body could
be divided into "spheres of influence" or "organizational territories,"
each of which contained information on the local anatomy. A blastema
put into a hind-limb territory naturally became a hind limb. This was
an attractive theory, but unfounded. Exactly what did this territory con-
sist of? No one knew. To make matters worse, it was then found that
transplantation of a slightly older blastema from a foreleg stump to a
hind-limb area produced a foreleg. The young blastema knew where it
was; the older one knew where it had been! Somehow this pinhead of
primitive cells with absolutely no distinguishing characteristics con-
tained enough information to build a complete foreleg, no matter where
it was placed. How? We still don't know.
One attempt at an answer was the idea of a morphogenetic field,
advanced by Paul Weiss in the 1930s and developed by H. V. Bronsted
in the 1950s. Morphogenesis means "origin of form," and the field idea
was simply an attempt to get closer to the control factor by reformulat-
ing the problem.
Bronsted, a Danish biologist working on regeneration in the common
flatworms known as planarians, found that two complete heads would
form when he cut a strip from the center of a worm's front end, leaving
two side pieces of the original head. Conversely, when he grafted two
worms together side by side, their heads fused. Br0nsted saw an analogy
with a match flame, which could be split by cutting the match, then
rejoined by putting the two halves side by side, and he suggested that
part of the essence of life might be the creation of some such flamelike
field. It would be like the field around a magnet except that it reflected
the magnet's internal structure and held its shape even when part of the
magnet was missing.
The idea grew out of earlier experiments by Weiss, an American em-
bryologist, who stymied much creative research through his dogmatism
yet still made some important contributions. Regrowth clearly wasn't a
simple matter of a truncated muscle or bone growing outward to resume
its original shape. Structures that were missing entirely—the hand,
wrist, and bones of the salamander's lower forelimb, for example—also
reappeared. Weiss found that redundant parts could be inserted, but the
essential ones couldn't easily be eliminated. If an extra bone was im-
planted in the limb and the cut made through the two, the regenerate
contained both. However, if a bone was completely removed and the
incision allowed to heal, and the limb was then amputated through what
would have been the middle of the missing bone, the regenerate pro-
duced that bone's lower half, like a ghost regaining its substance Weiss
suggested that other tissues besides bone could somehow project a field
that included the arrangement of the bones. As a later student of re-
generation, Richard Goss of Brown University, observed, "Apparently
THE LATE BLASTEMA ALREADY HAS ITS INSTRUCTIONS
THE EARLY BLASTEMA GETS INSTRUCTIONS FROM NEARBY

TISSUES
FORMING A TWO-HEADED PLANARIAN
each tissue of the stump can vote to be represented in the blastema, and
some of them can even cast absentee ballots."
Any such field must be able to stimulate cells to switch various genes
on and off, that is, to change their specialization. A large body of re-
search on embryonic development has identified various chemical induc-
ers, compounds that stimulate neighboring cells to differentiate in a
certain fashion, producing the next type of cells needed. But these sub-
stances act only on the basis of simple diffusion; nothing in the way they
operate can account for the way the process is controlled to express the
overall pattern.
Another classic experiment helps clarify the problem. A salamander's
hand can be amputated and the wrist stump sewn to its body. The wrist
grows into the body, and nerves and blood vessels link up through the
new connection. The limb now makes a U shape, connected to the body
at both ends. It's then amputated at the shoulder to make a reversed
limb, attached to the body at the wrist and ending with a shoulder
joint. The limb then regenerates as though it had simply been cut off at
the shoulder. The resulting limb looks like this: from the body sprouts
the original wrist, forearm, elbow, upper arm, and shoulder, followed
by a new upper arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand. Why doesn't the
regenerate conform to the sequence already established in this limb in-
stead of following as closely as possible the body's pattern as a whole?
Again, what is the control factor?
Information, and a monumental amount of it, is clearly passed from
the body to the blastema. Our best method of information processing at
present is the digital computer, which deals with bits of data, signals
that, in essence, say either yes or no, 1 or 0. The number of such bits
needed to fully characterize the salamander forelimb is incalculable, ex-
ceeding the capacity of all known computers operating in unison.
The question of how this information is transferred is one of the hard-
est problems ever tackled by scientists, and when we fully know the
answer, we'll understand not only regeneration but the entire process of
growth from egg to adult. For now, we had best, as biologists them-
selves have done, skip this problem and return to it after addressing
some slightly easier ones.
It seems reasonable that understanding what comes out of the blastema
would be easier if we understood what goes into it, so the other major
questions about regeneration have always been: What stimulates the
blastema to form? And where do its cells come from?
The idea that dedifferentiation was impossible led to the related belief
that all regeneration had to be the work of neoblasts, or "reserve cells"
left over from the embryo and warehoused throughout the body in a
primitive, unspecialized state. Some biological bell supposedly called
them to migrate to the stump and form the blastema. There's evidence
for such cells in hydras and flatworms, although it's now doubtful that
they fully account for regeneration in these animals. However, no one
ever found any in a salamander. In fact, as long ago as the 1930s, there
was nearly conclusive evidence that they did not exist. Nevertheless,
anti-dedifferentiation dogma and the reserve cell theory were defended
fanatically, by Weiss in particular, so that many unconvincing experi-
ments were interpreted to "prove" that reserve cells formed the blas-
tema. When I started out, it was very dangerous for one's career even to
suggest that mature cells might create the blastema by dedifferentiating.
Because it was so hard to imagine how a blastema could arise without
dedifferentiation, the idea later developed that perhaps cells could
partially dedifferentiate. In other words, perhaps muscle cells could be-
come cells that looked primitive and completely unspecialized, but that
would then take up their previous lives as mature muscle cells after a
brief period of amnesia in the blastema. To fit the square peg into the
round hole, many researchers did a lot of useless work, laboriously
counting cell divisions to try to show that the muscle cells in the stump
made enough new muscle cells to supply the regenerate. The embarrass-
ing blastema—enigmatic and completely undifferentiated was still
there.
We now know (see Chapter 6) that at least some types of cells can
revert completely to the primitive state and that such despecialization is
DEDIFFERENTIATE: PARTIAL OR COMPLETE?
the major, probably the only, way a blastema forms in complex animals
like a salamander.
Nerve Connections
The other major question about the blastema's origin is: What triggers
it? The best candidates for a "carrier" of the stimulus are the nerves. In
complex multicellular animals, there's no regeneration without nerve
tissue. Back in 1823, the English amateur Tweedy John Todd found
that if the nerves into a salamander's leg were cut when the amputation
was made, the limb wouldn't regrow. In fact, the stump itself shriveled
up and disappeared. However, Todd got normal regeneration when he
gave the nerves time to reconnect before severing the leg. Science wasn't
ready to make anything of his observation, but many experiments since
have confirmed it. Over a century later, Italian biologist Piera Locatelli
showed that an extra leg would grow if a nerve was rerouted so that it
ended near an intact leg. She cut the large sciatic nerve partway down
the salamander's hind leg, leaving it attached to the spinal column and
fully threading it up untder the skin so that its end touched the skin
near one of the forelegs. An extra foreleg sprouted there. When she
placed the nerve end near a hind leg, an extra hind leg grew. It didn't
matter where the nerve was supposed to be; the kind of extra structure
depended on the target area. This indicated that some sort of energy
from the nerves was adapted by local conditions that determined the
pattern of what grew back.
Soon afterward, other researchers found that when they sewed full-
thickness skin grafts over the stumps of amputated salamander legs, the
dermis, or inner layer of the skin, acted as a barrier between the apical
cap and an essential something in the leg, thereby preventing regenera-
tion. Even a tiny gap in the barrier, however, was enough to allow
regrowth.
In the early 1940s this discovery led S. Meryl Rose, then a young
anatomy instructor at Smith College, to surmise that the rapid forma-
tion of full-thickness skin over the stumps of adult frogs' legs might be
what prevented them from regenerating. Rose tried dipping the wounds
in saturated salt solution several times a day to prevent the dermis from
growing over the stump. It worked! Most of the frogs, whose forelimbs
he'd amputated between the elbow and wrist, replaced some of what
they'd lost. Several regrew well-formed wrist joints, and a few even be-
gan to produce one new finger. Even though the replacements were in-
complete, this was a tremendously important breakthrough, the first
time any regeneration had been artificially induced in an animal nor-
mally lacking the ability. However, the dermis did grow over the
stump, so the experiment worked by some means Rose hadn't expected.
Later, other investigators showed that in normal regeneration the api-
cal cap, minus the dermis, was important because regrowing nerve fibers
made unique connections with the epidermal cells in the first stage of
the process, before the blastema appeared. These connections are collec-
tively called the neuroepidermal junction (NEJ). In a series of detailed
experiments, Charles Thornton of Michigan State University cut the
nerves to salamander legs at various times before amputating the legs,
then followed the progress of the regrowing nerves. Regeneration began
only after the nerves had reached the epidermis, and it could be pre-
vented by any barrier separating the two, or started by any breach in the
barrier. By 1954 Thornton had proved that the neuroepidermal junction
was the one pivotal step that must occur before a blastema could form
and regeneration begin.
Shortly thereafter, Elizabeth D. Hay, an anatomist then working at
Cornell University Medical College in New York, studied the neu-
roepidermal junction with an electron microscope. She found that as
each nerve fiber bundle reached the end of the stump, it broke up and
each fiber went its separate way, snaking into the epidermis, which
might be five to twenty cells thick. Each nerve fiber formed a tiny bulb
at its tip, which was placed against an epidermal cell's membrane, nest-
ling into a little pocket there. The arrangement was much like a syn-
apse, although the microscopic structure wasn't as highly developed as
in such long-term connections.
The junction was only a bridge, however. The important question
was: What traffic crossed it?
In 1946, Lev Vladimirovich Polezhaev, young Russian biologist
then working in London, concluded a long series of experiments in
which he induced partial regeneration in adult frogs, the same success
THE NEUROEPIDERMAL JUNCTION
Rose had had, by pricking their limb stumps with a needle every day.
Polezhaev then found that a wide variety of irritants produced the same
effect, although none of them worked in mammals. His experiments
indicated that making the injury worse could make regeneration better,
and showed that Rose's salt-in-the-wound procedure worked by irrita-
tion rather than by preventing dermis growth.
Next, the part that nerve tissue played was clarified considerably by
Marcus Singer in a brilliant series of experiments at Harvard Medical
School from the mid-1940s to the mid-1950s. Singer first confirmed
Todd's long-forgotten work by cutting the nerves in salamander legs at
various stages of regrowth, proving that the nerves were needed only
in the first week, until the blastema was fully formed and the informa-
tion transferred. After that, regeneration proceeded even if the nerves
were cut.
Recent research had found that a salamander could replace its leg if all
the motor nerves were cut, but not without the sensory nerves. Many
assumed then that the growth factor was related only to sensory nerves,
but Singer was uneasy over this conclusion: "The problem stated in ad-
vance that one or another nerve component is all important for regenera-
tion." (Italics added.) Several facts didn't fit, however. Not only did the
blastema fail to form when all nerves were cut, it didn't begin to form
even if a substantial number, but still a minority, remained. Also, a
salamander's leg would regrow with only motor nerves if extra motor
nerves from the belly were redirected into the stump. In addition, zoolo-
gists had found that the sensory nerve contained more fibers than the
motor nerve.
Singer counted for himself. In the thigh or upper arm, sensory fibers
outnumbered motor by four to one. The ratio was even larger at the
periphery. Then he cut them in various combinations in a long series of
experiments. Regeneration worked as long as the leg had about one
fourth to one third of its normal nerve supply, no matter in what combi-
nation. There seemed to be a threshold number of neurons (nerve cells)
needed for regrowth.
But it wasn't that simple. The limbs of Xenopus, a South American
frog unique in its ability to regenerate during adult life, had nerve fibers
numbering well under the threshold. So Singer started measuring neuron
size, and found that Xenopus had much bigger nerves than nonregenerat-
ing frogs. Another series of experiments verified the link: A critical
mass—about 30 percent—of the normal nerve tissue must be intact for
regeneration to ensue.
This finding made it pretty certain that whatever it was the nerves
delivered didn't come from their known function of transmitting infor-
mation by nerve impulses. If nerve impulses had been involved, re-
generation should have faded away gradually with greater and greater
flaws as the nerves were cut, instead of stopping abruptly when the
minimum amount no longer remained.
Singer's discovery also provided a basic explanation for the decline of
regeneration with increasing evolutionary complexity. The ratio between
body mass and total nerve tissue is about the same in most animals, but
more and more nerve became concentrated in the brain (a process called
encephalization) as animals became more complex. This diminished the
amount of nerve fiber available for stimulating regeneration in peripheral
parts, often below the critical level.
In the early 1950s, Singer applied what he'd learned to the non-
regenerating adult bullfrog. Using Locatelli's method, he dissected the
sciatic nerve out of the hind leg, leaving it attached to the spinal cord,
and directed it under the skin to the foreleg amputation stump. In two
or three weeks, blastemas had formed, and the cut legs were restored to
about the same degree as in Rose's and Polezhaev's experiments.
By 1954 Singer was ready to look for a growth-inducing chemical
that was presumed to be coming from the nerves. The most promising
possibility was the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, one of several com-

pounds known to relay nerve impulses across synapses. The nerves se-
creted acetylcholine more abundantly than normal during blastema
formation—just when nerve supply was crucial—and its production fell
back to normal when regrowth was well under way. Singer had studied
previous failures with acetylcholine, in which experimenters had rubbed
it on the stump or injected it into the blastema. He thought these meth-
ods were too artificial, so he invented a microinfusion apparatus to re-
lease tiny amounts of acetylcholine continually, just as the nerves did. It
used a clock motor to drip the hormone slowly through a needle into the
shoulder of an anesthetized animal in which the leg nerves had been
removed. He had trouble keeping the drugged salamanders alive, so
maybe the anesthetic affected the outcome, but even the ones that sur-
vived didn't regenerate at all. The growth factor was almost certainly
not acetylcholine.
Vital Electricity
These, then, were the shoulders on which I stood in 1958 as I began to

look for the pattern-control and blastema-stimulating factors in re-
generation. At that time we knew of two things that could yield some
regrowth in nonregenerators: extra nerve and extra injury. How were
they related? Luck gave me a clue.
I began my work just after the first few Sputniks, during the "missile
gap" flap. Alarmed by the unforeseen triumphs of Russian technology,
which we'd considered primitive, the government hastily began translat-
ing every Soviet scientific journal and distributing copies free to federally
funded research centers. Suddenly, the medical library at the VA Medi-
cal Center in Syracuse, where I worked, began receiving each month a
crate of Russian journals on clinical medicine and biology. Since no one
else was much interested, this bonanza was all for me.
I soon made two discoveries: The Russians were willing to follow
hunches; their researchers got government money to try the most out-
landish experiments, ones that our science just knew couldn't work. Fur-
thermore, Soviet journals published them—even if they did work. I
particularly enjoyed Biofizika, the Soviet journal of biophysics, and it
was there I encountered a paper on the "Nature of the Variation of the
Bioelectric Potentials in the Regeneration Process of Plants," by A. M.
Sinyukhin of Lomonosov State University in Moscow.
Sinyukhin began by cutting one branch from each of a series of
tomato plants. Then he took electrical measurements around the wound
as each plant healed and sent out a new shoot near the cut. He found a
negative current—a stream of electrons—flowing from the wound for
the first few days. A similar "current of injury" is emitted from all
wounds in animals. During the second week, after a callus had formed
over the wound and the new branch had begun to form, the current
became stronger and reversed its polarity to positive. The important
point wasn't the polarity—the position of the measuring electrode with
respect to a reference electrode often determines whether a current regis-
ters as positive or negative. Rather, Sinyukhin's work was significant
because he found a change in the current that seemed related to reparative
growth. Sinyukhin found a direct correlation between these orderly elec-
trical events and biochemical changes: As the positive current increased,
cells in the area more than doubled their metabolic rate, also becoming
more acidic and producing more vitamin C than before.
Sinyukhin then applied extra current, using small batteries, to a
group of newly lopped plants, augmenting the regeneration current.
These battery-assisted plants restored their branches up to three times
faster than the control plants. The currents were very small—only 2 to 3
microamperes for five days. (An ampere is a standard unit of electric
current, and a microampere is one millionth of an ampere.) Larger
amounts of electricity killed the cells and had no growth-enhancing
effect. Moreover, the polarity had to match that normally found in the
plant. When Sinyukhin used current of the opposite polarity, nullifying
the plant's own current, restitution was delayed by two or three weeks.
To American biology, however, this was all nonsense. To understand
why, we must backtrack for a while.
Luigi Galvani, an anatomy professor in the medical school at the Uni-
versity of Bologna who'd been studying electricity for twenty years, first
discovered the current of injury in 1794, but unfortunately he didn't
know it.
At that time, biology's main concern was the debate between vitalism
and mechanism. Vitalism, though not always called by that name, had
been the predominant concept of life since prehistoric times throughout
the world, and it formed the basis for almost all religions. It was closely
related to Socrates' and Plato's idea of supernatural "forms" or "ideals"
from which all tangible objects and creatures derived their individual
characteristics. Hippocrates adapted this idea by postulating an anima as
the essence of life. The Platonic concept evolved into the medieval phi-
losophy of realism, whose basic tenet was that abstract universal princi-
ples were more real than sensory phenomena. Mechanism grew out of
Aristotle's less speculative rationalism, which held that universal princi-
ples were not real, being merely the names given to humanity's attempts
at making sense of the reality apprehended through the senses. Mecha-
nism had become the foundation of science through the writings of Des-
cartes in the previous century, although even he believed in an
"animating force" to give the machine life at the outset. By Galvani's
time, mechanism's influence was steadily growing.
Galvani was a dedicated physician, and medicine, tracing its lineage
back to tribal shamans, has always been a blend of intuition and em-
pirical observation based on a vitalistic concept of the sanctity of life.
The vitalists had long tried—unsuccessfully—to link the strange, incor-
poreal phenomenon of electricity with the elan vital. This was Galvani's
main preoccupation.
One day he noticed that some frogs' legs he'd hung in a row on his
balustrade, pending his dinner, twitched whenever the breeze blew them
against the ironwork. At about the same time his wife Lucia noticed in
his laboratory that the muscles of a frog's leg contracted when an as-
sistant happened to be touching the main nerve with a steel scalpel at
the same instant that a spark leaped from one of the electrical machines
being operated across the room. (The only type of electricity then known
was the static type, in the form of sparks from various friction devices.)
Today we know that an expanding and collapsing electric field generated
by the spark induced a momentary current in the scalpel, which stimu-
lated the muscle, but Galvani believed that the metal railing and scalpel
had drawn forth electricity hidden in the nerves.
Galvani experimented for years with nerves from frogs' legs, con-
nected in various circuits with several kinds of metals. He grew con-
vinced that the vital spirit was electricity flowing through the nerves and
announced this to the Bologna Academy of Science in 1791.
Within two years, Alesandro Volta, a physicist at the University of
Padua, had proven that Galvani had in fact discovered a new kind of
electricity, a steady current rather than sparks. He'd generated a bi-
metallic direct current, a flow of electrons between two metals, such as
the copper hooks and iron railing of the famous balcony observation,
connected by a conducting medium—in other words, a battery. The
frogs' legs, being more or less bags of weak salt solution, were the elec-
trolyte, or conducting medium. They were otherwise incidental, Volta
explained, and there was no such thing as Galvani's "animal electricity."
Galvani, a shy and thoroughly noncombative soul, was crushed. His
only response was an anonymous paper in 1794 describing several exper-
iments in which frogs' legs could be made to twitch with no metal in
the circuit. In one procedure, the experimenter touched one leg nerve
with the frog's dissected-out, naked spinal cord, while holding the other
leg to complete the circuit. Here the current was true animal electricity,
coming from the amputation wound at the base of the leg.
In the long run, Galvani unwittingly helped the cause of the mecha-
nists by giving them something to attack. As long as the elan vital was
ephemeral, all you could say was that you couldn't find it. Once Galvani
said it was electricity, a detectable, measurable entity, there was a target
for experimentation. Actually, Baron Alexander von Humboldt, the ex-
plorer-naturalist who founded geology, proved in 1797 that Volta and
Galvani were both partly right. Bimetallic currents were real, but so was
spontaneous electricity from injured flesh. However, the mechanists had
the upper hand; Galvani's anonymous report and Humboldt's con-
firmation were overlooked. Galvani himself died penniless and bro-
kenhearted in 1798, soon after his home and property were confiscated
by the invading French, while Volta grew famous developing his storage
batteries under the auspices of Napoleon.
Then in the 1830s a professor of physics at Pisa, Carlo Matteucci,
using the newly invented galvanometer, which could measure fairly
small direct currents, came up with other evidence for animal electricity.
In a meticulous series of experiments lasting thirty-five years, he con-
clusively proved that the current of injury was real. However, he didn't
find it in the nervous system, only emanating from the wound surface,
so it couldn't be firmly related to the vital force.
The tale took another turn in the 1840s when Emil Du Bois-
Reymond, a physiology student in Berlin, read Matteucci's work. Du
Bois-Reymond went on to show that when a nerve was stimulated, an
impulse traveled along it. He measured the impulse electrically and an-
nounced his conclusion that it was a mass of "electromotive particles,"
like a current in a wire. Immediately he squared his shoulders, expecting
the mantle of glory to descend: "If I do not greatly deceive myself," he
wrote, "I have succeeded in realizing in full actuality . . . the hundred
years' dream of physicists and physiologists, to wit, the identity of the
nervous principle with electricity." But he had deceived himself. Soon it
was learned that the impulse traveled too slowly to be a current, and
that nerves didn't have the proper insulation or resistance to conduct
one, anyway. Any true current the size of the small measured impulse
wouldn't have made it through even a short nerve.
Julius Bernstein, a brilliant student of Du Bois-Reymond, resolved
the impasse in 1868 with his hypothesis of the "action potential." The
impulse wasn't a current, Bernstein said. It was a disturbance in the
ionic properties of the membrane, and it was this perturbation that trav-
eled along the nerve fiber, or axon.
The Bernstein hypothesis stated that the membrane could selectively
filter ions of different charges to the inside or outside of the cell. (Ions
are charged particles into which a salt breaks up when dissolved in
water; all salts dissociate in water into positive and negative ions, such
as the positive sodium and negative chloride ions of table salt.) Bernstein
postulated that the membrane could sort most of the negatives outside
and most of the positives inside the fiber. The membrane was polarized
(with like charges grouped on one side), having a transmembrane poten-
tial, because the negative charges, all on one side, could potentially flow
in a current across the membrane to achieve a balance on both sides.
This was what happened in a short segment of the membrane whenever a
nerve was stimulated. Part of the membrane became depolarized, revers-
ing the transmembrane potential. The nerve impulse was actually a dis-
turbance in the potential traveling along the membrane. As the area of
disturbance moved along, the membrane quickly restored its normal
resting potential. Thus the nerve impulse wasn't an electrical current,
even though it could be measured electrically.
Bernstein's hypothesis has been confirmed in all important respects,

although it remains I hypothesis because no one has yet found what
gives the membrane the energy to pump all those ions back and forth.
Soon it was broadened, however, to include an explanation of the current
of injury. Reasoning that all cells had transmembrane potentials, Bern-
stein maintained that, after injury, the damaged ceil membranes simply
leaked their ions out into the environment. Thus the current of injury
was no longer a sign that electricity was central to life, but only an
uninteresting side effect of cell damage.
The vitalists, with their hopes pinned on electricity, kept getting
pushed into tighter and tighter corners as electricity was removed from
one part of the body after another. Their last stand occurred with the
discovery of neurotransmitters. They'd maintained that only an electrical
current could jump across the synapse, the gap between communicating
nerves. In 1920 that idea was disproven with a lovely experiment by
Otto Loewi, a research professor at the NYU School of Medicine, later
my alma mater. When I took physiology in my first year there, we had
to duplicate his experiment.
Biologists had found that a frog heart would continue to beat for
several days when removed with its nerves and placed in an appropriate
solution. Stimulating one of the nerves would slow it down. Like Loewi,
we took one such heart, with nerve attached, and stimulated the nerve,
slowing the beat. We then collected the solution baching that heart and
placed another heart in it. Its beat slowed even though its depressor
nerve hadn't been stimulated. Obviously the nerve slowed the heartbeat
by producing a chemical, which crossed the gap between the nerve end-
ing and the muscle fiber. This chemical was later identified as acetyl-
choline, and Loewi was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1936 for this
discovery. His work resulted in the collapse of the last vestige of elec-
trical vitalism. Thereafter, every function of the nervous system had to
be explained on the basis of the Bernstein hypothesis and chemical trans-
mission across the synapse.
It was with great trepidation, therefore, that I put any credence in
Sinyukhin's report that the strength of the injury current affected re-
generation in his plants. Yet his report was detailed and carefully writ-
ten. Something about his work gave me a gut feeling that it was valid.
Maybe it was because the tomato plants he used were "Best of All"
American Beauties. At this point I wasn't aware of Matteucci's forgotten
work, but something clicked in my mind now as I studied Rose's and
Polezhaev's experiments. In both, definitely in Pole2haev's and probably
in Rose's, regeneration had been stimulated by an increase in the injury.
Then another Russian supplied a timely lead. In a government trans-
lation I found a 1958 paper by A. V. Zhirmunskii of the Institute of
Cytology in Leningrad, who studied the current of injury in the hind leg
muscle of the bullfrog. This muscle is nice and long, easy to work with,
and contains branches from several different nerves. He made a standard
injury in each muscle, measured the current of injury, then cut the
nerves branch by branch, noting the effect on the current. It decreased
with each succeeding nerve cut. The current of injury was proportional
to the amount of nerve.
Then I went to the library and delved back into the history of neu-
rophysiology and found Matteucci's superb series of observations. Not
only had he proven that the current of injury was real, he'd shown that
it varied in proportion to the severity of the wound.
Now I had enough pieces to start on the puzzle. I summarized the
observations in a little matrix:
Extent of injury is proportional to regeneration
Amount of nerve is proportional to regeneration
Extent of injury is proportional to current of injury
Amount of nerve is proportional to current of injury
Ergo: current of injury is proportional to regeneration
I was pretty sure now chat, contemporary "knowledge" to the contrary,
the current of injury was no side effect and was the first place to look for
clues to the growth control and dedifferentiation-stimulating factors. I
planned my first experiment.
Three
The Sign of the
Miracle
Real science is creative, as much so as painting, sculpture, or writing.

Beauty, variously defined, is the criterion for art, and likewise a good
theory has the elegance, proportion, and simplicity that we find beau-
tiful. Just as the skilled artist omits the extraneous and directs our atten-
tion to a unifying concept, so the scientist strives to find a relatively
simple order underlying the apparent chaos of perception. Perhaps be-
cause it was mine, my theory that the current of injury stimulated re-
generation seemed both simple and beautiful. It's impossible to convey
the sense of excitement I felt when all of the facts fell together and the
idea came. I'd created something new that explained the previously inex-
plicable. I couldn't wait to see if I was right.
In all the time that the Bernstein hypothesis had been used to explain
away the current of injury, no one had ever thought to measure the
current over a period of days to see how long it lasted. If it was only ions
leaking from damaged cells, it should disappear in a day or two, when
these cells had finished dying or repairing themselves. This simple mea-
surement, with a comparison of the currents in regenerating versus non-
regenerating limbs, was what I planned to do. I would uniformly
amputate the forelegs of frogs and salamanders. Then, as the frogs'
stumps healed over and the salamanders' legs redrew, I would measure
the currents of injury each day.
The experiment itself was as simple as could be. The tricky part was
getting peremission to do it.
The Sign of the Miracle 69
When you want to do a research project, there are certain channels
you must go through to get the money. You write a project proposal,
spelling out what hypothesis you want to test, why you think it should
be done, and how you plan to go about it. The proposal goes to a
committee supposedly composed of your peers, people who have demon-
strated competence in related research. If they approve your project and
the money is available, you generally get part of what you asked for,
enough to get started.
The Veterans Administration had been dispensing research money for
several years as a sort of bribe to attract doctors despite the low pay in
government service. The money from Washington was doled out by the
most influential doctors on the staff, not necessarily the best researchers,
but I still felt I had a good chance because the VA was having an espe-
cially hard time recruiting orthopedists. Moreover, my hypothesis was
based on the work of Rose, Polezhaev, Singer, Sinyukhin, and Zhir-
munskii with inescapable logic. And since frogs and salamanders were
anatomically similar, any difference in their currents of injury should
reflect the disparity in their powers of regeneration. My chances of being
thrown off by extraneous factors were thus minimal.
I remember thinking, as I wrote the proposal, how my life had come
full circle. As a college freshman in 1941, I'd conducted a crude experi-
ment on salamanders, showing that thyroid stimulation by iodine didn't
speed up regeneration. Here I was nearly twenty years later, beneficiary
of the intervening research, hoping to add to our knowledge of the same
phenomenon and perhaps even discover something that would help hu-
man patients. I worried that my roundabout course might weigh against
me, since one of the criteria for grants was whether the investigator had
been trained for that particular field. This proposal would have been
expected from a physiologist, not an orthopedist. Nevertheless, I was
asking for a relatively minuscule amount of money. I needed only a
thousand dollars to put together the equipment, so I didn't anticipate
much trouble.
The Tribunal
"Dr. Becker, could you please come to a special research committee

meeting in one hour?" The committee's secretary was calling. I'd known
something was up, two months had passed since I'd filed my proposal,
and all my queries as to its fate had gone unanswered.
"I'll be there."
"It's not here in the research office. It's downstairs in the hospital
director's office." Now that was really strange. The director almost never
paid any attention to the research program. Besides, his office was big
enough to hold a barbecue in.
It was a barbecue, ali right, and I was the one being grilled. The
director's conference room had been rearranged. In place of the long,
polished table there was a semicircle of about a dozen chairs, each oc-
cupied by one of the luminaries from the hospital and medical school. I
recognized the chairmen of the departments of biochemistry and phys-
iology along with the hospital director and chief of research. Only the
dean was missing. In the center was a single chair—for me.
The spokesman came right to the point: "We have a very grave basic
concern over your proposal. This notion that electricity has anything to
do with living things was totally discredited some time ago. It has abso-
lutely no validity, and the new scientific evidence you're citing is worth-
less. The whole idea was based on its appeal to quacks and the gullible
public. I will not stand idly by and see this medical school associated
with such a charlatanistic, unscientific project." Murmurs of assent
spread around the group.
I had the momentary thrill of imagining myself as Galileo or Gior-
dano Bruno; I thought of walking to the window to see if the stake and
fagots were set up on the lawn. Instead I delivered a terse speech to the
effect that I still thought my hypothesis was stoutly supported by some
very good research and that I was sorry if it flew in the face of dogma. I
ended by saying that I didn't intend to withdraw the proposal, so they
would have to act upon it.
When I got home, my fury was gone. I was ready to call the director,
withdraw my proposal, apologize for my errors, stay out of research,
quit the VA, and go into private practice, where I could make a lot
more money. Luckily, my wife Lil knows me better than I sometimes
know myself. She told me, "You'd be miserable in private practice. This
is exactly what you want to do, so just wait and see what happens."
Two days later I got word that the committee had delegated the deci-
sion to Professor Chester Yntema, an anatomist who long ago had stud-
ied the regrowth of ears in the salamander. Since he was the only one in
Syracuse who'd ever done any regeneration research, I've always won-
dered why he wasn't part of the first evaluation. I went to see him with a
sense of foreboding, for his latest research seemed to refute Singer's nerve
work, on which I'd based my proposal.
Using a standard technique, Yntema had operated on very young sala-
mander embryos, cutting out all of the tissues that would have given
rise to the nervous system. He then grafted each of these denervated
embryos onto the back of a whole one. The intact embryos furnished the
grafts with blood and nourishment, and the procedure resulted in a little
"parabiotic" twin, normal except for having no nerves, stuck on the
back of each host animal. Yntema then cut off one leg from each of these
twins, and some of them regenerated. Since microscopic examination
revealed no nerves entering the graft from its host, Yntema's experiment
called Singer's conclusions into question.
Dr. Yntema turned out to be one of the nicest gentlemen I've ever
met, but as I entered his office his Dickensian appearance of eminence—
he was tall, thin, elderly, with craggy features, and wore an immac-
ulately starched, long white lab coat—made me feel like a freshman
being called before the dean. But he put me at ease immediately.
"I've read your proposal and think it's most intriguing," he said with
genuine interest.
"Do you really?" I asked. "I've been afraid you would reject it out of
hand because my ideas depend on Singer's work."
"Marc Singer is a good, careful worker," Yntema replied. "I don't
doubt his observations. What I've described is an exception to his find-
ings under special circumstances."
After a long, pleasant conversation about regrowth, nerves, and re-
search itself, he gave me his approval with a word of caution: "Don't get
your hopes up about what you want to do. I don't believe for one minute
that it'll work, but I think you should do it anyway. We need to en-
courage young researchers. Besides, it'll be fun, and maybe you'll learn
something new, after all. Let me know what happens, and if you need
any help, I'll be here. I'll call the people at the VA right away, so get to
work. Good luck."
This was the start of a long friendship. I'm deeply indebted to Chester
Yntema for his encouragement. Had he not believed that research should
be fun, that you should do what you want rather than what's fashion-
able, my first experiment would have been impossible, and this book
would never have been written.
The Reversals
First I found a good supplier of salamanders and frogs, a Tennessee game

warden who ran this business in his spare time. Sometimes the shipment
would contain a surprise, a small snake. I never found out whether he
included them deliberately or by error. At any rate, his animals weren't
the inferior aquarium-bred stock but robust specimens collected from
their natural habitats.
Next I worked out some technical problems. The most important of
these was the question of where to place the electrodes. To form the
circuit, two electrodes had to touch the animal. One was the "hot" or
measuring electrode, which determined the polarity, positive or nega-
tive, with regard to a stationary reference electrode. A negative polarity
meant there were more electrons where the measuring electrode was
placed, while a positive polarity meant there were more at the reference
site. A steady preponderance of negative charge at a particular location
could mean there was a current flowing toward that spot, continually
replenishing the accumulation of electrons. The placement of the refer-
ence electrode, therefore, was critical, lest I get the voltage right but the
polarity, and hence the direction of the current, wrong. Some logical
position had to be chosen and used every time. Since I postulated that
the nerves were somehow related to the current, the cell bodies that sent
their nerve fibers into the limb seemed like a good reference point.
These cell bodies were in a section of the spinal cord called the brachial
enlargement, located just headward from where the arm joined the
body. In both frogs and salamanders, therefore, I put the measuring
electrode directly on the cut surface of the amputation stump and the
reference electrode on the skin over the brachial enlargement.
After setting up the equipment, I did some preliminary measure-
ments on the intact animals. They all had areas of positive charge at the
brachial enlargement and a negative charge of about 8 to 10 millivolts at
each extremity, suggesting a flow of electrons from the head and trunk
out into the limbs and, in the salamanders, the tail.
I began the actual experiment by amputating the right forelimbs,
between elbow and wrist, from fourteen salamanders and fourteen grass
frogs, all under anesthesia. I took no special precautions against bleed-
ing, since blood clots formed very rapidly. The wounds had to be left
open, not only because closing the skin over the salamanders' amputa-
tion sites would have stopped regeneration, but also because I was in-
vestigating a natural process. In the wild, both frogs and salamanders
get injuries much like the one I was producing—both are favorite foods
of the freshwater bass—and heal them without a surgeon.
Once the anesthetic wore off and the blood clot formed, I took a
voltage reading from each stump. I was surprised to find that the polar-
ity at the crump reversed to positive right after the injury. By the next
day it had climbed to over 20 millivolts, the same in both frogs and
salamanders.
I made measurements daily, expecting to see the salamander voltages
climb above those of the frogs as the blastemas formed. It didn't work
that way. The force of the current flowing from the salamanders' am-
putation sites rapidly dropped, while that from the frogs' stumps stayed
at the original level. By the third day the salamanders showed no current
at all, and their blastemas hadn't even begun to appear.
The experiment seemed a failure. I almost quit right there, but some-
thing made me keep on measuring. I guess I thought it would be good
practice.
Then, between the sixth and tenth days an exciting trend emerged.
The salamander potentials changed their sign again, exceeding their nor-
mal voltage and reaching a peak of more than 30 millivolts negative just
when the blastemas were emerging. The frogs were still plugging away
with slowly declining positive voltages. As the salamander limbs regene-
rated and the frog stumps healed over with skin and scar tissue, both
groups of limbs gradually returned (from opposite directions) to the
original baseline of 10 millivolts negative.
THE CURRENT OF INJURY: SALAMANDER VERSUS FROG
Here was confirmation better than my wildest dreams! Already, in my

first experiment, I had the best payoff research can give—the excitement
of seeing something no one else seen before. I knew now that
the current of injury wasn't due to dying cells, which were long gone by
then. Moreover, the opposite polarities indicated a profound difference
in the electrical properties of the two animals, which somehow would
explain why only the salamander could regenerate. The negative poten-
tial seemed to bring forth the all-important blastema. It was a very
significant observation, even though the facts had scrambled my neat
THE CURRENT OF INJURY IS MORE THAN A SIDE EFFECT
Dr. Yntema agreed and urged me to write up a report for publication,

but first I jumped ahead with another idea. I took a new group of frogs,
amputated one foreleg from each, and every day applied negative current
to the stump from a small battery. I dreamed of being the first to get
complete regrowth in a normally nonregenerating animal; I could almost
see my name on the cover of Scientific American. The frogs were less
interested in my glory. They had to hold still for up to half an hour with
electrodes attached. They refused, so I anesthetized them each day,
something they tolerated very poorly. Within a week my Nobel Prize
had turned into a collection of dead frogs.
For some time I'd been scouring the dusty stacks of the medical li-
brary for previous work on bioelectricity, and how I found a paper writ-
ten in 1909 by an American researcher named Owen E. Frazee. He
reported that electrical currents passed through the aquarium water in
which larval salamanders were living speeded up their regeneration. At
that time, electrical equipment was so primitive that I couldn't rely on
Frazee's results, but I decided to try it for myself. What Sinyukhin had
done with tomato plants I hoped to do with salamanders.
To one group of salamanders I applied 2 microamperes of positive
current from batteries connected directly to the stumps for five to ten
minutes on each of the first five days after amputation. This was
0.000002 ampere, a tiny current by ordinary standards (most household
circuits carry 15 or 20 amperes) but comparable to what seemed to be
flowing in the limb. I intended to reinforce the normal positive peak in
the current of injury. This treatment seemed to make the blastemas
larger but slowed down the whole process somewhat. To another group I
applied 3 microamperes of negative current on the fifth to ninth days,
when the normal currents were hitting their negative peaks. This
seemed to increase the rate of regrowth for a week but didn't change the
time needed for a complete limb. Finally I tried Frazee's method with a
constant current through the aquarium water. Again the results were
equivocal at best. These failures taught me that, before I applied my
findings to other animals, I would have to learn how the current of injury
worked.
Meanwhile, I wrote up my results. Not knowing any better, I sub-
mitted my paper to the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, the most pres-
tigious orthopedic journal in the world. It was a dumb thing to do. The
experiment had no immediate practical application, while the journal
accepted only clinical reports. Moreover, the publication was very politi-
cal; normally you had to have an established reputation or come from
one of the big orthopedic programs, like Harvard or Columbia, to get
into it. Luckily, I didn't know that. Someone thought my paper was
just what the doctor ordered. Not only was it accepted for publication,
but I was invited to present it at the next combined meeting of the
Orthopaedic Research Society and the American Academy of Ortho-
paedic Surgeons, at Miami Beach in January 1961. This invitation was a
particular honor, for it meant someone considered my work so signifi-
cant that practicing physicians, as well as researchers, should hear of it
right then and there. Whoever that someone was, he or she has my
undying gratitude.
My report was well received and soon was published, to the con-
sternation of the local inquisitors and the delight of Chester Yntema.
Since the journal was geared to clinicians. I worried that my experiment
wouldn't reach the basic researchers with whom I really wanted to share
it, but again I was wrong. The next year I got a phone call from Meryl
Rose himself. He was excited by the article and wanted to know what
I'd done since.
Although Rose taught at Tulane Medical School in New Orleans, he
spent every summer at the Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory on
Cape Cod, so he and his wife drove to Syracuse from there. Despite his
success, Rose had maintained the completely open mind that a great
researcher must have, and he was fascinated by the observations on elec-
tric fields, nerves, anesthesia, and magnetism that I'll recount in the
next chapter. Since then his interest has encouraged me enormously. My
friendship with this fine man and scientist has been fruitful even beyond
the expectations I had then, and, when my wife and I had the Roses to
dinner, we found our pasts were linked by an odd coincidence. As they
walked in the door, Lillian exclaimed, "Dr. Rose! Weren't you at Smith
College in the 1940s?" It turned out that she'd been a friend of Rose's
student lab assistant and had helped catch the frogs for the famous salt-
in-the-wound experiment!
Part 2
The Stimulating
Current
The basic texture of research consists of dreams into which

the threads of reasoning, measurement, and calculation
are woven.
—Albert Szent-Gyorgyi
Four
Life's Potentials
It's an axiom of science that the better an experiment is, the more new
questions it raises after it has answered the one you asked. By that stan-
dard my first simple test had been pretty good. The new problems
branched out like the fingers on those restored limbs: Where did the
injury currents come from? Were they in fact related to the nervous
system and, if so, how? It seemed unlikely that they sprang into action
only after an amputation; they must have existed before. There must
have been a preexisting substratum of direct current activity that re-
sponded to the injury. Did the voltages I measured really reflect such
currents, and did they flow throughout the salamander's body? Did
other organisms have them? What structures carried them? What were
their electrical properties? What were they doing the rest of the time,
before injury and after healing? Could they be used to provoke regenera-
tion where it was normally absent?
I had ideas about how to look for some of the answers, but, to under-
stand my approach, the reader unfamiliar with electrical terms will need
a simplified explanation of several basic concepts that are essential to the
rest of the story.
Everything electrical stems from the phenomenon of charge. No one
knows exactly what this is, except to say that it's a fundamental property
of matter that exists in two opposite forms, or polarities, which we
arbitrarily call positive and negative. Protons, which are one of the two
main types of particles in atomic nuclei, are positive; the other particles,
the neutrons, are so named because rhey have no charge. Orbiting
around the nucleus are electrons, in the same number as the protons
inside the nucleus. Although an electron is 1,836 times less massive
than a proton, the electron carries an equal but opposite (negative)
charge. Because of their lightness and their position outside the nucleus,
electrons are much more easily dislodged from atoms than are protons,
so they're the main carriers of electric charge. For the lay person's pur-
poses a negative charge can be thought of as a surplus of electrons, while
a positive charge can be considered a scarcity of them. When electrons
move away from an area, it becomes positively charged, and the area to
which they move becomes negative.
A flow of electrons is called a current, and is measured in amperes,
units named for an early-nineteenth-century French physicist, Andre
Marie Ampere. A direct current is a more or less even flow, as opposed
to the instantaneous discharge of static electricity as sparks or lightning,
or the back-and-forth flow of alternating current which powers most of
our appliances.
Besides the amount of charge being moved, a current has another
characteristic important for our narrative—its electromotive force. This
can be visualized as the "push" behind the current, and it's measured in
volts (named for Alessandro Volta).
In high school most of us learned that a current flows only when a
source of electrons (negatively charged material) is connected to a mate-
rial having fewer free electrons (positively charged in relation to the
source) by a conductor, through which the electrons can flow. This is
what happens when you connect the negative terminal of a battery to its
positive pole with a wire or a radio's innards: You've completed a circuit
between negative and positive. If there's no conductor, and hence no
circuit, there's only a hypothetical charge flow, or electric potential,
between the two areas. The force of this latent current is also measured
in volts by temporarily completing the circuit with a recording device,
as I did in my experiment.
The potential can continue to build until a violent burst of current
equalizes the charges; this is what happens when lightning strikes.
Smaller potentials may remain stable, however. In this case they must be
continuously fed by a direct current flowing from positive to negative,
the opposite of the normal direction. In this part of a circuit, electrons
actually flow from where they're scarce to where they're more abundant.
As Volta found, such a flow is generated inside a battery by the electrical
interaction of two metals.
An electric field forms around any electric charge. This means that
any other charged object will be attracted (if the polarities are opposite)
or repelled (if they're the same) for a certain distance around the first
Life's Potentials 81
object. The field is the region of space in which an electrical charge can
be detected, and it's measured in volts per unit of area.
Electric fields must be distinguished from magnetic fields. Like
charge, magnetism is a dimly understood intrinsic property of matter
that manifests itself in two polarities. Any flow of electrons sets up a
combined electric and magnetic field around the current, which in turn
affects other electrons nearby. Around a direct current the electromag-
netic field is stable, whereas an alternating current's field collapses and
reappears with its poles reversed every time the current changes direc-
tion. This reversal happens sixty times a second in our normal house
currents. Just as a current produces a magnetic field, a magnetic field,
when it moves in relation to a conductor, induces a current. Any varying
magnetic field, like that around household appliances, generates a cur-
rent in nearby conductors. The weak magnetic fields we'll be discussing
are measured in gauss, units named after a nineteenth-century German
pioneer in the study of magnetism, Karl Friedrich Gauss.
Both electric and magnetic fields are really just abstractions that sci-
entists have made up to try to understand electricity's and magnetism's
action at a distance, produced by no known intervening material or en-
ergy, a phenomenon that used to be considered impossible until it be-
came undeniable. A field is represented by lines of force, another
abstraction, to indicate its direction and shape. Both kinds of fields de-
cline with distance, but their influence is technically infinite: Every time
you use your toaster, the fields around it perturb charged particles in the
farthest galaxies ever so slightly.
In addition, there's a whole universe full of electromagnetic energy,
radiation that somehow seems to be both waves in an electromagnetic
field and particles at the same time. It exists in a spectrum of wave-
lengths that includes cosmic rays, gamma rays, X rays, ultraviolet radia-
tion, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves, and radio waves.
Together, electromagnetic fields and energies interact in many complex
ways that have given rise to much of the natural world, not to mention
the whole technology of electronics.
You'll need a casual acquaintance with all these terms for the story
ahead, but don't worry if the concepts seem a bit murky. Physicists have
been trying for generations to solve the fundamental mysteries of elec-
tromagnetism, and no one, not even Einstein, has yet succeeded.
Unpopular Science
None of these things had the slightest relevance to life, according to

most biologists around 1960. A major evaluation of American medicine,
financed by the Carnegie Foundation and published in 1910 by the re-
spected educator Abraham Flexner, had denounced the clinical use of
electric shocks and currents, which had been applied, often over-
enthusiastically, to many diseases since the mid-1700s. Electrotherapy
sometimes seemed to work, but no one knew why, and it had gotten a
bad name from the many charlatans who'd exploited it. Its legitimate
proponents had no scientific way to defend it, so the reforms in medical
education that followed the Flexner report drove all mention of it from
the classroom and clinic, just as the last remnants of belief in vital elec-
tricity were being purged from biology by the discovery of acetylcholine.
This development dovetailed nicely with expanding knowledge of bio-
chemistry and growing reliance on the drug industry's products. Pen-
icillin later made medicine almost exclusively drug oriented.
Meanwhile, the work of Faraday, Edison, Marconi, and others liter-
ally electrified the world. As the uses of electricity multiplied, no one
found any obvious effects on living creatures except for the shock and
heating caused by large currents. To be sure, no one looked very hard,
for fear of discouraging a growth industry, but the magic of electricity
seemed to lie precisely in the way it worked its wonders unseen and
unfelt by the folks clustered around the radio or playing cards under the
light bulb. By the 1920s, no scientist intent on a respectable career
dared suggest that life was in any sense electrical.
Nevertheless, some researchers kept coming up with observations that
didn't fit the prevailing view. Although their work was mostly con-
signed to the fringes of the scientific community, by the late 1950s
they'd accumulated quite a bit of evidence.
There were two groups of dissenters, but, because their work went
unheeded, each was largely unaware of the other's existence. One line of
inquiry began just after the turn of the century when it was learned that
hydras were electrically polarized. The head was found to be positive,
the tail negative. I've already mentioned Frazee's 1909 report of sala-
mander regeneration enhanced by electrical currents. Then, with a clas-
sic series of experiments in the early 1920s, Elmer J. Lund of the
University of Texas found that the polarity of regeneration in species
related to the hydra could be controlled, even reversed, by small direct
currents passes through the animal's body. A current strong enough to
override the creature's normal polarity could cause a head to form where
a tail should have reappeared, and vice versa. Others confirmed this dis-
covery, and Lund went on to study eggs and embryos. He claimed to
have influenced the development of frog eggs not only with currents but
also with magnetic fields, a conclusion that was really risque for that
time.
Stimulated by Lund's papers, Harold Saxton Burr of Yale began put-
ting electrodes to all kinds of creatures. Burr was lucky enough to have a
forum for his work. He edited the Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine,
where most of his reports appeared; few other journals would touch
them. Burr and his co-workers found electric fields around, and electric
potentials on the surfaces of, organisms as diverse as worms, hydras,
salamanders, humans, other mammals, and even slime molds. They
measured changes in these potentials and correlated them to growth,
regeneration, tumor formation, drug effects, hypnosis, and sleep. Burr
claimed to have measured field changes resulting from ovulation, but
others got contradictory results. He hooked up his voltmeters to trees for
years at a time and found that their fields varied in response not only to
light and moisture, but to storms, sunspots, and the phases of the moon
as well.
Burr and Lund were handicapped by their instruments as well as the
research climate. Most of their work was done before World War II and,
even though Burr spent years designing the most sensitive devices possi-
ble using vacuum tubes, the meters were still too "noisy" to reliably
measure the tiny currents found in living things. The two scientists
could refine their observations only enough to find a simple dipolar dis-
tribution of potentials, the head of most animals being negative and the
tail positive.
Burr and Lund advanced similar theories of an electrodynamic field,
called by Burr the field of life or L-field, which held the shape of an
organism just as a mold determines the shape of a gelatin dessert.
"When we meet a friend we have not seen for six months there is not
one molecule in his face which was there when we last saw him," Burr
wrote. "But, thanks to his controlling L-field, the new molecules have
fallen into the old, familiar pattern and we can recognize his face."
Burr believed that faults in the field could reveal latent illness just as
dents in a mold show up in the jelly. He claimed to be able to predict
all sorts of things about a person's emotional and physical health, both
present and future, merely by checking the voltage between head and
hand. His later writings were marred by a son of bioelectric determin-
ism and a tendency to confuse "law and order" in nature with that
odious euphemism as preached by Presidents. As a result, he began to
suggest his simple readings as a foolproof way to evaluate job applicants,
soldiers, mental patients, and suspected criminals or dissidents.
The fields Burr and Lund found were actually far too simple to ac-
count for a salamander's limb or a human face. Biological knowledge at
that time gave them no theoretical framework to explain where their
fields came from. They conceived of currents flowing within cells but
had no proof. They had no inkling that currents might flow in specific
tissues or in the fluids outside cells. They suggested that all these little
intracellular currents somehow added up to the whole field. Burr wrote
that "electrical energy is a fundamental attribute of protoplasm and is an
expression or measure of the presence of an electrodynamic field in the
organism." Unfortunately, an analysis of this sentence yields nonsense,
and Burr's work was dismissed as foggy vitalism. Lund suffered the same
fate. No one bothered to see if the measurements they'd made were valid.
After all, you can disagree with a theory, but you should respect the
data enough to check them. If you can't duplicate them, you're entitled
to rest easy with your own concepts, but if you get the same results,
you're obligated to agree or propose an alternate theory. Most scientists
took the easy way out, however, and simply ignored Burr and Lund.
Their discoveries remained little known, and most biologists didn't con-
nect them with the tentative morphogenetic-field concept of regenera-
tion.
Then in 1952 Lund's work was taken up by G. Marsh and H. W.
Beams using the planarian. They found that the flatworm's polarity, like
the hydra's, could be controlled by passing a current through it. When a
direct current was fed in the proper direction through a section of a
worm, normal polarity disappeared and a head formed at each end. As
the current strength was increased, the section's polarity reversed; a head
regrew at the rear, a tail at the front. At higher voltages, even intact
worms completely reorganized, with the head becoming a tail and vice
versa. Marsh and Beams grew convinced that the animal's electric field
was the morphogenetic organizing principle. Still, their work was also
ignored, except by Meryl Rose, who suggested that a gradation of elec-
trical charge from front to back controlled the gradient of growth inhib-
itors and stimulators. He suggested that the growth compounds were
charged molecules that were moved to different places in the body by
the electric field, depending on the amount and sign of their charge and
their molecular weight.
MARSH AND BEAMS'S EXPERIMENT
Undercurrents in Neurology
While the investigation of the total body field moved haltingly for-
ward in the study of simple animals, several neurophysiologists began
finding out odd things about the nerves of more complex creatures, data
that Bernstein's action potential couldn't explain. Going through the old
literature, following lead after lead from one paper to the next, I found
many hints that there were DC potentials in the nervous system and that
small currents from outside could affect brain function.
The first recorded use of currents on the nervous system was by
Giovanni Aldini, a nephew of Galvani and an ardent champion of vi-
talism. Using the batteries of his archenemy Volta, Aldini claimed re-
markable success in relieving asthma. He also cured a man who today
would probably be diagnosed as schizophrenic, although it's impossible
to know how much benefit came from the currents and how much from
simple solicitude, then so rare in treating mental illness. Aldini gave his
patient a room in his own house and later found him a job. Some of
Aldini's experiments were grotesque - he tried to resurrect recently ex-
ecuted criminals by making the corpses twitch with electricity - but his
idea that external current could replenish the vital force of exhausted
nerves became the rationale for a whole century of electrotherapy.
Modern studies of nerves and current began in 1902, when French
researcher Stephane Leduc reported putting animals to sleep by passing
fairly strong alternating currents through their heads. He even knocked
himself unconscious several times by this method. (Talk about dedica-
tion to science!) Several others took up this lead in the 1930s and devel-
oped the techniques of electroshock and electronarcosis. The therapeutic
value of using large currents to produce convulsions has been questioned
more and more, until now it's mostly used to quiet unmanageable psy-
chotics and political nonconformists. Electronarcosis—induction of sleep
by passing small currents across the head from temple to temple—is
widely used by legitimate therapists in France and the Soviet Union.
Russian doctors claim their elektroson technique, which uses electrodes on
the eyelids and behind the ears to deliver weak direct currents pulsing at
calmative brain-wave frequencies, can impart the benefits of a full
night's sleep in two or three hours. There's still much dispute about how
both techniques work, but from the outset there was no denying that
the currents had a profound effect on the nervous system.
In the second and third decades of this century there was a flurry of
interest in galvanotaxis, the idea that direct currents guided the growth
of cells, especially neurons. In 1920, S. Ingvar found that the fibers
growing out of nerve cell bodies would align themselves with a nearby
flow of current and that the fibers growing toward the negative electrode
were different from those growing toward the positive one. Paul Weiss
soon "explained" this heretical observation as an artifact caused by
stretching of the cell culture substrate due to contact with the elec-
trodes. Even after Marsh and Beams proved Weiss wrong in 1946, it
took many more years for the scientific community to accept the fact
that neuron fibers do orient themselves along a current flow. Today the
possible use of electricity to guide nerve growth is one of the most excit-
ing prospects in regeneration research (see Chapter 11).
The Bernstein hypothesis, unable to account for these facts, has
turned out to be deficient in several other respects. To begin with, ac-
cording to the theory, an impulse should travel with equal ease in either
direction along the nerve fiber. If the nerve is stimulated in the middle,
an impulse should travel in both directions to opposite ends. Instead,
impulses travel only in one direction; in experiments they can be made
to travel "upstream," but only with great difficulty. This may not seem
like such a big deal, but it is very significant. Something seems to polar-
ize the nerve.
Another problem is the fact that, although nerves are essential for
regeneration, the action potentials are silent during the process. No im-
pulses have ever been found to be related to regrowth, and neu-
rotransmitters such as acetylcholine have been ruled out as growth
stimulators.
In addition, impulses always have the same magnitude and speed.
This may not seem like such a big thing either, but think about it. It
means the nerve can carry only one message, like the digital computer's
1 or 0. This is okay for simple things like the knee-jerk reflex. When
the doctor's rubber hammer taps your knee, it's actually striking the
patellar tendon, giving it a quick stretch. This stimulates stretch recep-
tors (nerve cells in the tendon), which fire a signal to the spinal cord
saying, "The patellar tendon has suddenly been stretched." These im-
pulses are received by motor (muscle-activating) neurons in the spinal
cord, which send impulses to the large muscle on the front of the thigh,
telling it to contract and straighten the leg. In everyday life, the reflex
keeps you from falling in a heap if an outside force suddenly bends your
knees.
The digital impulse system accounts for this perfectly well. However,
no one can walk on reflexes alone, as victims of cerebral palsy know all
too well. The motor activities we take for granted—getting out of a
chair and walking across a room, picking up a cup and drinking coffee,
and so on—require integration of all the muscles and sensory organs
working smoothly together to produce coordinated movements that we
don't even have to think about. No one has ever explained how the
simple code of impulses can do all that. Even more troublesome are the
higher processes, such as sight—in which somehow we interpret a con-
stantly changing scene made of innumerable bits of visual data—or the
speech patterns, symbol recognition, and grammar of our languages.
Heading the list of riddles is the "mind-brain problem" of con-
sciousness, with its recognition, "I am real; I think; I am something
special." Then there are abstract thought, memory, personality,
creativity, and dreams. The story goes that Otto Loewi had wrestled
with the problem of the synapse for a long time without result, when
one night he had a dream in which the entire frog-heart experiment was
reveiled to him. When he awoke, he knew he'd had the dream, but he'd
forgotten the details. The next night he had the same dream. This time
he remembered the procedure, went to his lab in the morning, did the
experiment, and solved the problem. The inspiration that seemed to
banish neural electricity forever can't be explained by the theory it sup-
ported! How do you convert simple digital messages into these complex
phenomena? Latter-day mechanists have simply postulated brain cir-
cuitry so intricate that we will probably never figure it out, but some
scientists have said there must be other factors.
Even as Loewi was finishing his work on acetylcholine, others began
to find evidence that currents flowed in the nerves. English physiologist
Richard Caton had already claimed he'd detected an electric field around
the heads of animals in 1875, but it wasn't until 1924 that German
psychiatrist Hans Berger proved it by recording the first electroen-
cephalogram (EEG) from platinum wires he inserted into his son's scalp.
The EEG provided a record of rhythmic fluctuations in potential voltage
over various parts of the head. Berger at first thought there was only one
wave from the whole brain, but it soon became clear that the waves
differed, depending on where the electrodes were put. Modern EEGs use
as many as thirty-two separate channels, all over the head.
The frequency of these brain waves has been crudely correlated with
states of consciousness. Delta waves (0.5 to 3 cycles per second) indicate
deep sleep. Theta waves (4 to 8 cycles per second) indicate trance, drow-
siness, or light sleep. Alpha waves (8 to 14 cycles per second) appear
during relaxed wakefulness or meditation. And beta waves (14 to 35
cycles per second), the most uneven forms, accompany all the modula-
tions of our active everyday consciousness. Underlying these rhythms are
potentials that vary much more slowly, over periods as long as several
minutes. Today's EEG machines are designed to filter them out because
they cause the trace to wander and are considered insignificant anyway.
There's still no consensus as to where the EEG voltages come from.
They would be most easily explained by direct currents, both steady
state and pulsing, throughout the brain, but that has been impossible
for most biologists to accept. The main alternative theory, that large
numbers of neurons firing simultaneously can mimic real electrical ac-
tivity, has never been proven.
In 1939, W. E. Burge of the University of Illinois found that the
voltage measured between the head and other parts of the body became
more negative during physical activity, declined in sleep, and reversed
to positive under general anesthesia. At about the same time a group of
physiologists and neurologists at Harvard Medical School began study-
ing the brain with a group of MIT mathematicians. This association was
destined to change the world. From it came many of our modern con-
cepts of cybernetics, and it became the nucleus of the main American
task force on computers in World War II. One of the group's first im-
portant ideas was that the brain worked by a combination of analog and
digital coding.
One of the mathematicians, computer pioneer John von Neumann,
later elaborated the concept in great detail, but basically it's rather sim-
ple. In analog computers, changes in information are expressed by analo-
gous changes in the magnitude or polarity of a current. For example, if
the computer is to use and store the varying temperatures of a furnace,
the rise and fall in heat can be mimicked by a rise and fall in voltage.
Analog systems are slow and can handle only simple information, but
they can express subtle variations very well. Digital coding, on the other
hand, can transmit enormous amounts of data at high speed, but only if
the information can be reduced to yes-no, on-off bits—the digits 1 and
0. If the brain was such a hybrid computer, these early cyberneticists
reasoned, then analog coding could control the overall activity of large
groups of neurons by such actions as increasing or decreasing their sen-
sitivity to incoming messages. (A few years later neurologists did find
that some neurons were "tuned" to fire only if they received a certain
number of impulses.) The digital system would transfer sensory and
motor information, but the processing of that information—memory
and recall, thought, and so on—would be accomplished by the syn-
ergism of both methods. The voltage changes Burge found in response
to major alterations of consciousness seemed to fit within this frame-
work, and his observations were extended by the Harvard-MIT group
and others. Much of this work was done directly on the exposed brains
of animals and of human patients during surgery. When cooperative
patients elected to remain awake during such operations (the brain is
immune to pain), human sensations could often be correlated with elec-
trical data. Contributors to this endeavor included nearly all of the
greatest American neurophysiologists—Walter B. Cannon, Arturo Ro-
senblueth, Ralph Gerard, Gilbert Ling, Wilder Penfield, and others.
Measurements on the exposed brain quickly confirmed the existence of
potential voltages and also revealed possible currents of injury. When-
ever groups of nerve cells were actively conducting impulses, they also
produced a negative potential. Positive potentials appeared from injured
cells when the brain had been damaged; these potentials then expanded
outward to uninjured cells, suppressing their ability to send or receive
impulses. When experimenters applied small negative voltages to groups
of neurons, their sensitivity increased; that is, they would generate an
impulse in response to a weaker stimulus. Externally applied positive
potentials worked in the opposite way: They depressed nerve function,
making it harder to produce an impulse. Thus there did seem to be an
analog code, but how did it work? Did the potentials come from direct
currents generated by the nerve cells themselves, or did they merely
result from adding up a lot of action potentials all going in the same
direction and arriving in the same place at the same time?
Some answers were provided by a series of beautiful experiments by
Ling, Gerard, and Benjamin Libet at the University of Chicago. Work-
ing on frogs, they studied areas of the cortex where the neuron layer was
only one cell thick and the cells were arranged side by side like soldiers
on review, all pointing in the same direction. In such areas they found a
negative potential on the dendrites (the short incoming fibers) and a
positive potential at the ends of the axons (the longer outgoing fibers).
This indicated a steady direct current along the normal direction of im-
pulse transmission. The entire nerve cell was electrically polarized.
POLARIZED NERVE CELLS LINED UP IN CEREBRAL CORTEX
In another series of experiments, on brains removed from frogs and

kept alive in culture, the Chicago group found that direct currents swept
across the surface of the cortex in very slow waves, which could be pro-
duced experimentally by applying chemicals such as caffeine to a single
spot on the surface. When they made a cut on the brain, severing groups
of nerve fibers, these DC traveling waves would still cross the cut if the
two surfaces were in direct contact. If the researchers held the cut open and
filled it with a saline solution that matched body fluids, then the waves
couldn't cross the gap. These were particularly important observations.
They indicated that the current was transmitted by structures outside the
neurons; it crossed the cut when the edges touched, but the microscopic
parts of the severed neurons wouldn't have rejoined so easily. The results
also showed that the current was not a flow of ions; otherwise it would
have been able to cross the gap through the salt water.
Studying intact brains in living frogs, the lame group found a poten-
tial between the front and back of the brain. The olfactory (frontal) lobes
were several milivolts negative with respect to the occipital (rear) lobe,
implying a current flowing up the brain stem and between the two
hemispheres to the front.
At the time, these observations seemed mighty odd. They didn't fit
any concepts of how the nerves worked. As a result, they were largely
ignored. The majority of neurophysiologists went on measuring the ac-
tion potentials and tracing out fiber pathways in the brain. This was
useful work but limited. The basic questions remained.
Only one research team followed up this work, some ten years later.
Sidney Goldring and James L. O'Leary, neuropsychiatrists at the Wash-
ington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, recorded the same
DC potentials from the human scalp, from the exposed brain during
surgery, and from the brains of monkeys and rabbits. As noted before,
the potentials varied in regular cycles several minutes long, like a basso
continuo under the EEG. In fact, Goldring and O'Leary found waves
within waves: "Written upon the slow major swings were lesser voltage
changes." These were weak potentials, measured in microvolts (mil-
lionths of a volt) and varying in waves of 2 to 30 cycles per minute, sort
of a pianissimo "inner voice" in a three-part electrical fugue.
Conducting in a New Mode
I was acutely aware that I didn't have the "proper" background for the
work I planned to do. I wasn't a professional neurophysiologist; I didn't
even know one. Indeed, after my run-in with the research committee,
one member had taken me aside and earnestly advised me, "Go back to
school and get your Ph.D., Becker. Then you'll learn all of this stuff is
nonsense." Still, some of the greatest neurophysiologists had thought
the same way I did about "all of this stuff." They suggested we might
have been too hasty in throwing electric currents out of biology. My
notion of putting them back in wasn't so outlandish, but only an exten-
sion of what they'd been saying. I was approaching the body's system of
information transfer from the periphery, asking, "What makes wounds
heal?" They'd started from the center, asking, "How does the brain
work?" We were working on the same problem from opposite ends. As I
contemplated their findings and all of biology's unsolved problems, I
grew convinced that life was more complex than we suspected. I felt that
those who reduced life to a mechanical interaction of molecules were
living in a cold, gray, dead world, which, despite its drabness, was a
fantasy. I didn't think electricity would turn to be any elan vital in
the old sense, but I had a hunch would be closer to the secret than the
smells of the biochemistry lab or the dissecting room's preserved organs.
I had another worthy ally when I started to reevaluate the role of
electricity in life. Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, who'd already won a Nobel
Prize for his work on oxidation and vitamin C, made a stunning sugges-
tion in a speech before the Budapest Academy of Science on March 21,
1941. (Think of the date. World War II was literally exploding around
him, and there he was, calmly laying the foundations for a new biology.)
Speaking of the mechanistic approach of biochemistry, he pointed out
that when experimenters broke living things down into their constituent
parts, somewhere along the line life slipped through their fingers and
they found themselves working with dead matter. He said, "It looks as
if some basic fact about life were still missing, without which any real
understanding is impossible." For the missing basic fact, Szent-Gyorgyi
proposed putting electricity back into living things, but not in the way
it had been thought of at the turn of the century.
At that earlier time, there had been only two known modes of current
conduction, ionic and metallic. Metallic conduction can be visualized as
a cloud of electrons moving along the surface of metal, usually a wire. It
can be automatically excluded from living creatures because no one has
ever found any wires in them. Ionic current is conducted in solutions by
the movement of ions—atoms or molecules charged by having more or
fewer than the number of electrons needed to balance their protons'
positive charges. Since ions are much bigger than electrons, they move
more laboriously through the conducting medium, and ionic currents
die out after short distances. They work fine across the thin membrane of
the nerve fiber, but it would be impossible to sustain an ionic current
down the length of even the shortest nerve.
Semiconduction, the third kind of current, was a laboratory curiosity
in the 1930s. Halfway between conductors and insulators, the semicon-
ductors are inefficient, in the sense that they can carry only small cur-
rents, but they can conduct their currents readily over long distances.
Without them, modern computers, satellites, and all the rest of our
solid-state electronics would be impossible.
Semiconduction occurs only in materials having an orderly molecular
structure, such as crystals, in which electrons can move easily from the
electron cloud around one atomic nucleus to the cloud around another.
The atoms in a crystal are arranged in neat geometrieal lattices, rather
than the frozen jumble of ordinary solids. Some crystalline materials
have spaces in the lattice where other atoms can fit. The atoms of these
impurities may have more or fewer electrons than the atoms of the lat-
tice material. Since the forces of the latticework structure hold the same
number of electrons in place around each atom, the "extra" electrons of
the impurity atoms are free to move through the lattice without being
bound to any particular atom. If the impurity atoms have fewer electrons
than the others, the "holes" in their electron clouds can be filled by
electrons from other atoms, leaving holes elsewhere. A negative current,
or N-type semiconduction, amounts to the movement of excess elec-
trons; a positive current, or P-type semiconduction, is the movement of
these holes, which can be thought of as positive charges.
THREE WAYS OF CONDUCTING ELECTRICAL CURRENT
Szent-Gyorgyi pointed out that the molecular structure of many parts

of the cell was regular enough to support semiconduction. This idea was
almost completely ignored at the time. Even when Szent-Gyorgyi ex-
panded the concept in his I960 Introduction to a Submolecular Biology,
most scientists (except in Russia!) dismissed it as evidence of his advanc-
ing age, but that little book was an inspiration to me. I think it may
turn out to be the man's most important contribution to science. In it
he conjectured that protein molecules, each having a sort of slot or way
station for mobile electrons, might be joined together in long chains so
that electrons could flow in a semiconducting current over long distances
without losing energy, much as in a game of checkers one counter could
jump along a row of other pieces across the entire board. Szent-Gyorgyi
suggested that the electron flow would be smilar to photosynthesis,
another process he helped elucidate, in which a kind of waterfall of elec-
trons cascaded step by step down a staircase of molecules, losing energy
with each bounce. The main difference was that in protein semiconduc-
tion the electrons' energy would be conserved and passed along as infor-
mation instead of being absorbed and stored in the chemical bonds of
food.
With Szent-Gyorgyi's suggestion in mind, I put together my working
hypothesis. I postulated a primitive, analog-coded information system
that was closely related to the nerves but not necessarily located in the
nerve fibers themselves. I theorized that this system used semiconduct-
ing direct currents and that, either alone or in concert with the nerve
impulse system, it regulated growth, healing, and perhaps other basic
processes.
Testing the Concept
The first order of business was to repeat Burr's measurements on sala-

manders, using modern equipment. I put the reference electrode at the
tip of each animal's nose and moved the recording electrode point by
point along the center of the body to the tip of the tail, and then out
along each limb. I measured voltages on the rest of the body and plotted
lines of force connecting all the points where the readings were the
same.
Instead of Burr's simple head-negative and tail-positive form, I found
a complex field that followed the arrangement of the nervous system.
There were large positive potentials over each lobe of the brain, and
slightly smaller ones over the brachial and lumbar nerve ganglia between
each pair of limbs. The readings grew increasingly negative as I moved
away from these collections of nerve cell bodies; the hands, feet, and tip
of the tail had the highest negative potentials.
In another series of measurements, I watched the potentials develop
along with the nervous system in larval salamanders. In the adults, cut-
ting the nerves where they entered the legs—that is, severing the long
nerve fibers from their cell bodies in the spinal cord—wiped out the
limb potentials almost entirely. But if I cut the spinal cord, leaving the
peripheral nerves connected to their cell bodies, the limb potentials
didn't change. It certainly looked as though there was a current being
generated in the nerve cell bodies and traveling down the fibers.
To have a current flow you need a circuit; the current has to be made
at one spot, pass through a conductor, and eventually get back to the
generator. We tend to forget that the 60-cycle alternating current in the
ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE SALAMANDER
wall socket isn't used up when we turn on a light but is merely coursing
through it to the ground, through which it eventually returns to the
power station. Since my measurements were positive over collections of
nerve cell bodies, and increasingly negative out along the nerve fibers, it
seemed a good bet that current was being generated in the cell bodies,
especially since they contained all of the "good stuff"—the nucleus,
organelles, and metabolic components—while the fibers were relatively
uninteresting prolongations of the body. At the time, I supposed the
circuit was completed by current going back toward the spine through
the muscles.
This was a good start, but it wasn't scientifically acceptable proof. For
one thing, my guess about the return part of the circuit was soon dis-
proved when I measured the limb muscles and found them polarized in
the same direction as the surface potentials. For another thing, it had
recently been discovered that amphibian skin itself was polarized, inside
versus outside, by ion differences much like the nerve membrane's rest-
ing potential, so it was just barely possible that my readings had been
caused by ionic discharges through the moist skin. If so, my evidence
was literally all wet.
Much of the uncertainty was due to the fact that I was measuring the
outside of the animal and assuming that generators and conductors inside
were making the pattern I found. I needed a way to relate inner currents
to outer potentials.
This was before transistors had entirely replaced vacuum tubes. A
tube's characteristics depended on the structure of the electric field in-
side it, but to calculate the field parameters in advance without comput-
ers was a laborious task, so radio engineers often made an analog model.
They built a large mock-up of the tube, filled with a conducting solu-
tion. When current was applied to the model, the field could be mapped
by measuring the voltage at various points in the solution. I decided to
build a model salamander.
I made an analog of the creature's nervous system out of copper wires.
For the brain and nerve ganglia I used blobs of solder. Each junction was
thus a voltaic battery of two different metals, copper and the lead-tin
alloy of which the solder was made. Then I simply sandwiched this
"nervous system" between two pieces of sponge rubber cut in the shape
of a salamander, and soaked the model in a salt solution to approximate
body fluids and serve as the electrolyte, the conducting solution that
would enable the two metals to function as a battery. It worked. The
readings were almost exactly the same as in the real salamander. This
showed that a direct current inside could produce the potentials I was
getting on the outside.
If my proposed system was really a primitive part of the nervous sys-
tem, it should be widely distributed, so next I surveyed the whole ani-
mal kingdom. I tested flatworms, earthworms, fish, amphibians,
reptiles, mammals, and humans. In each species the potentials on the
skin reflected the arrangement of the nervous system. In the worms and
fish, there was only one area of positive potential, just as there was only
one major nerve ganglion, the brain. In humans the entire head and
spinal region, with its massive concentration of neurons, was strongly
positive. The three specific areas of greatest positive potential were the
same as in the salamander: the brain, the brachial plexus between the
shoulder blades, and the lumbar enlargement at the base of the spinal
cord. In all vertebrates I also recorded a midline head potential that
suggested a direct current like that postulated by Gerard, flowing from
back to front through the middle of the brain. It looked as though the
current came from the reticular activating system, a network of cross-
linked neurons that fanned out from the brainstem into higher centers
and seemed to control the level of sleep or wakefulness and the focus of
attention.
A DC FIELD PATTERN APPEARS IN ALL ANIMALS

THE HUMAN DC FIELD PATTERN
At the same time, to see whether the current of injury and the surface
potentials came from the same source, I made electrical measurements
on salamander limbs as they healed fractures. (As mentioned in Chapter
1, bone healing is the only kind of true regeneration common to all
vertebrates.) The limb currents behaved like those accompanying re-
growth. A positive zone immediately formed around the break, although
the rest of the limb retained at least part of its negative potential. Then,
between the fifth and tenth days, the positive zone reversed its potential
and became more strongly negative than the rest of the limb as the
fracture began to heal.
Next I decided to follow up Burge's experiments of two decades be-
fore. I would produce various changes in the state of the nervous system
and look for concomitant changes in the electrical measurements. To do
this right I really needed a few thousand dollars for an apparatus that
could take readings from several electrodes simultaneously and record
them side by side on a chart. My chances of getting this money seemed
THE DC FIELD NEAR A FRACTURE
slim unless I could publish another paper fast. I decided to use the
equipment I had for a simple measurement during one of the most pro-
found changes in consciousness—anesthesia.
Burge was right. The electrical responses were dramatic and in-
controvertible. As each animal went under, its peripheral voltages
dropped to zero, and in very deep anesthesia they reversed to some ex-
tent, the limbs and tail going positive. They reverted to normal just
before the animal woke up.
I had enough for a short paper, and I decided to try a journal on
medical electronics recently started by the Institute of Radio Engineers.
Although most of what they printed was safe and unremarkable, I'd
found that engineers were often more open-minded than biologists, so I
went for broke; I put in the whole hypothesis—analog nervous system,
semiconducting currents, healing control, the works. The editor loved it
and sent me an enthusiastic letter of acceptance, along with suggestions
for further research. Best of all, I soon got another small grant approved
and bought my multi-electrode chart recorder. Soon I had confirmed my
anesthesia findings, and with the whole-body monitoring setup I also
was able to correlate the entire pattern of surface voltages with the ani-
mal's level of activity while not anesthetized. Negative potentials in the
brain's frontal area and at the periphery of the nervous system were asso-
ciated with wakefulness, sensory stimuli, and muscle movements. The
more activity, the greater the negative potentials were. A shift toward
the positive occurred during rest and even more so during sleep. *
In my reading on solid-state electronics I found another way I could

test for current in the salamander. Luckily it was cheap and easy; I could
do it without buying more equipment. Best of all, it should work only
if the current was semiconducting.
Suppose you think you have a current flowing through some conduc-
tor—a salamander's limb, for instance. You put it in a strong magnetic
field so that the lines of force cut across the conductor at right angles.
Then you place another conductor, containing no current, perpendicular
to both the original conductor (the limb) and the magnetic field. If there
is a current in whatever you're testing, some of the charge carriers will
be deflected by the magnetic field into the other conductor, producing a
voltage that you can measure. This is called the Hall voltage, after the
gentleman who discovered it. The beauty of it is that it works dif-
ferently for the three kinds of current. For any given strength of mag-
*l didn't know it until later, but another experimenter named H. Caspers made
similar findings at about the same time.
netic field, the Hall voltage is proportional to the mobility of the charge
carriers. Ions in a solution are relatively big and barely deflected by the
field. Electrons in a wire are constrained by the nature of the metal. In
both cases the Hall voltage is small and hard to detect. Electrons in
semiconductors are very free to move, however, and produce Hall volt-
ages with much weaker fields.
After finding a C-shaped permanent magnet, an item not much in
demand since the advent of electromagnets, I set up the equipment. I
took a deep breath as I placed the first anesthetized salamander on its
plastic support, with one foreleg extended. I'd placed electrodes so that
they touched the limb lightly, one on each side, and I'd mounted the
magnet so as to swing in with its poles above and below the limb, close
to yet not touching it. I took voltage measurements every few minutes,
with the magnet and without it, as the animal regained consciousness. I
also measured the DC voltage from the tips of the fingers to the spinal
cord. In deep anesthesia, the DC voltage along the limb was zero and so
was the Hall voltage. As the anesthetic wore off, the normal potential
along the limb gradually appeared, and so did a beautiful Hall voltage.
It increased right along with the limb potential, until the animal re-
covered completely and walked away from the apparatus. The test
worked every time, but I don't think I'll ever forget the thrill of watch-
ing the pen on the recorder trace out the first of those Hall voltages.
THE HALL EFFECT

This experiment demonstrated unequivocally that there was a real
electric current flowing along the salamander's foreleg, and it virtually
proved that the current was semiconducting. In fact, the half-dozen tests
I'd performed supported every point of my hypothesis.
Scientific results that aren't reported might as well not exist. They're
like the sound of one hand clapping. For scientists, communication isn't
only a responsibility, it's our chief pleasure. A good result from a clean,
beautiful experiment is a joy that you just have to share, and I couldn't
wait to see these data in print. I went for the top this time. The journal
in American science is aptly named Science. Each issue reports on all
fields from astronomy to zoology, so publication means a paper has more
than a specialized significance. Mine was accepted, and I was jubilant.
With three major papers in three major journals after my first year of
research, I felt I'd arrived. The world has a way of cutting you down to
size, however, and in the science game the method is known as citation.
No matter how important your paper is, it doesn't mean anything unless
it's cited as a reference in new papers by others and you get a respectable
number of requests for reprints. On both counts, I was a failure. I was
learning how science treats new ideas that conflict with old ones.
I didn't stay discouraged long, though. I was doing science for the
love of it, not for praise. I felt the concepts emerging from my reading
and research were important, and I was passionately committed to test-
ing them. I knew that if the results were ever to change any minds, I
would have to be careful not to misinterpret data. In going deeper into
the electrical properties of nerves, I realized, I was about to get over my
head in an area I really wasn't trained for—physics. I made one of the
best decisions of my life; I looked for a collaborator.
The basic scientists at the State University of New York Upstate
Medical Center, the medical school affiliated with the VA hospital, were
not only uninterested, they were horrified at what I was doing and
wouldn't risk their reputations by becoming associated with me in any
way. So, I walked across the street to the physics department of Syracuse
University and spoke to the chairman, an astronomer whom I'd met a
few years earlier when I volunteered to watch the northern lights during
the International Geophysical Year. After a few minutes' thought, he
suggested that a guy on the third floor named Charlie Bachman might
be "as crazy as you," and wished me luck.
The instant I opened the door, I knew I was in the right place. There
was Charlie, bent over a workbench with an electromagnet and a live
frog.
Five
The Circuit of
Awareness
Charlie and I talked all afternoon, beginning fifteen years of fruitful

work together. For me, the best part was his friendship and his open
mind. He, too, knew there was still a lot to learn. Our relationship also
had a side effect of incalculable value: He sent some of his most talented
graduate students over to my lab to do their thesis work and later to
become my colleagues in research. Andy Marino, Joe Spadaro, and Maria
Reichmanis each became an indispensable part of the research group.
Like Charlie, they constantly contributed new ideas, and they helped
create the atmosphere of intellectual adventurousness that makes a lab
creative.
Closing the Circle
Charlie's first contribution was to check the equipment and confirm the
measurements I'd made on the salamanders. After he'd satisfied himself
that everything was real, we discussed what to do next.
"Well," Charlie said, "to find out more about this current, we'll have
to go into the animal—expose a nerve and measure the current there."
"That's easier said than done," I objected. "Just to cut down into the
leg of an animal will damage tissues and produce currents of injury.
That'll give spurious voltages. Besides, there'd be no stable place to put
the reference electrode."
Charlie gave me a lesson in basic electronics. A voltage entering a
wire will decrease as the current travels along, so there'll be a uniform
voltage drop in each unit of length. All you need to do is put both
electrodes along the conductor, with the reference electrode closer to
what you think is the source. If you use a standard distance between the
electrodes, you can compare the voltage drop along various wires and
measure changes in the whole system from any segment of it.
All I had to do was the surgery. I decided to work on bullfrogs,
whose hind legs were long and contained a nice big sciatic nerve. It was
easy to find and could be exposed with just a little careful dissection,
going between muscles instead of cutting through them. I was able to
isolate over an inch of nerve with no bleeding or tissue damage, slipping
a plastic sheet underneath so as not to pick up readings from the sur-
rounding muscles. We measured the voltage gradient over a standard
distance of 1 centimeter. It was the same from one frog to the next. In
deep anesthesia it was absent or pretty small; as the anesthesia wore off,
it became a constant drop of about 4 millivolts per centimeter, always
gradually positive toward the spinal cord and negative toward the toes.
In some frogs we cut the nerve above the measuring site, whereupon
the voltages disappeared—another indication that the current was actu-
ally in the nerve. Voltages returned a little later, but they weren't the
same as before. We figured these secondary voltages were probably an
artifact—a spurious measurement produced by extraneous factors—
caused by currents of injury from the cut nerve itself or from the other
tissues where I'd made the incision to cut the nerve.
Charlie then suggested that we make measurements on a longer sec-
tion of nerve, and that was when we ran into a puzzle. The nicely re-
producible voltages we'd found before couldn't be duplicated when we
extended our measurement distance to 2 centimeters, close to the knee.
We expected double the potential we'd found over the 1-centimeter dis-
tance, but often it was lower or higher than it should have been. I
insisted that my dissection was producing local currents of injury that
made our readings unpredictable. However, Charlie pointed out that I
was a good frog surgeon and I didn't seem to be doing any more damage
than before. He asked, "Could there be any difference in the nerve where
you extended the dissection?"
"Not likely," I said. "The sciatic nerve does split up into two
branches, but you only find them below the knee, when one goes to the
front of the calf and one to the back."
"How do you know it doesn't separate before it gets to the knee?" he asked.
The Circuit of Awareness 105
He was right. Not bad for a physicist! The nerve did divide, but the
two parts were held together by the nerve sheath until they got past the
knee. I was able to remove the sheath and isolate both portions. When
we measured these, we found that the two sections were polarized in
opposite directions. The voltage drop of the front branch was positive
toward the toes. The posterior branch was polarized in the same direc-
tion as the sciatic trunk, but it always had a higher voltage gradient.
The current in the front branch apparently flowed in the direction op-
posite to that in the rest of the nerve. The interesting thing was, when
we added up the voltage increases from 1-centimeter lengths of the two
branches—4 millivolts positive and 8 negative in a typical frog—we got
roughly the same voltage gradient that we found in the main nerve,
about 4 millivolts negative in every centimeter. At first that didn't make
On a hunch I took pieces of each nerve and sent them to the pa-
thology department to have microscope slides made. I found that the
fibers in the front fork were smaller than those in the other. A light bulb
went on! The sciatic nerve is what's called a mixed nerve. It has both
motor and sensory neurons. Sensory fibers are usually narrower than
motor fibers, so it looked as though the front branch was all sensory, the
back one all motor. Suppose the DC system also had incoming and out-
going divisions. We took readings from other nerves known to be all
one type or the other. The femoral nerve along the front of the thigh is
almost entirely motor in function, and, sure enough, it had an increas-
ing negative potential away from the spine. The spinal nerves that serve
the skin of a frog's back are sensory fibers, and they had increasing
negative voltages toward the spine.
Now we saw that when you put motor and sensory nerves together
into a reflex arc, the current flow formed an unbroken loop. This solved
the mystery of what completed the circuit: The current returned through
nerves, not some other tissue. Just as Gerard had found in the brain,
nerves throughout the body were uniformly polarized, positive at the
input fiber, or dendrite, and negative at the output fiber, or axon. We
realized that this electrical polarization might be what guided the im-
pulses to move in one direction only, giving coherence to the nervous
system.
The Artifact Man and a Friend in Deed
Charlie had helped develop the electron microscope and as a result knew
many of the big names in physiology. Soon after the sciatic nerve experi-
ments, one of these acquaintances visited Syracuse to give a lecture, and
we invited him to stop by the lab. After showing him around and talk-
ing about the background of the work, we showed him our latest re-
sults. We anesthetized four frogs and opened their legs, exposing all
eight sciatic nerves and measuring all sixteen branches. The readings
were flawless. Every nerve had the voltage and polarity we'd predicted.
Proudly, we asked, "What do you think?"
"Artifact, all artifact," he replied. "Everyone knows there's no current
along the nerve." Just then he remembered he had pressing business
elsewhere and left in a hurry, apparently afraid some of this might rub
off on him.
Charlie almost never swore, but that day he did. The gist of his re-
marks was that there sure was a difference between physicists and biolo-
gists. The former would at least look at new evidence, while the latter
kept their eyes and minds closed. Thereafter we always referred to the
"Artifact Man'' when we needed a symbol of dogmatism.
We continued a few more observations on frog nerves. By now winter
had come. That shouldn't have mattered—the lab temperature was the
same all year, and the frogs didn't stop eating and hibernate as they
would have in the wild—but there was a difference. The frogs' voltages
were much lower, they stayed unconscious longer with the standard dose
of anesthetic, and their blood vessels were much more fragile. Did they
somehow sense the winter?
If the DC system was as we theorized, it would be influenced by
external magnetic fields. In the Hall-effect experiment I'd already shown
that it was, but I'd used a strong field, measuring thousands of gauss.
The earth's magnetic field is only about half a gauss, but it does vary in
a yearly cycle. At the time there was another scientist who was saying
this weak field had major effects on all life. Frank A. Brown, a North-
western University biologist who was studying the ubiquitous phenome-
non of biological cycles—wavelike changes in metabolic functions, such
as the alternation of sleep and wakefulness—was claiming that similar
rhythms in the earth's magnetic field served as timers for the rhythms of
life. Even though his evidence was good, no one paid any attention to
him in the early sixties, but it seemed to me that we had something to
offer Brown's effort. We had a link by means of which the effect could
occur.
I wrote up the sciatic nerve measurements and added the observation
on winter frogs. I sent it to Science but got it back immediately. I guess
the editors had second thoughts after running my paper on the Hall
effect. Next I tried the even better British equivalent, Nature, which
took it. This time I also got some reprint requests. More important, the
report led to correspondence with Frank Brown, beginning years of mu-
tual feedback that helped bring about the discoveries described in Chap-
ter 14.
I thought of one more way we could check whether the current in the
nerves was semiconducting. We could freeze a section of nerve between
the electrodes. If the current was carried by ions, they would be frozen
in place and the voltage would drop to zero. However, if the charge
carriers were electrons in some sort of semiconducting lattice, their mo-
bility would be enhanced by freezing and the voltage would rise.
It worked. Each time I touched the nerve with a small glass tube
filled with liquid nitrogen, the voltage shot upward. But perhaps I was
damaging the nerve with the glass tube or through the freezing itself.
Maybe the increase was merely a current of injury. To check, we simply
cut the nerve near the spinal cord; the voltage gradient on the nerve
went to zero, and then we applied the liquid nitrogen again. If the cold
was really enhancing a semiconducting current, we should find no volt-
age now even after freezing the nerve—and we didn't. Therefore the
increase in current wasn't due to artifact—damage to the nerve by freez-
ing or touching it with the tube.
That settled it. Test after test had substantiated the direct-current
system. Now we had to see where the concept would lead us and try to
convince some of the Artifact Men along the way. We had lots of ideas
for further work, but now the first priority was to get some reliable
system of funding for ourselves.
I was continuing to have problems with the VA research office. After
I'd gotten my second grant from that source, I soon found out that to
have it approved and to be able to spend it were two different things. To
order supplies—even things as simple as test tubes or electrode wire—I
had to fill out a form and give it to the secretary of the research office.
She had to fill out another form and get it signed by the research direc-
tor. This form went to the supply service, where a clerk filled out a third
form to actually order the stuff. Well, my orders stopped getting filled.
In the process of complaining I made friends with the secretaries and
found out that the director was holding me up just by not signing my
forms. His secretary solved my problem. The director was a pro-
crastinator. A pile of papers would collect on his desk until his secretary
told him they had to be taken care of right away. Then he would sign
them all at once without looking at each one. His secretary, to whom I
owe a tremendous debt, merely slipped my requests back into the mid-
dle of the pile, usually late on Friday afternoon. Several times he visited
my lab, saw a new piece of equipment, and remarked, "I don't re-
member ordering that for you."
"You don't?" I replied sweetly. "We talked about it, and I had plenty
of money left in the grant, so you said okay." It was better than arguing
over each instrument, and I was careful not to overspend. I don't think
he ever caught on.
Soon I encountered a more serious threat, however. Between the VA
and the medical school I had a lot of bosses, and all of them were doing
"research." However, the research service's annual report showed that I'd
published more than all of my superiors put together on a few thousand
bucks a year, while some of them were drawing forty or fifty thousand.
I'd broken the old rule that you should never do more than your boss.
One of these fellows appeared in my lab one day. That was an event in
itself, since he'd never been a supporter of mine; in fact, our relations
were rather strained That day, however, he evinced great interest in
what I was doing and made me an "offer I couldn't refuse."
"How would you like to have as much money as you need?"
I said that would be nice, but I wondered how it could come about.
"No problem. All you have to do is include me in the project. All I
would expect in return is that my name would go on all publications."
It was a few seconds before I could believe I'd heard him right. Then I
told him what he could do with his influence.
A few months later, I found out that the area surgical consultant,
practically next to God in the VA hierarchy, was visiting the hospital to
act on a report, made by my would-be "benefactor," that I was spending
too much time on research and neglecting my patients. Fortunately,
there was a lot of infighting among my superiors, and one higher than
the guy who'd made the charge was supporting me. His motives were
less to save a promising research program and more to embarrass the
other man, but I was cleared.
It was also clear that I was courting disaster by relying on VA money.
I needed outside support. I took time off from research to prepare two
proposals. One, which I sent to the Department of the Army, empha-
sized the possibility that direct currents could stimulate healing. Since
the Army's business produces quite a few wounds, I thought it would be
interested, but it was not. The proposal was turned down promptly, but
then a strange thing happened about a month later. I received a long-
distance call from a prominent orthopedic surgeon, a professor at a med-
ical school in the South. "I have a grant from the Army to study the
possibility that direct currents might stimulate wound healing," he
purred, "and I wonder if you might have any suggestions as to the best
approach to use."
My God, were they all this sleazy out there? Of course, when I looked
up his credentials, I found he had absolutely no background in bio-
electricity. He'd just happened to be on the Army review committee,
recommended disapproval, and then turned around and submitted the
idea in his own name, now getting the go-ahead since he, a man with a
reputation and friends on the review board, was going to do it, instead
of some unknown upstart.
I sent the second application to the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). I stayed within my specialty and proposed to study the solid-
state physics of bone, eventually hoping to find out if direct currents
could stimulate bone healing. The grant was approved, but only for
enough money to do part of what I wanted. And although it was nice to
have a cushion, a source not under local control, I nevertheless needed
some political clout to stabilize the situation in Syracuse. I went directly
to the dean of the medical school.
Carlyle Jacobson had seemed to be a nice guy, not the type to stand
on ceremony or position, and I thought I could talk to him frankly. I
gathered up reprints of my papers and went to his office.
"Sir," I began, "I've been doing research on direct current electrical
effects in living things for the past four years. I've gotten some papers
published in good journals, and I think this is an important piece of
work. Nevertheless, I have great difficulty getting funds from the VA.
My requests are blocked by the politicians on the committee. Meanwhile
these same guys are spending five times as much as I get, and they don't
publish a damn thing." I'm afraid I got carried away, but Dean Jacobsen
just sat there listening until I'd finished.
"Have you done any experiments on the DC activity of the nervous
system?" he asked.
This was an unexpected question, but I told him of our work on
salamanders and frog nerves.
It turned out he'd done some research on nerves years ago—with
Ralph Gerard! He was very enthusiastic. "You've gone much further
than we ever did," he told me. "We never thought to relate the brain
currents to a total-body system. How much do you need?"
I asked for $25,000 in each of the next two years, but explained that
it had to be earmarked for me alone or I would never see it.
"Don't worry," he said. "Go right back to your lab. I'll get it for you.
I wish I could work with you."
He must have been dialing Washington as the door closed behind me,
for the next day the chief of research got a telegram from the VA Central
Office authorizing the requested amount for me, and only me. He
couldn't understand it, and I professed complete ignorance, too.
I figured nothing I did now could make the research director like me
any less, so I made another move. I went to the hospital director and told
him I needed more space. Having heard of my favor from Washington, he
was most helpful, and soon I had a suite of rooms on the top floor.
Suddenly a whole new realm of research was within reach. Charlie and
I hardly knew which way to turn. Our first and most important step was
to hire Andy Marino as a technician. The salary meant much to him,
and his intelligence and dedication meant even more to us. We were on
our way.
The Electromagnetic Brain
If the current controlled the way nerves worked in the brain as well as in
the rest of the body, then it must regulate consciousness to some extent.
Certainly the falling voltages in anesthetized salamanders supported this
idea. The question was: Did the change in the current produce anesthesia?
Apparently it did, for when I passed a minute current front to back
through a salamander's head so as to cancel out its internal current, it
fell unconscious. How this state compared with normal sleep was impos-
sible to tell, but at least the animal was clinically anesthetized. As long
as the current was on, the salamander was motionless and unresponsive
to painful stimuli.
Was this real anesthesia, or was the animal just being continuously
shocked? This certainly didn't seem to be the case, but the observation
was so important and so basic to neurophysiology that I had to be sure.
It was no easy task, however, for there were, and still are, few objective
tests known for anesthesia, especially in salamanders. Brain waves had
turned out to be useless in gauging depth of anesthesia in humans, be-
cause the one good marker—very slow delta waves—only showed up
when the patient was dangerously close to death. Lacking any better
idea, however, I used my new multi-electrode monitor to make EEG
recordings of chemically anesthetized salamanders and found that they
showed prominent delta waves even though they all recovered nicely.
Delta waves would be my marker. The idea worked beautifully. Very
small currents gave me delta waves on the EEG, the waves got bigger as
I increased the current, and they all correlated with the animal's periods
of unresponsiveness. , .
DC THROUGH THE HEAD ANESTHETIZES THE SALAMANDER
This result naturally led to the question: Did chemical anesthetics

work by stopping the brain's electrical current? I couldn't see any way to
get direct evidence one way or the other, but I thought maybe chemical
anesthesia could be reversed by putting current into the brain in the
normal direction. I found this could be done only to a certain extent. I
could get a partial return of the higher frequency waves in the EEG, and
the anesthesia seemed to become shallower, but I couldn't get a drugged
salamander to wake up and walk away.
DC THROUGH THE HEAD PARTIALLY AWAKENS THE SALAMANDER
In the course of these observations, I found that when the head volt-
age was dropping as a chemical anesthetic took hold, specific slow waves
always appeared briefly in the recordings. They were at the low end of
the delta frequencies, 1 cycle per second or even less, and they also
showed up when the voltage came back as the drug wore off. To find out
if these waves always signaled a major change in the state of con-
sciousness, I decided to use a standard amount of direct current to pro-
duce anesthesia, measure the amplitude (size) of the delta waves in the
EEG, and then add some one-second waves of my own to the current I
was putting into the animal's head. In other words, I would introduce
some "change-of-state" waves from outside and see if they produced a
shift in the EEG. I couldn't record the EEG simultaneously, because the
waves I added would appear on the trace, so I rigged up a switch to cut
out the added waves after a minute and turn on the EEG recorder at the
same time, without stopping the direct current that would keep the
salamander unconscious.
It seemed to work. The added waves markedly increased the ampli-
tude of the salamander's own deep-sleep delta waves. Was this an ar-
tifact? Were the added waves just causing an oscillation in the brain
currents that persisted after the external rhythms were removed? It
didn't seem likely, because the waves I added were at the change-of-state
frequency of 1 cycle per second, while the measured deltas were at the
deep-sleep frequency of 3. However, an additional test was possible. I
could add waves of other frequencies and see if they worked as well as 1
cycle per second. They didn't; in fact, as the frequency of the added
waves increased over that rate, the deep-sleep delta waves got smaller.
The one-second waves were a marker of major shifts in consciousness.
This line of work corroborated one of the main points of my hypoth-
esis. Direct currents within the central nervous system regulated the
level of sensitivity of the neurons by several methods by (hanging the
amount of current in one direction, by changing the direction of the
current (reversing the polarity), and by modulating the current with
slow waves. Moreover, we could exert the same control from outside by
putting current of each type into the head. This was exciting. It opened
up vast new possibilities for a better understanding of the brain. It was
still on the edge of respectability, too, since it was a logical consequence
of the work done by Gerard and his co-workers. The next experiment
was harder to believe, however.
I figured the brain currents must be semiconducting, like those in the
peripheral nerves. I thought of looking for a Hall voltage from the head
but reasoned the brain's complexity would make any results question-
able. Then I thought of using the effect backward, so to speak, measur-
ing a magnetic field's action on the brain rather than on the production
of the Hall voltage. Since the Hall voltage was produced by diverting
some of the charge carriers from the original current direction, a strong
enough magnetic field should divert all of them. If so, such a field per-
pendicular to the brain's midline current should have the same effect as
canceling out that normal current with one applied from the outside.
The animal should fall asleep.
THE HALL EFFECT—A TEST FOR SEMICONDUCTING CURRENTS
We tranquilized a salamander lightly, placed it on a plastic shelf be-

tween the poles of a strong electromagnet, and attached electrodes
to measure the EEC As we gradually increased the magnetic field
strength, we saw no change—until delta waves appeared at 2,000 gauss.
At 3,000 gauss, the entire BEG was composed of simple delta waves,
and the animal was motionless and unresponsive to all stimuli. More-
over, as we decreased the strength of the magnetic field, normal EEG
patterns returned suddenly, and the salamander regained consciousness
within seconds, This was in sharp contrast to other forms of anesthesia.
With direct currents, the EEG continued to show delta waves for as long
as a half hour after the current was turned off, and the animals remained
groggy and unresponsive just as after chemical anesthesia.
THE EEG OF A SALAMANDER ANESTHETIZED BY A MAGNETIC FIELD
It seemed to us that we'd discovered the best possible anesthetic, al-

lowing prompt recovery with no side effects. We proposed getting a
bigger electromagnet to try this method on larger animals and eventu-
ally humans, but we never even got a reply. Our data on direct currents
in the nerves weren't quite acceptable, but reactions by living things to
magnetic fields were absolutely out of the question in America at that
time.
I was flabbergasted, therefore, to receive a phone call from one of the
most prominent biologists in the Harvard-MIT orbit. He told me,
"We're in the process of setting up an international conference on high-
energy magnetic fields at MIT, and we've received a number of questions
from respectable scientists in other countries asking why there is to be
no session on biological effects of magnetic fields. This is a totally new
idea to us, and we really don't believe there are such effects, but some of
these fellows are persistent. We've searched the scientific literature and
found your paper on the Hall effect. Since you steem to be the only
person in this country doing any work along these lines, let me ask if
you think there's anything to it."
I allowed as humbly as I could that there just might be something
there, and told him about the latest experiments. There was a long
pause filled with disdain. Then I added that Professor Bachman had been
working with me. That changed the tone dramatically; this man also
knew Charlie through work on the electron microscope during the war.
He asked if I would organize the session and arrange for additional
speakers.
There weren't too many investigators to choose from, and some of
them were doing very slipshod work. I invited Frank Brown and selected
a few others on the basis of published work. I'd just about finished when
I got another call. A man with a thick German accent introduced him-
self as Dietrich Beischer.
"I have read your paper on the Hall effect," he began, "and I think
we have much common interest." He explained that he was studying
magnetic field bioeffects for the Navy and had done much work that
wasn't published openly. At the time he was conducting a large experi-
ment on human volunteers to check for effects from a null field, a com-
plete absence of magnetism. When I wondered how he produced such a
state, he invited me to have a look and perhaps offer suggestions. So off
I went to Maryland.
Beischer was using the compass calibration building in the Naval Sur-
face Weapons Center at Silver Spring. The building was huge. Electrical
cables in all the walls, floor, and roof were "servo-connected" (directly
cued) to the three axes of the earth's magnetic field, so that the field was
canceled out in a sphere about 20 feet across in the center of the struc-
ture. Several men were living and being tested in this area. I was im-
pressed by the resources at Beischer's command, and I had a good time,
but I wondered what use any discoveries made there might ultimately be
put to. My only contribution was to point out that the enclosure had
been built before anyone knew about the earth field's low-frequency
components, micropulsations ranging from less than 1 to about 25 cy-
cles per second, that were far weaker than the planet's electromagnetic
field as a whole. Consequently Beischer's subjects were still exposed to a
very weak magnetic field pulsing at these frequencies, and I suspected
that that component might be one of the most important for life, be-
cause all brain waves were in exactly the same range. Perhaps as a result
of this factor, the null-field experiment was turning out to be in-
conclusive, but I asked Beischer to attend the MIT meeting and present
some previous data suggesting that electromagnetic fields could affect
embryonic development.
For my own presentation I decided against trying to compress all the
work I'd done so far into a few minutes before a skeptical audience.
Instead I offered some evidence that Charlie and I had gathered with the
help of psychiatrist Howard Friedman, which showed a possible rela-
tionship between mental disturbances and solar magnetic storms. I'll
discuss this study further in Chapter 14.
The MIT meeting went well. The field of bioelectromagnetism was
still young, and the researchers in it didn't make many converts among
the mainstream biologists. As usual, we found the physicists more in-
clined to listen. However, we drew inspiration from each other. I re-
turned to the lab more determined than ever to elucidate the links that I
knew existed between electromagnetic energy and life.
Charlie, Howard, and I decided to find out how the brain's DC poten-
tials behaved in humans. The electrodes we'd been using on salamanders
couldn't be scaled up for people, but within a week Charlie invented
some that would give us equally precise readings from the human head.
We immediately found that the back-to-front current varied with
changes in consciousness just as in salamanders. It was strongest during
heightened physical or mental activity, it declined during rest, and it
reversed direction in both normal sleep and anesthesia. This knowledge
led directly to the experiments, described in Chapter 13, that taught us
much about how hypnosis and pain perception work.
At this point I received an invitation from Meryl Rose to speak at the

big event in the world of animal science, the International Congress of
Zoology. This is not just a yearly convention; it is convened only when
its directors agree that there has been enough progress to warrant a
meeting. This session, in August 1963, was only the sixteenth since the
first one had been set up in 1889. It was an honor to be there, and the
conference itself was especially important, since it was one of the first
times science formally addressed such ecological emergencies as pesticide
pollution, the protection of vanishing species, overpopulation, and ur-
ban sprawl. The high point tor me came when I gave my paper and saw
in the audience Dr. Ralph Bowen, my college biology professor, a kind
but exacting teacher who'd inspired me with his unique combination of
scientific discipline and respect for life. Afterward, with characteristic
caution, he said something like "That's not too bad, Becker. I'd like to
see you keep going in this research."
When I assured him that, despite my M.D. degree, I was still com-
mitted to basic biology, he said, "I hope so, but remember, it won't be
easy. To change things is never popular." His encouragement meant a
lot to me, and I was happy to be able to show him that I'd amounted to
something.
A lot had happened in the four work-filled years since I'd begun
studying the current of injury. That first experiment had opened a door
into a great hall with passageways leading off in all sorts of fascinating
directions. This was really the life! Without leaving the laboratory I'd
gone on a journey of exploration as exciting as trekking through the
uncharted wilds of New Guinea. Our work on nerves and the brain was
leading toward a whole new concept of life whose implications only
gradually became apparent. Meanwhile, my colleagues and I were con-
tinuing to investigate the processes of healing, leading to insights and
practical applications that more than justified my enthusiasm.
Six
The Ticklish Gene
Despite my fascination with fundamental questions about the nature of

life, I was, after all, an orthopedic surgeon, and I was eager to find
things that would help my patients. In addition, to convince the Ar-
tifact Man and all his brothers, Charlie and I were looking for some
direct test of semiconduction in living tissues. The Hall effect and the
freezing of frog nerves each demonstrated a characteristic of semiconduc-
tion but didn't confirm it in standard engineering terms. Unfortunately,
all the direct tests then known worked only with crystals. You needed a
material you could carve into blocks, something that didn't squish when
you put an electrode on it. The only possibility was bone.
To many biologists and physicians, bones are pretty dull. They seem
like a bunch of scarecrow sticks in which nothing much happens, plain
props for a subtler architecture. Many of my patients were in sad shape
because doctors had failed to realize that bone is a living tissue that has
to be treated with respect. It's a common misconception that orthopedic
surgery is like carpentry. All you have to do is put a recalcitrant fracture
together with screws, plates, or nails; if the pieces are firmly fixed after
surgery, you're done. Nothing could be further from the truth. No mat-
ter how firmly you hold them together, the pieces will come loose and
the limb can't be used if the bone doesn't heal.
The Pillars of the Temple
The skeleton doesn't deserve this cavalier treatment. The development of

bones by the first true fishes of the Devonian era nearly 400 million years
The Ticklish Gene 119
ago was a remarkable achievement. It enabled animals to advance, in
both senses of the word, quickly and efficiently. Since bone is inside the
body, it can live and grow with the animal, instead of leaving it defense-
less as an external skeleton does when cast off during a molt. It's also the
most efficient system for attaching muscles and increasing the size of
animals.
Bone is extraordinary in structure, too. It's stronger than cast iron in
resisting compression but, if killed by X rays or by cutting off its blood
supply (barely adequate to start with), it collapses into mush. The part
that's actually alive, the bone cells, comprises less than 20 percent of the
whole. The rest, the matrix, isn't just homogeneous concrete, either. It's
composed of two dissimilar materials—collagen, a long-chain, fibrous
protein that's the main structural material of the entire body, and apa-
tite, a crystalline mineral that's mainly calcium phosphate. The electron
microscope shows that the association between collagen and apatite is
highly ordered, right down to the molecular level. The collagen fibers
have raised transverse bands that divide them into regular segments. The
apatite crystals, just the right size to fit snugly between these bands, are
deposited like scales around the fibers.
This intricacy continues at higher levels of organization. The collagen
fibers lie side by side in layer upon layer wound in opposed spirals (a
double helix) around a central axis. The bone cells, or osteocytes, are
embedded in these layers, which form units a few millimeters long,
called osteones. The center of each osteone has a small canal in which
runs a blood vessel and a nerve. The osteones in turn are organized so as
to lie along the lines of maximum mechanical stress, producing a bone
of the precise shape best able to withstand the forces applied to it.
Bone has an amazing capacity to grow, which it does in three dif-
ferent ways. In childhood each long bone of the limbs has one or two
growth centers, called epiphyseal plates. Each is a body of cartilage
whose leading edge grows continuously while its trailing edge trans-
forms into bone. When the bone is the right length, the process stops,
and the remaining cartilage forms the bony knob, or epiphysis, at the
end of the bone. The "closure" of the epiphyses is an index of the body's
maturation.
Bone cannot heal. That sounds like a conundrum but it's literally
true. Fractures knit because new bone made from other tissues unites the
fracture ends. Although we sometimes speak of bone growth as part of
fracture healing, the old, preexisting bone doesn't have the capacity to
grow. As mentioned in Chapter 1, there are two tissues that produce
new bone at a fracture site. One is the periosteum, the bone's fibrous
covering. It's the cells of the periosteum's innermost layer that have the
power of osteogenesis, or bone formation. After a fracture, these cells are

somehow turned on. They begin to divide and some of the daughter
cells turn into osteoblasts, cells that make the collagen fibers of bone.
Apatite crystals then condense out of the blood serum onto the fibers.
The other tissue that forms new bone to heal a fracture is the marrow.
Its cells dedifferentiate and form a blastema, filling the central part of
the fracture. The blastema cells then turn into cartilage cells and later
into more osteoblasts. This process is true regeneration, following the
same sequence of cell changes as the regrowing salamander limb.
Whatever a physician does to repair a fracture, he or she must protect
the periosteum and marrow cavity from harm. Unfortunetely, too often
BONES-DESIGNED FOR MAXIMUM STRENGTH
the application of plates, screws, and nails does just the opposite and,
rather than helping nature, the treatment impedes healing.
From a researcher's point of view, the question here is: What activates
the cells of the periosteum and marrow? In the case of the marrow, we
can expect it to be the same factor that switches on the cells in a sala-
mander's amputated leg.
There's a third process of growth that's unique to bone. It follows
Wolff's law, which is named after the orthopedic surgeon J. Wolff, who
discovered it at the end of the nineteenth century. Basically, Wolff's law
states that a bone responds to stress by growing into whatever shape best
meets the demands its owner makes of it. When a bone is bent, one side
is compressed and the other is stretched. When it's bent consistently in
one direction, extra bone grows to shore up the compressed side, and
some is absorbed from the stretched side. It's as though a bridge could
sense that most of its traffic was in one lane and could put up extra
beams and cables on that side while dismantling them from the other.
As a result, a tennis player or baseball pitcher has heavier and differently
contoured bones in the racket arm or pitching arm than in the other
one. This ability is greatest in youth, so in childhood fractures it's often
best to put the bone ends together gently by manipulation without sur-
gery, settling for a less than perfect fit. Sometimes the hardest part is
convincing the parents that a modest bend will straighten itself out in a
few months in accordance with Wolff's law.
Wolffs-law reorganization occurs because something stimulates the

periosteum to grow new bone at a surface where there's compressional
stress, while dissolving bone where there's tensional stress. Again, the
question for researchers is: What turns on the periosteal cells?
After I'd finished giving my paper on the salamander's current of in-

jury at the orthopedic meeting early in 1961, several people came up to
the stage to ask questions. Among them was Andy Bassett, a young
orthopedic surgeon who was doing research at Columbia. In our conver-
sation we came up with an angle for investigating Wolff's law—piezo-
electricity. Simply put, this is the ability of some materials to transform
mechanical stress into electrical energy. For example, if you bend a
piezoelectric crystal hard enough to deform it slightly, there'll be a pulse
of current through it. In effect, the squeeze pops electrons out of their
places in the crystal lattice. They migrate toward the compression, so
the charge on the inside curve of a bent crystal is negative. The potential
quickly disappears if you sustain the stress, bur when you release it, an
equal and opposite positive pulse appears as the electrons rebound before
settling back into place.
Since I'd shown that a stronger-than-normal negative current preceded
regeneration, Bassett suggested that maybe bone was iezoelectric and
the negative charge from bending stimulated the adaptive growth of
Wolff's law. To find out, we tested both living and dead bones from a
variety of animals, and found that bending produced an immediate po-
tential, as expected. The compressed side became negative; the stretched
PIEZOELECTRICITY—MECHANICAL STRESS INTO ELECTRICITY
Furthermore, the reversed potentials that appeared when we released

the stress weren't nearly as large as the first ones. This was just as it
should be. If a negative voltage was the growth stimulus, there had to
be some way to cancel out the positive rebound voltage; otherwise it
would have negated the growth message. In electronic terms, there had
to be a solid-state rectifier, or PN junction diode.
PIEZOELECTRICITY IN BONE
*After writing up this experiment, we found that it had been done before. Iwao Yasuda,
a Japanese orthopedist, had shown that bone was piezoelectric back in 1954; he and
Eiichi Fukada, a physicist, had confirmed the fact in 1957. We made note of their prior
observations but published our paper anyway, since our techniques were different and
ours was the first report in English.
Despite the initimidating names, this device is fairly simple. It's a
filter that screens out either the positive (P) or the negative (N) part of a
signal. As mentioned in Chapter 4, current can flow through a crystal
lattice either as free electrons or as "holes" that can shift their positions
much as the holes migrate when you move the marbles in a game of
Chinese checkers. Since current can flow from a P-type to an N-type
semiconductor but not the other way, a junction of the two will filter, or
rectify, a current.
The phonograph would be impossible without this device. As the
diamond or sapphire crystal of the stylus rides a record's groove, the
groove's changing shape deforms it ever so slightly. The crystal, of
course, transforms the stresses into a varying electrical signal, which is
amplified until we can hear it. It would be an unintelligible hum, how-
ever, if we heard both the deformation pulse and the release pulse.
Therefore we place a rectifier in the circuit. It passes current in one
direction only, so the impulses don't cancel each other out. The signal is
rectified, and when we feed it to a loudspeaker we hear music. Bassett
and I felt sure we were seeing evidence of rectification in the fact that
bone's release pulse was much smaller than the one from stress.
RECTIFIED SIGNALS MAKE THE PHONOGRAPH POSSIBLE
If the negative piezoelectric signal stimulated growth, maybe we

could induce bone growth ourselves with negative current.* We tried
out the idea on eighteen dogs. In the thighbone of one hind leg we
implanted a battery pack. The electrodes were made of platinum, a non-
reactive metal, to minimize any possible electrochemical irritation, and
we inserted them through drill holes directly into the marrow cavity. As
controls, some of the devices didn't have a battery. After three weeks we
found that the active units had produced large amounts of new bone
*Again Dr. Yasuda and his colleagues had already done so, but their results seem to
have been due to bone's ability to grow in response to irritation from the electrodes.
They used alternating current, which is now known to have no direct growth-stimulat-
ing effect.
around the negative electrode but none around the positive. In the con-
trols, there was no growth around either electrode.
ELECTRICAL STIMULATION OF BONE GROWTH
The results were exciting, but in retrospect I believe we made a

serious error when we published this study. In our own minds and in
print as well, we confused the negative potentials of the salamander's
current of injury, the negative potentials that stimulated bone growth,
and the negative potentials from the piezoelectric study. We proceeded
as though they were equivalent, but they were not. The piezoelectric
potentials were measured on the outside of the bone and appeared only
when mechanical stress was applied. They were transitory, and most
likely the periosteum was their target tissue. In the implant study, we
used continuous direct current applied to the inside of the bone, the
marrow cavity. What we were stimulating was the DC control system of
regenerative fracture healing, not the piezoelectric control system of
Wolff's law. We didn't clearly indicate the difference to the scientific
reader, and this led to much confusion, some of which still persists
twenty years later. As a result, many scientists think electricity stimu-
lates bone growth because bone is piezoelectric. Most of these people
don't realize that bone itself doesn't grow when a fracture heals. More-
over, everyone who has proceeded from our technique—and it's being
used today to heal nonunions (see Chapter 8)—has done basically the
same thing, continuously stimulating the bone marrow. No one has
tried to stimulate the periosteum, as the pulsed piezoelectric signal does.
Our confusion also helped the scientific establishment accept the "triv-
ial" electrical stimulation of bone by considering it something unique to
bone. The relationship between our experiment and regeneration proper
was lost.
The Inner Electronics of Bone
Charlie Bachman and I decided to investigate the electrical properties of

bone in more detail and try to figure out how Wolff's law worked. We
put together a hypothesis based on my experiments with Bassett. We
postulated that the bone matrix was a biphasic (two-part) semiconduc-
tor. That is, either apatite or collagen was an N-type semiconductor; the
other, a P type. Their connected surfaces would thus form a natural PN
junction diode that would rectify any current in the bone. We further
theorized that only one of the materials was piezoelectric. On the com-
pressed side of a stressed bone, we expected the positive pulses to be
filtered out, leaving a negative signal to stimulate periosteal cells to
grow new bone.
We made several pairs of sample blocks, cut side by side from pieces
of bone removed from patients for medical reasons. From one member of
each pair we chemically removed the apatite. The other we treated with
a compound that dissolved the collagen. The resulting pure collagen was
yellowish and slightly rubbery, and the apatite pure white and brittle,
but otherwise both blocks still looked like bone. Our first step was to
test bone's component materials separately for semiconduction and
piezoelectricity. Collagen turned out to be an N-type semiconductor and
apatite a P type.
Then we tested our samples for piezoelectricity in the same way that
Bassett and I had previously tested whole bone. We expected that apa-
tite would be the only one to show an effect, since it was a crystal.
However, collagen turned out to be a piezoelectric generator, while apa-
tite was not. We now had the makings of a PN junction—two semicon-
ductors, one an N type, the other a P type, joined together in a highly
organized fashion.
Now came the crucial part of our hypothesis. We had to figure out a
way to test for rectification at the PN junction. It was an important
crossroads.
Here we rn up against what's known in the trade as a technical
problem. To test for rectification we had to put one electrode on the
collagen and one on the apatite as they appeared in whole bone. Unfor-
tunately, the apatite crystals are each only 500 angstroms long. Now,
the angstrom (named after the Swedish pioneer of spectroscopy Anders
Jonas Angstrom) was invented for measuring atoms and molecules, and
it is not large. Five hundred of them are only one tenth as long as a
single wave of green light. Even today's thinnest microelectrodes are 1
micron (10,000 angstroms) wide, and at the time the thinnest ones
available to us were much larger. It would have been like trying to
measure a grain of rice with a telephone pole.
We would have to do it in a sort of statistical way. Because of the way

bone is built—millions of little scales glued onto larger fibers arranged
in more or less lengthwise spirals along the osteones—I reasoned thus: If
we put an electrode on the lengthwise cut, we'd be contacting mostly
apatite, while an electrode on a face cut across the grain should connect
to a greater proportion of collagen. If that method of electrode hookup
worked and if we had a rectifier in our bones, then we'd be able to pass
current through our samples only in one direction. That was exactly
what happened. Our bone samples weren't as efficient as a commercial
rectifier, but the amount of current we could put through them from a
battery of constant voltage was much greater in one direction than in the
other.
Current flowing "uphill," against the normal flow from P to N semi-
conductors, is called a reverse bias current, and we used it to look for
photoelectric effects. Many semiconductors absorb energy from light,
and any current flowing through the material gets a boost. We arranged
our apparatus so only a small spot of light shone on the bone, because
our silver electrodes were slightly sensitive to light and could produce a
real artifact. With the voltage constant, the light produced an unmis-
takable increase in the current. Now, if bone really contained a rectifier,
the photoelectric effect should be sensitive to the current's direction.
The current in reverse bias should rise more with the same light inten-
sify than the current in forward bias The experiment was simple. We
reversed the battery and turned on the light. The amperage rose higher
than before. The rectifier was real.
BONE IS A RECTIFIER—A PN JUNCTION DIODE
We could now follow the entire control system of Wolff's law. Me-
chanical stress on the bone produced a piezoelectric signal from the
collagen. The signal was biphasic, switching polarity with each stress-
and-release. The signal was rectified by the PN junction between apatite
and collagen. This coherent signal did more than merely indicate that
stress had occurred. Its strength told the cells how strong the stress was,
and its polarity told them what direction it came from. Osteogenic cells
where the potential was negative would be stimulated to grow more
bone, while those in the positive area would close up shop and dismantle
their matrix. If growth and resorption were considered as two aspects of
one process, the electrical signal acted as an analog code to transfer infor-
mation about stress to the cells and trigger the appropriate response.
Now we knew how stress was converted into an electrical signal. We
had discovered a transducer, a device that converts other forces into elec-
tricity or vice versa. There was another transducer in the Wolff's-law
system - the mechanism that transformed the electrical signal into ap-
propriate cell responses. Our next experiment showed us something
about how this one worked.
THE LIGHT TEST CONFIRMS BONE'S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
WOLFF'S LAW CONTROL SYSTEM
Collagen fibers are formed from long sticks, like uncooked spaghetti,
of a precursor molecule called tropocollagen. This compound, much
used in biological research, is extracted from formed collagen—often
from rat tails—and made into a solution. A slight change in the pH of
the solution then precipitates collagen fibers. But the fibers thus formed
are a jumbled, feltlike mass, nothing like the layered parallel strands of
bone. However, when we passed a weak direct current through the
solution, the fibers formed in rows perpendicular to the lines of force
around the negative electrode. This fit our new discoveries perfectly,
because the lines of force on the negative (compressed) side of a bent
bone would be in precisely the same alignment as the collagen fibers of
ELECTRIC FIELDS ALIGN COLLAGEN MOLECULES
BONE'S ELECTRICAL SYSTEM GUIDES GROWTH

This was the first time that a complete circuit diagram of a growth
process could be made. To us, this seemed an achievement of some note,
but, although we got published, no one seemed to pay any attention.
The scientific community wasn't ready for biological semiconduction,
and the notion of diodes in living tissue seemed ridiculously farfetched
to most of the people I told about it. For that reason, I never even
bothered to try publishing one of our follow-up experiments. It was just
too weird.
In the mid-1960s, solid-state devices were only beginning to hit the
market, and one of the PN junction's most interesting properties hadn't
yet been exploited. When you run a current through it in forward bias,
some of its energy gets turned into light and emitted from the surface.
In other words, electricity makes it glow. Nowadays various kinds of
these PN junctions, called light-emitting diodes (LEDs), are everywhere
as digital readouts in watches and calculators, but then they were labora-
tory curios.
We found that bone was an LED. Like many such materials, it re-
quired an outside source of light before an electric current would make it
release its own light, and the light it emitted was at an infrared fre-
quency invisible to us, but the effect was consistent and undeniable.
Even though we'd already proved our hypothesis, Charlie and I did a
few more experiments on bone semiconduction, partly for additional
confirmation and partly for the fun of it. It was known that some semi-
conductors fluoresced—that is, they absorbed ultraviolet light and emit-
ted part of it at a lower frequency, as visible light. We checked, and
whole bone fluoresced a bluish ivory, while collagen yielded an intense
blue and apatite a dull brick-red. Here we found a puzzling discrepancy,
however, which eventually led to a discovery that could benefit many
people. When we combined the fluoresced light from collagen with that
from apatite, we should have gotten the fluoresced light from whole
bone. We didn't. That indicated there was some other material in the
bone matrix, something we'd been washing out in the chemical separa-
tion.
Charlie and I were stumped on that line of research for a couple of
years, until our attention was caught by a new development in solid-
state technology called doping. Tiny amounts of certain minerals mixed
into the semiconductor material could change its characteristics enor-
mously. The making of semiconductors to order by selective doping
would become a science in itself; to us it suggested trace elements in
bone. We already knew that certain trace metals - such as copper, lead,
silver, and beryllium - bonded readily to bone. Beryllium miners had a
high rate of osteogenic sarcoma—bone cancer—because beryllium some-
how removed normal controls from the osteocytes' growth potential. Ra-
dioactive strontium 90 worked its harm by bonding to bone, then
bombarding the cells with ionizing radiation. Perhaps some trace
element normally found in bone changed its electrical properties by
PHOTOELECTRICITY: ELECTRICITY GOES IN; LIGHT COMES OUT
To find out, Charlie and I used a very complex device called an elec-
tron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectrometer on our bone samples.
There's no easy way to explain just how this instrument works, but
basically it measures the number of free electrons in a material by sens-
ing a resonance produced in the electrons' vibrations by in applied mag-
netic field. We used it to measure the fre electrons in collagen and
apatite, and we found the same kind of discrepancy as in our flourescence
experiment: When we added together the free electrons of collagen and
apatite, we fell short of the number we found in whole bone. That made
us certain that we were washing out some trace mineral.
We decided to work backward. We prepared a solution containing
small amounts of a wide variety of metals. Then we soaked our collagen
and apatite cubes in this broth to see what they'd pick up.
We knew we were on the way to solving this mystery when we exam-
ined the results. Only a few of the metals had bonded to the bone mate-
rials: beryllium, copper, iron, zinc, lead, and silver. The diameters of all
the absorbed atoms were exact fractions of one another. The results
showed that the bonding sites were little recesses into which would fit
one atom of silver or lead, two of iron or copper or zinc, or six of
beryllium.
Only one of these metals gave us an electron resonance of its own,
indicating that it had a large number of free electrons that could affect
the electrical nature of bone. That metal was copper. We made a batch
of broth containing only copper. We expected that copper's EPR signal
would change to one value as it bonded with collagen, and to another as
it bonded with apatite. Since the molecular structure of each was quite
different, we figured that each would bind copper in a different way.
We could hardly believe the results. Bonding had indeed changed
copper's resonance, but the change was the same in both materials. By
analyzing it we deduced that each atom of copper fit into a little pit,
surrounded by a particular pattern of electric charges, on the surface of
apatite crystals and collagen fibers. Because the pattern of charges was
the same in both materials, we knew that the bonding sites were the
same on both surfaces and that they lined up to form one elongated
cavity connecting the crystal and fiber. In other words, the two bonding
sites matched, forming an enclosed space into which two atoms of cop-
per nestled. The electrical forces of this copper bond held the crystals
and fibers together much as wooden pegs fastened the pieces of antique
furniture to each other. Furthermore, the electrical nature of peg and
hole suggested that we had found, on the atomic level, the exact loca-
tion of the PN junction.
This discovery may have some medical importance. The question of
how the innermost apatite crystals fasten onto collagen had eluded
orthopedists until then, and the finding may have opened a way to un-
derstand osteoporosis,a condition in which the apatite crystals fall off
and the bone degenerates. The process is often called decalcification,
although more than calcium is lost. It's a common feature of aging. I
surmise that osteoporosis comes about when copper is somehow removed
from the bones. This might occur not only through chemical/metabolic
processes, but by a change in the electromagnetic binding forces, allow-
ing the pegs to "fall out." It's possible that this could result from a
change in the overall electrical fields throughout the body or from a
change in those surrounding the body in the environment.
Osteoporosis has been a major worry of the American and Russian

space programs. As flights got longer, doctors found that more and more
apatite was lost from the bones, until decalcification reached 8 percent in
the early Soviet Salyut space-station tests. Serious problems were known
to occur only when apatite loss reached about 20 percent, but the trend
was alarming, especially since depletion of the calcium reservoir might
affect the nervous system and muscular efficiency before the 20-percent
level was reached. Although the immediate cause was their inability to
get a malfunctioning air valve closed before all the cabin air escaped,
weakness from muscle tone loss might have contributed to the death of
the three cosmonauts who succumbed while returning from their
twenty-four-day flight aboard Soyuz 11 at the end of June 1971.
Space osteoporosis may result from unnatural currents induced in bone
by a spacecraft's rapid motion through the earth's magnetic field, with a
polarity reversal every half orbit, or it may be a direct effect of the field
reversal. This abnormality, which may change the activity of bone cells
directly, would be superimposed on abnormal responses of bone's natural
electrical system, which is almost certainly affected by weightlessness.
The unfamiliar external field reversals could also weaken the copper
pegs, at the same time that the bones are in a constant state of "re-
bound" from their earthly weight-induced potentials, producing a signal
that says, "No weight, no bones needed." We know that the more even
distribution of blood caused by weightlessness registers in the heart as an
excess; as aresult, fluid and ions, including calcium, are withdrawn
from tht blood. However, the effect probably isnt't due to weightlessness
alone, for the Skylab astronauts did rigorous exercise, which would have
supplied plentiful stresses to their bones. They worked out so hard that
their muscles grew, but decalcification still reached 6.8 percent on the
twelve-week mission.
The Soviets at first claimed to have solved the problem before or dur-
ing the Soyuz 26 mission of 1977—78, in which two cosmonauts orbited
in the Salyut 6 space lab for over three months. Subsequent Soviet space-
persons, who have remained weightless as long as 211 days, reportedly
have showed no ill effects from osteoporosis, and chief Soviet space doc-
tor Oleg Gazenko said it simply leveled off after three months. How-
ever, this claim was later officially withdrawn, and I have a hunch that
the Soviets are working on a way to prevent the condition by simulating
earth-surface fields inside their space stations, a method that perhaps
hasn't yet worked as well as they'd hoped. Andy Bassett has suggested
giving our astronauts strap-on electromagnetic coils designed to approxi-
mate their limb bones' normal gravity stress signals, but so far NASA
has shown no interest.
Unfortunately for earthbound victims of osteoporosis, the copper peg
discovery still hasn't been followed up, even though I published it over
fifteen years ago. Charlie and I wanted to continue in that direction, but
we knew that we couldn't sustain more than one major research effort at
a time. We decided that regenerative growth control was our primary
target, so we reluctantly dropped osteoporosis. Fortified by our new
knowledge that electricity controlled growth in bone, we returned in-
stead to the nerves, taking a closer look at how their currents stimulated
regrowth.
A Surprise in the Blood
1 felt as though the temple curtain had been drawn aside without warn-
ing and I, a goggle-eyed stranger somehow mistaken for an initiate, had
been ushered into the sanctuary to witness the mystery of mysteries. I
saw a phantasmagoria, a living tapestry of forms jeweled in minute
detail. They danced together like guests at a rowdy wedding. They
changed their shapes. Within themselves they juggled geometrical
shards like the fragments in a kaleidoscope. They sent forth extensions of
themselves like the flares of suns. Yet all their activity was obviously
interrelated; each being's actions were in step with its neighbors'. They
were like bees swarming: They obviously recognised each other and were
communicating avidly, but it was impossible to know what they were
saying. They enacted a pageant whose beauty awed me.
As the lights came back on, the auditorium seemed dull and unreal.
I'd been watching various kinds of ordinary cells going about their daily
business, as seen through a microscope and recorded by the latest time-
lapse movie techniques. The filmmaker frankly admitted that neither he
nor anyone else knew just what the cells were doing, or how and why
they were doing it. We biologists, especially during our formative years
in school, spent most of our time dissecting dead animals and studying
preparations of dead cells stained to make their structures more easily
visible—"painted tombstones," as someone once called them. Of course,
we all knew that life was more a process than a structure, but we tended
to forget this, because a structure was so much easier to study. This film
reminded me how far our static concepts still were from the actual busi-
ness of living. As I thought how any one of those scintillating cells
potentially could become a whole speckled frog or a person, I grew surer
than ever that my work so far had disclosed only a few aspects of a
process-control system as varied and widespread as life itself, of which
we'd been ignorant until then.
The film was shown at a workshop on fracture healing sponsored by
the National Academy of Sciences in 1965. It was one of a series of
meetings organized for the heads of clinical departments to educate them
as to the most promising directions for research. A dynamic organizer
named Jim Wray had recently become chairman of the Upstate Medical
Center's department of orthopedic surgery, but Jim's superb skills were
political rather than scientific. Since I was an active researcher and had
just been promoted to associate professor, Jim asked me to go in his
place. I tried to get out of it, because I knew my electrical bones would
get a frosty reception from the big shots if I opened my mouth, but Jim
prevailed. The meeting was mostly what I'd expected, but there were
three bright spots. One was that microcinematic vision. Another was the
chance to get acquainted with the other delegate from my department, a
sharp young orthopedic surgeon named Dave Murray. The third was the
presence of Dr. John J. Pritchard.
A renowned British anatomist who'd added much to our knowledge of
fracture healing, Dr. Pritchard was the meeting's keynote speaker—the
beneficent father-figure who was to evaluate all the papers and sum-
marize everything at the end. Dave and I almost skipped his talk. We
hadn't been impressed with the presentations, and we figured there had
been so few new ideas that Pritchard would have nothing to say. How-
ever, our bus to the Washington airport didn't leave until after Prit-
chard's luncheon address, so we stayed. With a tact that seemed
peculiarly English, he reached the same assessment we had, but phrased
it so as to offend no one. He stressed that fracture healing should be
considered a vestige of regeneration. Most past work on fractures had
described what happened when a bone knit, as opposed to the how and
why. As Pritchard pointed out, "Not a great deal of thought has been
given to the factors that initiate, guide, and control the various processes
of bone repair." Just as in regeneration research, this was the most im-
portant problem about fractures, he concluded.
Dave and I had to wait several hours before our flight back to Syr-
acuse. We sat in the airport lounge and talked excitedly about broken
bones. Dave agreed that, since I'd found electrical currents in sala-
mander limb regeneration, it was at least plausible that similar factors
controlled the mending of fractures. Having just deciphered the control
system for stress adaptation (Wolffs-law growth) in bone, I felt pre-
pared to get back to the more complex problems of regeneration via its
remnant in bone healing. Dave and I decided to collaborate, and we
planned our experiment on the plane. We would break the same bone in
a standardized way in each of a series of experimental animals. I would
study the electrical forces in and around the fractures as they healed. We
would kill a few of the animals at each stage of healing, and Dave, an
expert histologist (cell specialist), would make microscope slides of the
healing tissues and study the cellular changes. Along the way we would
fit our findings together to see whether electricity was guiding the cells.
Our first task was to choose the experimental animals. We wanted to
use dogs or rabbits, since ultimately we were trying to understand hu-
man bones and wanted to work with animals as closely related to us as
possible. But we would need scores of them to study each phase of heal-
ing adequately, and we had neither the funds nor the facilities to house
so many large mammals. We thought of rats, but their longest bones
were too short to study clearly and were curved as well. We were look-
ing for nice, long, straight bones, in which we could produce uniform
breaks.
We settled on bullfrogs. They were cheap to buy and care for; we
could even collect some ourselves from nearby ponds. I already had a lot
of experience in working with them. Best of all, the adult frog's lower
leg had one long bone—the tibia and fibula found in most vertebrates
had merged into a tibiofibularis. It was about two inches long with a
fine, straight shaft.
Our misgivings about the evolutionary distance between frogs and
humans were allayed when we went to the library to read up on what
was then known about fracture healing in frogs. Dr. Pritchard himself,
along with two of his students, J. Bowden and A. J. Ruzicka, had
determined that frogs mended their bones the same way people did. Our
question was: What stimulated the periosteal and marrow cells to
change into new bone-forming cells?
We began by anesthetizing the animals and resolutely breaking all
those little green legs by hand, bending them only to a certain angle so
as not to rupture the periosteum around the fracture. I found I had to
put little plaster casts on them—not because the frogs seemed in great
pain but because their movements kept shifting the broken bones and
making systematic observations impossible. They would have healed
anyway; in our first sixty frogs we found two that had broken their legs
in the wild and mended them, but I'm sure ours were the first that ever
had casts.
The electrical changes were complex but were almost the same in
every fracture. There were two distinct patterns, one on the periosteum
and one on the bone. Before fracture the ankle end of both the bone and
the periosteum had a small negative potential of less than 1 millivolt as
compared to the knee end. At the moment of fracture, the negative
potential on the intact periosteum over the break shot up to 6 or 7
millivolts, while areas of positive charge formed above and below the
break. After a week, the periosteum's normal progression of negative
charge toward the ankle was restored. When a fracture ruptured the
periosteum, its negative potential went even higher than 7 millivolts,
but amputation of the dangling lower leg immediately reversed the po-
larity, producing a positive current of injury from the stump, as in the
frogs of my first regeneration experiment. The bone itself underwent a
short-term electrical change opposite to that in the periosteum. A small
positive charge appeared on each of the broken ends during the first
hours, then fell to near zero after three
hours.
The electricity had two different sources. When cut the leg nerves,
the periosteum readings dropped dramatically, indicating that these po-
tentials were coming from currents in the nerves to the periosteum and
the surrounding wound area. Measurements on the bone, which has al-
most no nerves, were unaffected. Many piezoelectric materials emit a
continuous current for several hours after their charge-producing structure
has been left in a state of unresolved stress by fracture; I surmised that this
was true of bone and soon found that another research team had recently
proven it. Two separate currents, then, one from the nerves and one from
the bone matrix, were producing potentials of opposite polarity, which
acted like the electrodes of a battery. These living electrodes were creating
a complex field whose exact shape and strength reflected the position of
the bone pieces. The limb was, in effect, taking its own X ray.
While I was busy with my probes and meters, Dave was taking sam-
ples of the bones and blood clots and preparing them for the microscope.
We killed a few of the frogs every fifteen minutes during the first two
hours, then every day for two weeks, every other day for the third week,
and weekly for the last three weeks. Preparing the slides took several
days.
In the normal sequence of bone healing in frogs, a blood clot forms
after about two hours and develops into a blastema during the first
week. It turns into the rubbery, fibrous callus during the second and
third weeks, and ossifies in three to six weeks. In this last period, islands
of bone first emerge near the broken ends. Next, bony bridges appear,
connecting the islands. Then the whole area is gradually filled in and
organized with the proper marrow space and blood canals to join the
segments of old bone.
Dave began his work with specimens taken nearly a week after the
fractures, when we expected to see the first signs of the callus forming.
"This is mighty damn funny," he said as he walked in with the first box
of slides. "I can't see any mitoses in the periosteum. There's no evidence
that the cells there are multiplying or migrating."
We agreed that we must have done something wrong. Pritchard's
work had been quite conclusive on this point. He'd even published pho-
tographs of the periosteal cells dividing and moving into the gap. We
thought maybe we were looking at specimens from the wrong time
period, but we could see with our own eyes that the callus was starting
to form. Dave went back to study specimens from the first few days,
even though we didn't expect to see much then except clotting blood.
Soon he called me from his lab and asked, "What would you say if I told
you that the red corpuscles change and become the new bone-forming
cells?"
I groaned. "Nonsense. That can't be right." But it was right. We
went over the whole slide series together. Beginning in the second hour,
the erythrocytes (red cells) began to change.
All vertebrates except mammals have nuclei in their red blood cells.
In mammals, these cells go through an extra stage of development in
which the nucleus is discarded. The resulting cells are smaller, can flow
through smaller capillaries, can be packed with more hemoglobin, and
thus can carry oxygen and carbon dioxide more efficiently. Nucleated
erythrocytes are considered more primitive, but even in these the nu-
cleus is pycnotic—shriveled up and inactive. The DNA in pycnotic nu-
clei is dormant, and such cells have almost no metabolic activity; that is,
they burn no glucose for energy and synthesize no proteins. If you had to
choose a likely candidate for dedifferentiation and increased activity, this
would be the worst possible choice.
In our series of slides the red cells went through all their develop-
mental stages in reverse. First they lost their characteristic flattened,
elliptical shape and became round. Their membranes acquired a scal-
loped outline. By the third day the cells had become ameboid and
moved by means of pseudopods. Concurrently, their nuclei swelled up
and, judging by changes in their reactions to staining and light, the
DNA became reactivated. We began using an electron microscope to get
a clearer view of these changes. At the end of the first week, the former
erythrocytes had acquired a full complement of mitochondria and also
ribosomes (the organelles where proteins are assembled), and they'd got-
ten rid of all of their hemoglobin. By the third week they'd turned into
cartilage-forming cells, which soon developed further into bone-forming
cells.
I wasn't happy with this turn of events. How could we reconcile what
we saw with the well-documented findings of Pritchard, Bowden, and
Ruzicka? I'd expected evidence for the semiconducting electrical system
I'd been investigating, a concept that was already strange enough to
keep me out of the scientific mainstream. I would have been happy if the
electrical measurements had fit in with straightforward changes in the
periosteal cells. The difference between them and erythrocytes was cru-
cial. Periosteal cells were closely related precursors of bone cells; blood
cells couldn't have been further removed. They couldn't possibly have
built bone without extensive job retraining on the genetic level. These
bullfrogs were bringing us up hard against a wall of dogma by showing
us metaplasia—dedifferentiation followed by redifferentiation into a to-
tally unrelated cell type. The process took place in some of the most
specialized cells in the frog's entire body, and it looked as though the
electric field set the changes in motion while at its strongest, about an
hour after the fracture.
Our next move was a respectful letter to Dr. Pritchard asking if there
was any way he could make sense of the contradictory observations. He
replied in the negative but sent our inquiry to Dr. Bowden, who had
done the actual work on frogs as his doctoral thesis. Bowden had a
possible explanation. He'd done the experimental work under a time
limit, and to finish before the deadline he'd kept his frogs at high tem-
peratures—only a few degrees short of killing them, in fact—in order to
speed up their metabolism.
Bowden also mentioned that two researchers cited in his bibliography
had seen fracture healing in frogs much the same way we had. In the
1920s, a German named H. Wurmbach, also working on his doctorate,
noted some strange cellular transformations in the blood clot and wor-
ried over his inability to explain them. However, Wurmbach also found
mitoses in the periosteum and ascribed healing to the latter process,
since it didn't involve dedifferentiation. A decade later, another German
scientist, A. Ide-Rozas, saw the same changes in the blood cells, but he
was more daring. He proposed that this transformation was the major
force behind fracture healing in frogs and further suggested that re-
generating salamanders formed their limb blastemas from nucleated red
blood cells. Other experiments seemed to contradict Ide-Rozas' idea
about limb blastemas, so his work was discredited and ignored, but
Bowden wished us better luck.
Bowden's letter gave us a framework for understanding our results.
We already knew that mammals did not heal bones by dedifferentiation
of their red corpuscles, because their red cells had no nuclei and thus no
mechanism for change. Mammals also had a thicker periosteum than
other vertebrates, so we reasoned that periosteal cell division played a
larger healing role in mammals. Frogs, it seemed, had both methods
available but activated the periosteal cells only at high temperatures.
Do-lt-Yourself Dedifferentiation
Now we were sure that our results were real. We repeated the same
fracture studies, but this time we also observed the cells while they were
alive. We took tissue samples from the fractures and made time-lapse
film sequences using techniques like those in the movie that had im-
pressed me so much at the NAS workshop. We confirmed that the
changes began in the first lew hours, just after the electrical forces
reached their peak.
Now we decided to try a crucial test. If the electricity really triggered
healing, we should be able to reproduce the same field artificially and start
the same changes in normal blood cells outside the frog. If this didn't work,
then I probably had spent the last seven years "collecting stamps"—
accumulating facts that were interesting but, in the end, trivial.
I calculated the amount of current that would produce the fields I'd
found. I came up with an incredibly small amount, somewhere between
a trillionth and a billionth of an ampere (a picoamp and a nanoamp,
respectively). Again I thought there must be some mistake. I didn't see
how such a tiny current could produce the dramatic effects we'd seen,
so, figuring that even if my numbers were right, more juice would sim-
ply hasten the process, I decided to start with 50 microamps, a current
level that would be just shy of producing a little electrolysis—the break-
down of water into hydrogen and oxygen.
I designed plastic and glass chambers of various shapes, fitted with
electrodes of several types. In these chambers we would place healthy red
blood cells in saline solution and observe them by microscope while the
current was on.
I set up the experiment in a lab across the street from the medical
center, where there was available one of the inverted microscopes we
would need to observe the cells through the bottoms of the chambers,
where most of them would settle. I put a young technician named Fred-
erick Brown in charge of the long grind of watching the cells hour after
hour at different current levels and field shapes in the various chambers.
We began in the summer of 1966. Fred was to enter medical school that
fall, and I figured two months would be more than enough time! He
was to run one test batch of frog blood each day and report to me the
next morning as to what he'd found.
It didn't start well. Nothing had happened after six hours of current.
We couldn't increase the amperage without electrocuting the cells, so
we ran it longer. Still nothing happened. In fact, the cells started dying
when we left them in the chambers overnight. We decided to lower the
current, but I still didn't believe in the absurdly low values I'd calcu-
lated, so I told Fred to drop the amperage only a little bit day by day.
He and I stared at a lot of blood cells over those two months, all stub-
bornly refusing to do anything. Finally, two days before Fred had to
leave, we'd gotten the current down as far as our first apparatus could
go, and well within the range I'd calculated—about half a billionth of
an ampere. At eleven that morning he called me excitedly and I rushed
across the street.
With the room darkened and the microscope light on, we saw the
same cell changes as in the blood clot, first at the negative electrode,
then at the positive electrode, and finally spreading across the rest of the
chamber. In four hours all the blood cells in the chamber had reactivated
their nuclei, lost their hemoglobin, and become completely unspe-
THE FIRST ARTIFICIAL DEDIFFERENTIATE
We repeated the experiment many times, working out the upper and
lower limits of the effective current. The best "window" was somewhere
between 200 and 700 picoamps. I say "somewhere" because the suscep-
tibility of the cells varied, depending on their age, the hormonal state of
the frog, and possibly other factors.* This was an infinitesimal tickle of
* Rather than continually renewing a small part of their red-cell stock, frogs generate a
whole year's supply in late winter as they emerge from hibernation. Thus, all their
erythrocytes age uniformly as the year progresses. The cells become less sensitive to
electricity as they get older, and that may be why frogs, even when warm and not
hibernating, heal fractures more slowly in winter. The red blood cells dedifferentiate
most readily in the spring, and the female's become even more sensitive than the male's
when she ovulates early in that season. At that time her red corpuscles will despecialize
in response to less than one picoamp. In fact, we saw red cells from ovulating females
dedifferentiate completely in chambers to which we supplied no current whatever. Ap-
parently an unmeasurably small current created by the charge difference between the
plastic chamber and glass cover slip was enough.
electricity, far less than anything a human could feel even on the most
sensitive tissue, such as the tongue, but it was enough to goose the cell
into unlocking all its genes for potential use.
The effect depended on having the proper cells as well as the proper
current—white blood cells, skin cells, and other types didn't work.
Only erythrocytes seemed to serve as target cells in frogs. We found the
same response in the blood cells of goldfish, salamanders, snakes, and
turtles. The only variation was that the fish cells despecialized faster and
the reptilian cells more slowly than frog blood cells. In all erythrocytes
the shift in the transparency and staining characteristics of the nucleus
was a point of no return. These changes seemed to indicate reactivation
of the DNA, for afterward the rest of the process continued even if we
switched off the current.
This was a breakthrough. We'd learned something hitherto un-
suspected about fracture healing in frogs, and it was almost certain to
benefit human patients a few years down the road. Because we'd used
frogs instead of mammals, we'd also stumbled upon the best proof yet
for dedifferentiation—a do-it-yourself method. If we'd studied fracture
healing in mammals, we almost certainly would not have made the dis-
covery, for periosteal cells don't dedifferentiate and marrow cells are hard
to experiment with. Instead, we even had movies of dedifferentiation
happening and electron photomicrographs of air its stages, including
brand-new ribosomes being made in the nucleus and deployed into the
surrounding cytoplasm. Moreover, all the steps in dedifferentiation, in-
cluding the activities in the nucleus and the assembly of ribosomes and
mitochondria, exactly paralleled the changes found by the most recent
research on salamander limb blastemas. We'd found the electrical com-
mon denominator that started the first phase—the blastema—in all re-
generation.
The Genetic Key
Soon after we'd finished this experiment, I was invited to a meeting on

electromagnetism in biology at the New York Academy of Sciences.
This was basically a one-man show. Kenneth MacLean, a prominent sur-
geon and highly placed member of the academy, had been using mag-
netic fields on his patients for years and was convinced that they helped.
Independently wealthy, he'd set up a lab in his office, with a large elec-
tromagnet. The meeting was a testament to his persistence rather than
any widespread belief within the academy that he was right. So in Feb-
ruary 1967 I presented our recent work. I played down the full role of
electricity in fracture healing, with its overtones of vitalism, and concen-
trated on our method for inducing dedifferentiation in vitro. That was
enough to call forth many attacks from the audience, most of which
were variations on "I just don't believe it." Some said we were just
electrocuting the cells, despite the fact that they survived for ten days in
culture.
One audience member responded with some thoughtful and con-
structive criticism, however. He accepted the fact that we'd seen what
we'd seen. Nevertheless, there were, he said, other barely possible expla-
nations. In particular, he stated, we hadn't gone far enough in proving
that the cells weren't slowly degenerating from some small but harmful
change caused by the current. While the cells in our chambers looked
like those we'd photographed in the fracture clot, our idea that these
cells were electrically dedifferentiated healing cells was so at variance
with current views that we must have more direct proof. For such a
radical departure, seeing wasn't quite believing.
Stimulated by this one honest reaction, Dave and I returned to Syr-
acuse and planned how we could use the latest knowledge about DNA to
test our evidence further. A few years before, James Watson and Francis
Crick had proposed what became known as the central dogma of genet-
ics. In simplified form, it stated that the active DNA in each specialized
cell imprinted its own specific patterns onto transfer RNA, which re-
layed them to messenger RNA. This second RNA molecule moved out-
side the nucleus to the ribosomes, where it translated the genetic
instructions into the particular proteins that made the cell what it was.
We reasoned that, since a dedifferentiating cell was not going to di-
vide immediately, it wouldn't duplicate its genes. Therefore there
should be no increase in the amount of DNA it contained. However,
since the cell changed its type by manufacturing a whole new set of
proteins, the amount of RNA—the protein blueprints—should increase
dramatically.
Using radioactive labeling and fluorescent staining techniques, we
found there was indeed no new DNA but dramatic increases in RNA.
Another test showed that our despecialized cells contained not only dif-
ferent proteins but also twice as many as their precursor red blood cells.
The most conclusive experiment was one suggested by Dan Har-
rington, a student who'd taken Fred Brown's place and who later went
on to a Ph.D. in anatomy. Dan proposed that we use certain well-known
metabolic inhibitors that disrupt the DNA-RNA-protein system, to see
if we could prevent dedifferentiation. One such inhibitor, an antibiotic
called puromycin, blocks the transfer of information from messenger
RNA to the ribosomes and thus prevents proteins from being built. Dan
proposed that we set up our plastic chambers in pairs. In one member of
each pair we would place blood cells in saline solution and pass current
through them as before. The other chamber would contain cells from the
same frog and be connected to the same generator, but the solution
would contain puromycin. The setup would thus be precisely controlled.
If the current was actually unlocking new genes, the puromycin should
stop dedifferentiation by intercepting the DNA's protein-making in-
structions. If the current was merely making the cells degenerate, how-
ever, the puromycin should have no effect and the transformations
should continue.
Our conclusion held up: The cells in the puromycin solution didn't
change. Next Dan suggested that we bathe these cells with several
changes of water to wash out the puromycin. They promptly dedifferen-
tiated with no current flowing! Apparently the current caused the ge-
netic change in spite of the antibiotic, and the genes stayed unlocked, so
the system still worked perfectly as soon as the puromycin blockade was
THE RNA BLOCKADE CONFIRMS ELECTRICAL DEDIFFERENTIATION
By early 1970 we had solid proof for nearly every detail of the control
system for fracture healing in frogs, and by extension probably in mam-
mals as well. Like all other injuries, a fracture produced a current of
injury, in this case derived from the nerves in and around the per-
iosteum.* At the same time, the bone generated its own current
piezoelectrically due to residual stress in the mangled apatite-collagen
matrix. These signals combined to stimulate the cells that formed new
bone.
Except for the identity of the target cells, bone repair seemed to be
basically the same in all vertebrates, proceeding through the stages of
blood clot, blastema, callus, and ossification. In fish, amphibians, rep-
tiles, and birds, the red cells in the clot dedifferentiated in response to
the electric field, especially the positive potentials at the broken ends of
the bone. They then redifferentiated as cartilage cells and continued on
In some animals the periosteal cells responded to the current of injury

by migrating into the gap and specializing a bit further into bone cells.
This process seemed to be available to amphibians only at high tem-
peratures, but it was the dominant method in mammals, whose thick
periosteum made up for the lack of nuclei in their red corpuscles. By
this time we'd become pretty sure that the marrow component of bone
healing in humans involved the dedifferentiation of at least the immature
*The lack of the periosteal (nerve-derived) current may explain the uncontrolled, de-
formed growth that often follows fractures in the limbs of paraplegics and lepers. Their
bones still generate a positive potential in the gap, but because of nerve damage it isn't
balanced by the negative periosteal potential that normally surrounds the break.
erythrocytes, which still contained a nucleus, and possibly other cell
types.
The electrical forces turned the key that unlocked the repressed genes.
The exact nature of that key was the one part still missing from the
process. The current couldn't act directly on the nucleus, which was
insulated by the cell's membrane and cytoplasm. We knew that the
current's primary effect had to be on the membrane. The cell membrane
itself was known to be charged. Its charge probably occurred as a specific
pattern of charged molecules, different for each type of cell. We postu-
lated that the membrane released derepressors—molecules that migrated
inward into the nucleus, where they switched on the genes. Based on
recent findings about the structure of RNA, we suggested that the de-
repressor molecules might be a stable form of messenger RNA that per-
sisted in the mature red cell even after its nucleus shriveled up and
turned itself off. RNA molecules can be stable for a long time when they
are folded, the strands secured together by electron bonds. If such folded
RNA molecules were stored in the cell membrane, the tiny currents
could release their bonds and unfold them. This hypothesis has not yet
Fracture healing was ended by a straightforward negative-feedback

system. As the gap was filled in with new matrix, the bone gradually
redistributed its material to balance the stresses on it from the action of
the surrounding muscles during cautious use, in accordance with Wolff's
law. Repair of surrounding tissues lessened and then stopped the peri-
osteal injury current. As a result the electrical field returned to normal,
shutting off the cellular activities of healing.
When we'd finished this series of experiments, I was sure this was the
most important piece of work I would ever do, and I was determined to
get it published as a major article, not just a short note. Luck was with
me. On several speaking engagements during the previous two years I'd
been able to talk at length with Dr. Urist. He was enthusiastic about
our findings, and since he was the editor of one of the major orthopedic
journals—Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research—I submitted our re-
port there. The editorial board published it uncut, and I was pleased to
use Dr. Pritchard's statement at the 1965 bone-healing workshop as an
epigraph. To me it's still the most satisfying of my publications.
This was the first time the control system for a healing process had
been worked out in such detail. Except for the less conclusive account
Dave and I had presented to the New York Academy of Sciences three
years before, it was also the first really incontrovertible proof of de-
differentiation and metaplasia.
These were hardly new ideas, of course. Dedifferentiation had often
been proposed during the previous four decades as the simplest explana-
tion of blastema formation, and a great deal of evidence for it had been
amassed. Elizabeth Hay had even published an electron microscope pho-
tograph of a blastema cell that hadn't despecialized completely and still
contained a piece of muscle fiber. Nevertheless, the idea was dismissed
by most of the biologists who wielded influence in grant review commit-
tees and universities.
Today, however, dedifferentiation is no longer a dirty word. In part,
this is because Dave and I devised a way to produce it artificially, which
could be repeated by anyone who cared to. Art Pilla, an electrochemist
working with Andy Bassett in New York, was the first to confirm our
method. I'm happy to have been able to play a major role in this hard-
won advance of knowledge.
Even more important, this was the first work of mine that led directly
to a technique that helped patients—electrical stimulation of bone heal-
ing (see Chapter 8). Meanwhile, our results led to another major ques-
tion: Couldn't the currents we'd found be used artificially to stimulate
other types of regeneration? We decided to see if we could bring limb
regrowth a step closer to humans by trying to induce it in rats.
Seven
Good News for
Mammals
Stephen D. Smith was the first to induce artificial regrowth with elec-
tricity applied to the limb of a nonregenerating animal. In 1967 Smith,
setting forth on his own at the University of Kentucky after his appren-
ticeship to Meryl Rose at Tulane, implanted tiny batteries in adult frogs'
leg stumps. I followed his work eagerly and was elated to hear that he'd
gotten the same amount of partial regrowth that had resulted from
Rose's salt, Polezhaev's needles, and Singer's rerouted nerves. Of all the
experiments that have influenced me, this was probably the one that
encouraged me the most.
For a battery that was small and weak enough, Smith had returned to
the simple technology of Galvani and Volta. He soldered a short piece of
silver wire to an equal length of platinum wire, and put some silicone
insulation around the solder joint. He chose these two metals as being
the least likely to release ions and produce spurious effects by reacting
with the surrounding tissue. When immersed in a frog's slightly saline
body fluids, this bimetallic device produced a tiny current whose voltage
was positive at the silver end and negative at the platinum end.
Since our work on frog erythrocytes hadn't yet been published, it was
sheer luck that the current from these batteries fell close to the "window
of effectiveness" for blastema formation. As Smith later wrote: "It would
he nice to be able to say that I had worked out all the parameters in
advance, and knew exactly what I was doing, but such was not the case.
As so often has happened in the history of science, I stumbled onto the
right procedure."
Good News for Mammals 151
Smith implanted his wires along the bone remnant, with one end
bent over into the marrow cavity. The limbs with the positive silver
electrode at the cut showed no growth, and in some cases tissue actually
disintegrated. The negative platinum ends, however, started regenera-
tion; the new limbs all stopped growing at about the same distance from
the device, suggesting that regeneration might have been complete if
the batteries had been able to follow along. In 1974 Smith made a
device that could do just that, and achieved full regrowth.
Despite Smith's success, there was no reason to suppose that his
method would work in mammals. One researcher had recently noted
some regeneration in the hind legs of newborn opossums, but, since
marsupials are born very immature and develop in the mother's pouch to
a second birth, we suspected that this was merely a case of embryonic
regrowth. Most fetal tissues were known to have some regenerative abil-
ity while they weren't yet fully differentiated. Richard Goss had shown
that the yearly regrowth of deer and elk antlers was true multitissue
regeneration, but this feat seemed too specialized to make us confident
about restitution in other mammals or other parts of the body.
Many thought all such attempts were doomed, because the process of
encephalization had progressed much further in mammals than amphib-
ians. All vertebrates were known to have roughly the same ratio of nerve
tissue to other kinds of tissue, but in mammals most of the limited
nerve supply went into the ever more complex brain, until, as Singer
had shown in a recent study, the proportion of nerve to other tissue in
rat legs was 80 percent less than in salamander legs. This was well below
the critical mass needed for normal regeneration, and we thought it
might be impossible to make up the difference artificially.
Even if we could supply the proper electrical stimulus, we weren't
sure there would be any cells able to respond to it. Mammalian red
blood cells had no nuclei, so they couldn't dedifferentiate. Based on our
work on bone healing in frogs, we suspected that immature red corpus-
cles in the bone marrow might take over, but perhaps they were pro-
grammed to dedifferentiate only for fracture healing. Even if they would
respond to an external current, we wondered whether there were enough
of them to do the job.
There was also the problem of complexity. Many regeneration re-
searchers believed that mammalian tissues had become so specialized and
complicated that they'd simply outgrown the control system. Maybe it
couldn't handle enough data to fully describe the parts needed. If so, any
blastema we produced would just sit there, not knowing what to make.
A First Step with a Rat Leg
I tested the kind of silver-platinum couplings Smith used and found

they delivered several times too much current for ideal dedifferentiation,
according to our frog experiments. Joe Spadaro, another of Charlie's grad
students, suggested that we put carbon resistors between the two met-
als, giving us devices of various current levels.
In 1971, Joe and I amputated the right forelegs of thirty-five rats.
We made the cuts through the upper foreleg well away from the elbow
so that only the bone shaft, which had long ago ceased growing, would
remain at the tip. We used all males, to obviate as many hormonal
variables as possible. As controls we treated some of the stumps with no
device, or one made of a single metal, or one with the silver positive end
facing the stump. We did the actual test on twenty-two of the rats,
implanting our batteries with the negative platinum electrode at the
wound. We tucked the outer electrode into the marrow cavity and
sutured the inner one to the skin of the shoulder.
We had an answer fast. After three days the stumps of the controls had
begun to heal over or even, in the case of the highest-current couplings,
die back a little behind the amputation line. But the experimental legs
with our medium-current devices, supplying 1 nanoamp, were doing
well. In a week, nearly every one had a well-formed blastema and seemed
ready to replace the whole limb.
Since healing is very fast in rats, and because we wanted a uniform
sample for our first test, we sacrificed all of the controls and most of the
test animals at this time, although we spared a few for a month. We cut
off the entire healing limb, then fixed, stained, and sectioned it for the
DC STARTS LIMB REGENERATION IN RATS
I shall never forget looking at the first batch of specimens. The rat
had regrown a shaft of bone extending from the severed humerus. At the
proper length to complete the original bone there was a typical trans-
verse growth plate of cartilage, its complex anatomical structure per-
fectly regular. Beyond that was a fine-looking epiphysis, the articulated
knob at each end of a limb bone. Along the shaft were newly forming
muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. At least ten different kinds of cells
had differentiated out from the blastema, and we'd succeeded in getting
regeneration from a mammal to the same extent as Rose, Polezhaev,
Singer, and Smith had done in frogs.
Slides from some of the other animals were even more spectacular.
One stump had two cartilaginous deposits that looked like precursors of
the two lower arm bones beyond a fully formed elbow joint. All of the
regenerates were bent toward the electrode, and in one the lower
humerus had formed alongside the old shaft rather than as an extension
of it, but otherwise its structure was quite normal.
With one exception, slides from longer than a week were less excit-
ing. They seemed to have gotten less organized as time went on. Behind
one of these older slastemas, at the end of a nearly unformed
ghost of a bone, we found cartilage in a five-fingered shape—this limb
had begun to grow a hand.
In general, though, it looked as if the current had to be of a certain
duration as well as a certain strength. This was no less disappointing to
us than it was to the Life photographer who visited the lab at that time
and wanted before and after shots with a rat playing the piano at the
end, but nonetheless we were very pleased. Since the blastemas always
formed around the electrodes and since redifferentiation proceeded into
organized tissue, we knew the current had stimulated true regeneration,
not some abnormal growth. Mammals still had the means for the orderly
reading out of their genetic instructions to replace lost parts. We would
simply have to learn more exactly the electrical requirements of the
whole process, then make devices to supply the proper current at the
proper time in the proper place.
When we published our results, it was hard to shroud our excitement
in the circumspect scientific jargon needed. We wrote that we'd acti-
vated true, though partial, regeneration with a minuscule direct current
and that the marrow cells seemed to be the source of the blastema. I
thought this claim was sober enough. Joe and I cautioned that other
factors had yet to be studied. Most important, we warned that if such a
tiny force could so easily switch on growth, it must be very powerful,
and we'd best know it thoroughly before using it routinely on humans,
lest we give them unwelcome growths—tumors.
I felt that, within the constraints of scientific propriety, we'd uttered
a rousing call for a big research push to open up the benefits of regenera-
tion to humans. It must have been a whisper, though, for it caused no
more ripples than a feather settling on a frog pond.
Philip Person, a dental surgeon at the Brooklyn VA hospital and a
friend whom I'd known for years, asked me to present our results to the
New York Academy of Medicine. Before the academy would permit
this, however, it insisted that two experts must visit the lab and look at
the actual data. One was Marc Singer, who enthusiastically agreed that
we'd really started regeneration in the rat. The other man was totally
negative, but he wasn't a specialist in regeneration, so the academy per-
mitted me to speak.
Singer was one of the few who showed much enthusiasm when I'd
finished reading my paper at the meeting. Most of the audience was
unresponsive, there were few comments or criticisms To these people,
electric growth control was still a vitalistic impossibility, and they
seemed unwilling to discuss dedilfferentation. The man who'd visited
our lab with Singercomplained that the amount of new growth was
small. Phil pointed out that it wasn't the quantity but the quality of
new tissue that was important, especially in such a short time. Singer,
convinced of the paramount importance of the nerves, thought the cur-
rent might be stimulating them rather than directly causing dedifferen-
tiation, but still thought the experiment was a big step forward.
Nevertheless, it wasn't even attempted again until seven years later,
when Phil Person himself took on the task; he, and later Steve Smith,
confirmed our findings with even better results.
Meanwhile, buried in the literature we found reports that others had
already observed some regeneration in mammals. In 1934 Hans Selye,
the famous researcher into the effects of stress, discovered that a rat's
limbs could partially regenerate of their own accord when the animal
was two to five days old. Five years later Rudolph F. Nunnemacher of
Harvard confirmed Selye's observation. Nunnemacher, however, ascribed
the growth to a remnant of the epiphyseal plate. The growth-plate cells,
he thought, simply might have kept on growing as normal in the ado-
lescent animal. Selye replied that he'd specifically made sure to amputate
the limbs high enough to get all of the epiphyseal plate so he could be
certain that any growth was regenerative.
Thus Joe and I found that we'd really just extended the age limit for
regeneration in the rat. Indeed, two years later Phil Person showed that
even the young adult rats we'd used occasionally exhibited some re-
growth, a fact that had puzzled us in a couple of our control animals.
So, to be exact, our electrodes had temporarily but drastically boosted
the efficiency of the process as it normally waned with age in the rodent.
Still, it was the first time that had ever been done in a mammal.
Childhood Powers, Adult Prospects
The amputation of a fingertip—by a car door, lawn mower, electric fan,

or whatever—is one of the most common childhood injuries. The stan-
dard treatment is to smooth the exposed bone and stitch the skin closed,
or, if the digit has been retrieved and was cleanly cut, to try to reattach
it by microsurgery. The sad fact is that even the most painstaking sur-
gery gives less than optimal results. The nails are usually deformed or
missing, and the fingers are too short and often painful, with a dimin-
ished or absent sense of touch.
In the early 1970s at the emergency room of Sheffield Children's Hos-
pital in England, one youngster with such an injury benefited from a
clerical mixup The attending physician dressed the wound, but cus-
tomary referral to a surgeon for closure was never made. When the error
was caught a few days later, surgeon Cynthia Illingworth noticed that
the fingertip was regenerating! She merely watched nature take its
course.
Illingworth began treating other children with such "neglect," and by

1974 she'd documented several hundred regrown fingertips, all in chil-
dren eleven years old or younger. Other clinical studies have since con-
firmed that young children's fingers cleanly sheared off beyond the
outermost crease of the outermost joint will invariably regrow perfectly
in about three months. This crease seems to be a sharp dividing line,
with no intermediate zone between perfect restoration and none at all.
Some pediatric surgeons, like Michael Bleicher of New York's Mount
Sinai Hospital, have become so confident in the infallibility of the pro-
cess that they'll finish amputating a fingertip that's just hanging by a bit
of flesh. A lost one will regenerate as good as new, whereas one that has
merely been mutilated will heal as a stump or with heavy scarring.
Fingertip regrowth is true multitissue regeneration. A blastema ap-
pears and redifferentiates into bone, cartilage, tendon, blood vessels,
skin, nail, cuticle, fingerprint, motor nerve, and the half-dozen spe-
cialized sensory-nerve endings in the skin. Like limb regeneration in
salamanders, this process only occurs if the wound isn't covered by a flap
of skin, as in the usual surgical treatment. Illingworth and her co-
worker Anthony Barker have since measured a negative current of injury
leaving the stump.
Sadly, natural replacement has been accepted only at a few hospitals.
Bleicher laments his colleagues' resistance to the evidence: "Mention it
to young residents just our of the training program, and they look at
you as though you're crazy. Describe it on grand rounds or at other
institutions, and they tell you it's hogwash." Nearly all surgeons cling
instead to flashier and vastly more expensive yet less effective micro-
surgical techniques or simple stitches and stunted fingers.
Good News for Mammats 157
This discovery and our own research indicated that the potential for at
least some artificial regeneration was clearly quite good in young mam-
mals. But what about the ones who needed it most—us older folks
whose parts were more likely to be injured or broken down? The answer
came unexpectedly several years later, in a way that showed the futility
of adhering too rigidly to one's original plan. The scientist must be free
to follow unexpected paths as they appear.
I always expected each of my associates, whether student or estab-
lished researcher, to follow some independent project unrelated to our
work together. In 1979, a young assistant named James Cullen (now a
Ph.D. investigator in anatomy at the Syracuse VA hospital) proposed to
study what would happen if nerves were implanted into the bone mar-
row of rats. Jim thought the nerves should induce new bone to form in
the marrow cavity. Since the idea seemed logical and the technique
might supplement the electrical bone-healing devices we'd developed by
then, I encouraged him to go ahead.
Jim ran into technical problems right away. He could easily dissect
the rat's sciatic nerve out of the hind leg, but getting it into the marrow
cavity through a hole drilled in the thighbone was like trying to push a
strand of limp spaghetti through a keyhole. He resorted to drilling two
holes in the femur, passing a wire suture into the outer one, up the
femur, and out the hole nearer the hip. Then he looped the wire around
the nerve and pulled it into the marrow cavity using the suture. How-
ever, after doing a number of these, Jim decided that there had to be a
better way. He decided to amputate the rat's hind leg halfway between
the hip and the knee. He could then drill a hole into the marrow cavity
just below the hip, pass a suture through it, and pull the nerve down
the cavity and out the end of the bone remnant. This was much easier
and made a better connection of nerve to bone, so Jim prepared a
number of animals this way, only to find that the nerve had a disconcert-
ing tendency to pull back, out of the femur. The amputation didn't faze
the rats; they used the stump vigorously, and this caused the nerve to
retract.
In those few animals whose nerve had stayed in place, an interesting
bone formation had appeared in the marrow cavity. To secure the nerve
and look for the same result in other animals, Jim sutured the nerve to
the skin that we closed back over the stump. The stitch held the nerve
in place, all right, but one animal so treated gave us a totally unpre-
dicted and fascinating result: The missing portion of the femur partially
regenerated. While this was surprising enough, the most startling fact
was that Jim had used a group of surplus rats about six month old.
These rats were well into adulthood , when mammals were thought to
lose all powers of regeneration except fracture healing. What had hap-
Closer examination revealed that we'd made a hole in the skin when
we sutured the nerve to it. The nerve appeared to have grown into con-
tact with the epidermis. One of the requirements for normal regenera-
tion of a salamander limb was a neuroepidermal junction, and it looked
as though this had formed spontaneously in our one lucky rat when the
two tissues were brought together by surgery.
We changed the course of the experiment by operating on the other
rats to unite the sciatic nerve and epidermis, after scraping away the
dermis. We used animals of various ages. The results exceeded our ex-
pectations. Even the old rats regenerated their thighbones and much of
the surrounding tissue.
This offered an unparalleled opportunity to find out what it was about
the neuroepidermal junction that was so important. We prepared one
group of animals with a surgical neuroepidermal junction exactly as be-
fore. We prepared a second group the same way, except that we sutured
the nerve to the end of the bone, a millimeter away from the hole and
with no contact with the epidermis. The first group regenerated, while
the second group showed normal rat healing with no growth. The im-
portant observation, however, came from electrical measurements we
made every day on the stumps. In those animals that formed a neu-
roepidermal junction, we found electrical potentials following the same
curve I'd found in the salamander. The voltage was about ten times as
high, but the pattern was exactly the same. In the animals having no
neuroepidermal junction, the potentials followed the same curve as in
the nonregenerating frog.
We'd discovered that the specific electrical activity that started re-
generation was produced by the neuroepidermal junction, not by the
simple bulk of nerve in the limb. My original that the direct-
current control system was located in the nerves now had to be expanded
to include the electrical properties of the epidermis as well. The nerve
fibers joined the epidermal cells like plugs into sockets to complete the
exact circuit needed for a dedifferentiative current. Furthermore, since
the neuroepidermal junction was located over the end of the stump, it
continually produced blastemal cells exactly where needed, at the grow-
ing tip. This discovery was enormously important, then, because it
proved beyond doubt that the electrical current was the primary stim-
ulus that began the regenerative process, and that it could operate even
in mammals.
PRODUCING A REGENERATION CURRENT IN RATS

Another experiment showed us a formidable obstacle, however. In an
additional series of rats we made a neuroepidermal junction, not at the
end of the amputation stump, but on the side of the leg. There we
measured the same "regenerative" electrical changes, but nothing hap-
pened. There was no growth. This meant that there were no sensitive
cells at this site—no cells able to dedifferentiate in response to the cur-
rent. In mammals, it seemed, such cells were found only in the bone
marrow, a sparse cell population to serve as a source of raw material,
especially in adult animals.
AN ARTIFICIAL NEUROEPIDERMAL JUNCTION STARTS

REGROWTH IN RATS
This explained why we never got complete regrowth in any of our

rats. The results were typical of an inadequate blastema. There weren't
enough sensitive cells in the bone marrow to make a blastema big
enough to produce a whole leg. The prospects for full limb regeneration
in humans, then, looked very dim—unless we could come up with a
way of making other cells electrically sensitive so as to transform them
into despecialized blastemal cells. Luckily, while working on a com-
pletely different problem described in the following chapter, we stum-
bled upon a way to do just that.
Part 3
Our Hidden
Healing Energy
Disease [is] not an entity, but a fluctuating condition of

the patient's body, a battle between the substance of
disease and the natural self-healing tendency of the body.
—Hippocrates
Eight
The Silver Wand
When Apollo whisked Aeneas off the field of battle before Troy, he
healed the hero's shattered thighbone in a matter of minutes. Without a
god at the bedside, the process takes three to six months, and sometimes
it fails. If the bones didn't knit, the limb formerly had to be amputated
after the victim had suffered for a year or more.
It was only in 1972 that I felt ready to try electrical stimulation of
human bone growth in such cases. Zachary B. (Burt) Friedenberg, Carl
Brighton, and their research group at the University of Pennsylvania had
already reported the first successful electrical healing of a nonunion two
years before, but to avoid possible side effects we felt we must duplicate
the natural signal more closely than they had, and we didn't know
enough until after our work on rat leg regeneration. Like Friedenberg we
decided to place a negative electrode between the bone pieces, but using
a much smaller current and a silver electrode rather than stainless steel.
We thought silver would be less likely to react chemically with the
tissue and better able to transmit the electrical current. At that time we
were treating a patient whose condition seemed to demand that we try
the new procedure.
Minus for Growth, Plus for Infection
Jim was in bad shape. Drafted during the Vietnam War, he'd been a
reluctant, rebellious soldier. He survived his tour in Nam and was trans-
ferred to an Army base in Kansas late in 1970. On New Year's Eve he
broke both legs in an auto crash. The local hospital put him in traction,
with pins drilled through the skin and bones to hold the pieces together.
When he was moved to the base hospital a few days later, all the pins
had to be removed due to infection.
Jim's doctors couldn't operate because of the bacteria, so they had to
be satisfied with a cast. Because he'd broken one leg below and the other
above the knee, he needed a huge cast called a double hip spica. He was
totally encased in plaster, from his feet to the middle of his chest, for six
months. By August, his left lower leg had healed, but the right femur
showed no progress at all. The quarter-inch holes where the pins had
been were still draining pus, preventing surgery. That September he was
given a medical discharge and flown to the Syracuse VA hospital.
When I first saw him, he was still in a large cast, although now his left
leg was free. The halves of the right thighbone were completely loose.
There was nothing in standard practice to do but leave the cast on and
hope. After six more months Jim's hope was just about gone. For a year
he'd lain in bed, unable to leave the hospital for even a brief visit home.
He vented his rage against the staff, then grew despondent and unable to
face the future, which no longer seemed to include his right leg.
Then Sal Barranco, a young orthopedic surgeon in his last year of
residency, was assigned to my service from the medical school. He'd
already been a good doctor when he briefly worked with me two years
before—smart, hardworking, and really interested in his patients. He
took over Jim's care, spent many hours talking with him, and arranged
for counseling. Nothing seemed to help. Jim slipped further and further
away from us.
Sal had always been interested in what was going on in the lab. In
fact, I'd often tried to interest him in a career of teaching and research,
but he preferred surgery and its rewards of helping people directly. In
February of 1972, as we were nearing the clinical stage with our bone
stimulator, Sal said, "You know, Dr. Becker, you really should consider
electrically stimulating Jim's fracture. I don't see anything else left. It's
his last chance."
The problem was that none of Friedenberg's patients had been in-
fected. Although Jim's septic pin tracts weren't right at the fracture,
they were too close for comfort. If I stirred up those bacteria when I
operated to insert the electrodes, the game was lost. Moreover, it was
obvious by now that electricity was the most important growth stimulus
to cells. Even if it produced healing, no one could be sure what these
cells would do in the future. They might become hypersensitive to other
stimuli and start growing malignantly later. This was the first time in
The Silver Wand 165
the history of medicine that we could start at least one type of growth at
will. I was afraid of beginning a clinical program that might seize the
public's fancy and be applied on a large scale before we knew enough
about the technique. If disastrous side effects showed up later, we could
lose momentum toward a revolutionary advance in medicine. I decided
that if I carefully explained what we proposed to do, with all its uncer-
tainties, and let the patient choose, then ethically I'd be doing the right
thing.
As to the infection, for several years we had been looking for a way to
stop growth. My experiments with Bassett on dogs back in 1964 sug-
gested that just as we could turn growth on with negative electricity, so
we could turn it off with positive current. If true, this obviously could
be of great importance in cancer treatment. Because ours was always a
needy program, trying to do more than we had grants for, we couldn't
afford the expensive equipment needed to test the idea on cancer cells.
We had to settle for bacteria.
In preliminary tests we found that silver electrodes, when made elec-
trically positive, would kill all types of bacteria in a zone about a half
inch in diameter, apparently because of positive silver ions driven into
the culture by the applied voltage. This was an exciting discovery, be-
cause no single antibiotic worked against all types of bacteria. I thought
that if I inserted the silver wire into Jim's nonunion and the area became
infected, I could as a last resort make the electrode positive and perhaps
save the leg a while longer. Of course, the positive current could well
delay healing further or actually destroy more bone.
I explained all this to Jim and said that, if he wished, I would do it. I
wanted him to know the procedure was untested and potentially dan-
gerous. With tears in his eyes, he begged, "Please try, Dr. Becker. I
want my leg."
Two days later, Sal and I operated through a hole in the cast. The
fracture was completely loose, with not one sign of healing. We re-
moved a little scar tissue from the bone and implanted the electrode.
The part in between the bone ends was bare wire; the rest, running
through the muscles and out of the skin, was insulated so as to deliver
the minuscule negative current only to the bone.
The infection didn't spread, and Jim's spirits improved. As I made
my daily rounds three weeks later, he said, "I'm sure it's healing. I just
know it!" I was still nervous when, six weeks after surgery, it was time
to pull out the electrode, remove the cast, and get an X ray. I needn't
have worried. Not only did the X ray show a lot of new bone, but when
I examined the leg myself, I could no longer move the fracture! We put
Jim in a walking cast, and he left the hospital for the first time in
sixteen months. In another six weeks the fracture had healed enough for
us to remove the cast, and Jim started rehabilitation for his knee, which
had stiffened from disuse.
All the pin tracts, especially the ones nearest the break, were still
draining, and Jim asked, "Why not use the silver wire on this hole to
kill the infection? Then I'll be all done and won't have to worry anymore
about infecting the rest of the bone." I had to agree with his logic. If the
hole through the muscle to the outside healed shut, the infection would
be more likely to spread within the bone. However, I told him that the
positive current might prevent the hole from filling in with bone, mak-
ing a permanent weak spot there.
We put in the electrode and used the same current as before, except
reversing its polarity. I had no idea how long to let it run, so I ar-
bitrarily pulled it out after one week. Nothing much seemed to have
happened. The drainage might have been a little less, though not much;
but I was afraid to use the positive current anymore for fear of further
weakening the bone.
Jim left the hospital and didn't keep his next appointment in the
clinic. A year later he returned unannounced saying he was just traveling
through Syracuse and thought I would like to see how he was doing. He
was walking normally, with no pain, placing full weight on the right
leg. He said the drainage had stopped a week after he left the hospital
and had never recurred. X rays showed the fracture solidly healed and
the one pin tract I'd treated filling in with new bone. The pin site on the
other leg was still infected, and I said we could treat that in a few days,
since we'd improved our technique in the meantime. "No, I have to be
moving on," Jim replied. "I don't have a job. I don't know what I'm
going to do, but I know I don't want to spend any more time in hospi-
tals."
Sal had been graduated from the residency program a few months
after Jim was discharged in 1973, but before he left he spent all his free
time in the lab helping us test the bactericidal (bacteria-killing) elec-
trodes. A few previous reports had mentioned inconsistent antibacterial
effects, some with alternating current, some with negative DC using
stainless steel, but there had been no systematic study of the subject.
We tried silver, platinum, gold, stainless steel, and copper electrodes,
using a wide range of currents, on four disparate kinds of bacteria, in-
cluding Staphylococcus aureus, one of the commonest and most trou-
blesome.
Soon we were able to explain the earlier incosistencies: All five met-
The Silver Wand 167
als stopped growth of all the bacteria at both poles, as long as we used
high currents. Unfortunately, high currents also produced toxic ef-
fects—chemical changes in the medium, gas formation, and corrosion—
with all but the silver electrodes. Apparently such currents through
most metals "worked" by poisoning both bacteria and nearby tissues.
Our preliminary observations turned out to be right. Silver at the
positive pole killed or deactivated every type of bacteria without side
effects, even with very low currents. We also tried the silver wires on
bacteria grown in cultures of mouse connective tissue and bone marrow,
and the ions wiped out the bacteria without affecting the living mouse
cells. We were certain it was the silver ions that did the job, rather than
the current, when we found that the silver-impregnated culture medium
killed new bacteria placed in it even after the current was switched off.
The only other metal that had any effect was gold; it worked against
Staphylococcus, but not nearly as well as silver.
Of course, the germ-killing action of silver had been known for some
time. At the turn of the century, silver foil was considered the best
infection-preventive dressing for wounds. Writing in 1913, the eminent
surgeon William Stewart Halsted referred to the centuries-old practice of
putting silver wire in wounds, then said of the foil: "I know of nothing
which could quite take its place, nor have I known any one to abandon
it who had thoroughly familiarized himself with the technic of its em-
ployment."
With the advent of better infection-fighting drugs, silver fell out of
favor, because its ions bind avidly to proteins and thus don't penetrate
tissue beyond the very surface. A few silver compounds still have spe-
cialized uses in some eye, nose, and throat infections, and the Soviets use
silver ions to sterilize recycled water aboard their space stations, but for
the most part medicine has abandoned the metal. Electrified silver offers
several advantages over previous forms, however. There are no other ions
besides silver to burden the tissues. The current "injects" or drives the
silver ions further than simple diffusion can. Moreover, it's especially
well suited for use against several kinds of bacteria simultaneously. It
kills even antibiotic-resistant strains, and also works on fungus infec-
tions.
For treating wounds, however, there was one big problem with the
technique. Its effect was still too local, extending only about a quarter
inch from the wire. For large areas we needed something like a piece of
window screen made of silver, but this would have been expensive and
also too stiff to mold into the contours of a wound.
We'd been doing our clinical experimens with financial support from a
multinational medical-equipment company that made our "black boxes,"
the battery packs with all their circuitry that powered our electrodes. I
discussed the problem with the company's young research director, Jack
TerBeek, and a few weeks later he came back with a fascinating material.
NASA needed an electrically conductive fabric, and a small manufactur-
ing company had produced nylon parachute cloth coated with silver. It
could be cut to any size and was eminently flexible.
It performed beautifully. Although the silver ions still didn't get
more than a quarter of an inch from it, we could use it to cover a large
area. Hopeful that we might have a cure for two of an orthopedist's
worst nightmares—nonunion and osteomyelitis (bone infection)—we
studied the positive silver technique in the lab and continued to use the
negative electrodes to stimulate bone growth in selected patients. Word
spread via newspaper and TV reports. We began getting patients from
all over the nation, but we didn't accept many for the experimental
program due to my conservative viewpoint. I applied the same criterion
as before: Electrical treatment had to be the patient's last chance.
While slowly gaining experience, we surveyed the literature to stay
informed about other people's work. As of 1976, fourteen research
groups had used bone stimulators on some seven hundred patients, for
spinal fusions and fresh fractures as well as nonunions, all with seem-
ingly good results.
We'd used our electrical generator on only thirteen patients by then.
We were the only ones using silver electrodes, a lucky choice as it
turned out; all the others were using stainless steel, platinum, or ti-
tanium. We used 100 to 200 nanoamps per centimeter of electrode,
while Brighton and most other investigators were using 10,000 to
20,000 nanoamps. The low level approximated the natural current and
also minimized the chances of a dangerous side effect. Brighton and
Friedenberg had found a danger of infection and tissue irritation when
running their high-current electrodes at more than 1 volt. We figured
this couldn't happen at our amperage, but just to be sure we built in an
alarm circuit to shut off our box automatically if the electrical force rose
close to 1 volt.
By this time we'd also cleared up several more cases of osteomyelitis
by reversing the battery and making the silver electrode positive for a
day. It looked safe. There was no crossover of effects: When negative,
the wire didn't make infectious bacteria grow, and when positive, it
didn't destroy bone-forming cells or prevent them from growing when
we switched the current to negative. Our confidence in this method
grew with one of our most challenging cases, which also forced us to
revise our theories.
The Silver Wand 169
Positive Surprises
In December of 1976 a young man was sent to our clinic for a possible
amputation. John was a man of the north woods. Weathered and hard,
he faced the problem philosophically. "What's got to be has got to be,"
he said through tight lips. Three years before, he'd been in a snow-
mobile accident, breaking his right tibia (shinbone) in three places and
also fracturing the fibula, the smaller bone of the lower leg. He'd been
treated at a small local hospital, where the broken bones had become
infected. He'd undergone several operations to remove dead bone and
treat the infection, but the bacteria continued to spread. He came to us
with the fracture still not healed and with a long cavity on the front of
his shin in which one could see right into the dead and infected bone.
He was struggling to walk in a cast extending up to his hip. He was
married, with five young children, and his leg was obviously not the
only place he was having trouble making ends meet.
"What kind of work do you do?" I asked him.
"I trap muskrats, Doc."
"That's all?"
"That's all, Doc."
"How in hell do you manage with that cast on?"
"I put a rubber hip boot over the cast, Doc."
Muskrat trapping is hard work, a tough way to make a living even for
a man with two good legs. "John, if you have an amputation and wear
an artificial leg, you sure won't be able to do that. What will you do
then?"
"I dunno—welfare prob'ly. Prob'ly go nuts."
"You really like to work in the woods, don't you?"
"Wouldn't do anything else, Doc."
"Well, let's get you admitted to the hospital. Something has to be
done, and I have an idea that might let you keep your leg." For the first
time, John smiled.
In fighting the infection, the first step was to identify the enemy, the
microbes. John's wound was a veritable zoo. There were at least five
different types of bacteria living in it. Even with only one kind, os-
teomyelitis is notoriously hard to treat. Very little blood reaches the
bone cells, so both antibiotics and the body's own defense agents are
hampered in getting where they're needed. And even if we could get it
into the bone, no single antibiotic could fight all of John's germs. Even
a mixture would probably create a greater problem than it solved, for
any bacteria resistant to the mix would spread like wildfire when the
others competing against them were killed.
John's X rays were as chaotic as his bacteria cultures—pieces of dead
bone all over the place with absolutely no healing—but we had to deal
with the infection first. Since we'd have to use positive current for quite
a while, I was afraid we'd destroy some of the bone, but I told John that
six months after we got the wound to heal over with skin, I would bring
him back into the hospital and use the negative current to stimulate
whatever was left. I couldn't promise anything and, since I hadn't yet
tried the silver nylon on this type of wound, we might run into unex-
pected problems. But John agreed with me that he had nothing to lose
except his leg, which would certainly have to come off if we didn't try
my plan.
A few days later I debrided the wound, removing the dead tissue and
all grossly infected or dead bone. There wasn't much left afterward. It
was an enormous excavation running almost from his knee to his ankle.
In the operating room we soaked a big piece of silver nylon in saline
solution and laid it over the wound. It had been cut with a "tail,"
serving as the electrical contact and also as a sort of pull tab that we
could keep dry, outside of the cavity. We packed the fabric in place
with saline-soaked gauze, wrapped the leg, and connected the battery
unit.
I watched John anxiously during the first two days. If trouble was
going to occur, that was when I expected it. By the third day he was
eating well, and the current was beginning to drop off, indicating more
resistance at the surface of the wound. Now it was time to change the
dressing. We were overjoyed to see that the silver hadn't corroded and
the wound looked great. Carefully I took a bacterial culture and applied
a new silver nylon dressing.
The next morning Sharon Chapin, an exceptional lab technician who
took an active part in some of the research, showed me the bacterial
cultures. The number of bacteria had dropped dramatically. I went to
give John the good news and change his dressing again, when I realized
that I could teach him to do his own daily dressing changes. They were
time-consuming for me, but John had too much time on his hands and
was the one most interested in doing the best thing for his leg. It was a
nice feeling to teach a muskrat trapper, who bad dropped out of school
at sixteen, how to do an experimental medical procedure. He learned
fast, and in a day or so he was changing dressings himself and measuring
the current, too. By the end of the week, he allowed as how he did a
better job than l did. Maybe he did it at that, because by then all of our
The Silver Wand 171
bacterial cultures were sterile—all five kinds had been killed. The soft
healing tissue, called granulation tissue, was spreading out and covering
the bone. In two weeks, the whole base of the wound, which had been
over eight square inches of raw bone, was covered with this friendly pink
carpet. The skin was beginning to grow in, too, so we could forget
about the grafts we thought we'd need to do.
I decided to take an X ray to see how much bone he'd lost. I could
hardly believe the picture. There was clearly some bone growth! We'd
been working through a hole in the cast, so I had no idea if the fracture
was still loose. Without telling John why—I didn't want to get his
hopes up if I was wrong—I removed the cast, felt the leg, and found
that the pieces were all stuck together. John watched, and when I was
done he lifted his leg into the air triumphantly. It held straight against
gravity. His grin opened broader than an eight-lane highway. "I
thought you said the bone wouldn't heal yet, Doc!"
I'd never so much enjoyed being wrong, but I warned John not to get
too excited until we were sure the good news would hold up. I put him
back into a cast and continued treatment another month, until the skin
healed over. By then the X rays showed enough repair to warrant a
walking cast. John left the hospital on crutches and promised not to run
around in the swamps until I told him it was all right. He didn't come
back until two months later. The cast was in tatters, and he walked in
without crutches, smiling at everyone. The last X rays confirmed it:
Healing was nearly complete, and John went back to the wilds.
By mid-1978 we'd successfully treated fourteen osteomyelitis patients
with the positive silver mesh wire. The funny thing was, in five of them
we'd healed nonunions as a "side effect," without any negative current at
all. Obviously it was time to revise our idea that negative electricity
alone fostered growth and positive inhibited it.
Andy Marino, Joe Spadaro, and I talked it over. Reducing the DC
stimulation technique to its essentials, all you needed was an electrode
that wouldn't react with tissue fluid when it wasn't passing current.
Since a negative electrode didn't give off ions, any inert metal, such as
stainless steel, platinum, or titanium, would work with that polarity.
But we knew from our lab work that the situation was very different at
the positive pole, where the current drove charged atoms of the metal
into the nearby environment. We decided it must be chemical, not elec-
trical, processes that were preventing the bacterial growth at the positive
electrode. In that case, maybe polarity was unimportant in growth
enhancement. We postulated that, because silver ions were nontoxic to
human cells and the electrical aspect was right, we inadvertently grew
bone with positive current. This idea turned out to be quite wrong, but
we'll get to that story in due time.
Joe, who was always fascinated by the history of science, now found
that none of the contemporary research groups had been the first to
stimulate bone repair electrically. We'd all been beaten by more than
150 years. Back in 1812, Dr. John Birch of St. Thomas' Hospital in
London used electric shocks to heal a nonunion of the tibia. A Dr. Hall
of York, Pennsylvania, later used direct current through electroacu-
puncture needles for the same purpose, and by 1860 Dr. Arthur Garratt
of Boston stated in his electrotherapy textbook that, in the few times
he'd needed to try it, this method had never failed. Because of the prim-
itive state of electrical science then, we didn't know how much current
these doctors had used. However, the polarity didn't seem to matter,
and they used gold electrodes, which were nearly as nontoxic at the
positive pole as silver.
Realizing that we still didn't know as much as we'd thought about
the growth control lock, we continued to ply the silver key. At least
seventy patients with bone infections have now had the silver nylon
treatment, including twenty at Louisiana State University Medical
School in Shreveport, where Andy Marino ended up after the closing of
our lab in 1980. In some of our first cases we noticed a discharge exud-
ing from the tissues and sticking to the mesh when we changed the
dressings. We thought it was "reactive" exudate—from irritation by the
current—until one day when, during a slight delay in the operating
room, I sent a sample of it to the pathology lab. It was filled with such a
variety of cells that we had to rule out a simple response to irritation.
Instead there was a variety of primitive-looking cell types, looking just
like the active bone marrow of children. However, the patients were
long past that age, and, besides, their marrow cavities were closed off
with scar tissue from their unmended and infected bone injuries. We
had to consider another source.
The exudate appeared at the same time as the granulation tissue,
which is composed mainly of fibroblasts, ubiquitous connective cells
forming a major part of most soft tissues. Since the exudate also con-
tained some fibroblasts, we decided to see if the unfamiliar types had
arisen by metamorphosis from them.
We set up a series of three-compartment culture dishes and placed a
standard colony of isolated, pure-bred mouse fibroblasts in each. In one
section we put a positive silver electrode, in one a negative electrode,
and in the third a piece of silver wire not connected to anything.
In cells right next to all three wires, the cytoplasm changed to an
The Silver Wand 173
abnormal texture in response to ions of dissolved silver, which migrated
only about a hundredth of a millimeter. There were no other effects in
the control or negative-current chambers.
Around the positive poles, however, this region was succeeded by an
area of great activity for a distance of 5 millimeters on all sides. While
doing their job of holding things together, fibroblasts have a charac-
teristic spiky shape, with long sticky branches extending in all direc-
tions. In this region where silver ions had been driven by the current,
many of the cells had changed to a static, globular form in which
mitosis didn't occur. They seemed to be in suspended animation, float-
ing freely instead of adhering to other cells or the sides of the dishes as
usual. Mixed among them were many featureless cells with enlarged
nuclei, the end products of dedifferentiation. More and more of the
rounded fibroblasts turned into fully despecialized cells as the test pro-
gressed. Beyond the 5-millimeter line was a border zone with partial
changes, followed by a realm of normal, spiky fibroblasts. Dedifferenti-
ated cells normally divide rapidly, but these didn't, perhaps because
they were sitting in a plastic dish far removed from the normal stimuli
of an animal's body. Within a day after the current was turned off, the
cells clumped together into bits of pseudotissue that looked like the
young "bone marrow" we'd seen in the exudate. After two weeks they'd
all reverted back to mature fibroblasts, presumably because regular re-
placement of the nutrient medium had by then washed out all the silver
POSITIVE SILVER DEDIDIFFERENTIATES CONNECTIVE TISSUE CELLS

To learn more about these astonishing changes, we studied pieces of
the granulation tissue itself, taken from patients treated with the silver
nylon. We placed the samples in culture dishes and observed them as
they grew. Without the silver factor we would have expected a popula-
tion of slowly proliferating fibroblasts. However, these cells grew fast,
producing a diverse and surprising assortment of primitive forms, in-
cluding fully dedifferentiated cells, rounded fibroblasts, and amoebalike
cells. Strangest of all were giant cells that looked almost like fertilized
eggs, very active and with several nucleoli. (The nucleolus is a "little
nucleus" within the nucleus proper.) When other cells encountered the
giant cells, the smaller cells often split open and emptied their nuclei
into the giants. After two weeks these diverse cells had coalesced into an
amorphous mass of primitive cells closely resembling a blastema, and in
another week, as the silver washed out, they'd all become staid, sober
fibroblasts acting as though nothing had happened.
The major difference between the two experiments was that the sec-
ond one started with cells that had already been exposed to positive
silver ions in the human body. Their rapid growth and unspecialized forms
suggested that the fibroblasts in the first experiment had in fact been
dedifferentiated. It remains to be seen exactly what the various forms do,
but it's obvious that in the aggregate they profoundly stimulate soft-
tissue healing in a way that's unlike any known natural process. We ran
a controlled study of the healing enhancement on pigs, their skin being
physiologically closest to that of humans. Positive silver nylon acceler-
ated the healing of measured skin wounds on the animals' backs by over
50 percent as compared with identical control wounds made on the
backs of the same animals at the same time.
We saw positive silver's lifesaving potential most clearly in our expe-
rience with a patient named Tom in 1979. Tom had had massive doses
of X rays for cancer of the larynx, and his larynx later had to be re-
moved. Because of the radiation, the surrounding tissue was helpless
against infection, and the skin and muscle of his entire neck literally
dissolved into a horrid wound. The ear, nose, and throat doctor treating
him begged me to try the nylon, and I agreed after the attending physi-
cian got a release signed by the head of his department. After one month
of electrified silver treatment, the infection was gone and healing was
progressing, the wound healed completely in a total of three months,
although Tom soon died from tumors elsewhere in his body. I reported
this case at a small National Institutes of Health meeting that same
year. One physician, who said he'd never heard of any comparable heal-
ing of such a grave wound, was moved to exclaim after seeing my slides,
"I have witnessed a miracle!"
The Silver Wand 175
We may only have scratched the surface of positive silver's medical
brilliance. Already it's an amazing tool. It stimulates bone-forming
cells, cures the most stubborn infections of all kinds of bacteria, and
stimulates healing in skin and other soft tissues. We don't know
whether the treatment can induce healing in other parts of the body, but
the possibility is there, and there may be other marvels latent in this
magic caduceus. Just before our research group was disbanded, we stud-
ied malignant fibrosarcoma cells (cancerous fibroblasts) and found that
electrically injected silver suspended their runaway mitosis. Most impor-
tant of all, the technique makes it possible to produce large numbers of
dedifferentiated cells, overcoming the main problem of mammalian re-
generation—the limited number of bone marrow cells that dedifferenti-
ate in response to electrical current alone. Whatever its precise mode of
action may be, the electrically generated silver ion can produce enough
cells for human blastemas; it has restored my belief that full regeneration
of limbs, and perhaps other body parts, can be accomplished in humans.
Many questions remain, however. We don't know how the changed
cells speed up healing or how the silver changes them. We don't know
how electrically produced silver ions differ from ordinary dissolved ions,
only that they do. They evoke widely different reactions from the fibro-
blasts, and the cells affected by dissolved ions close to the electrode are
prevented from dedifferentiating in response to the electrified silver.
Most important is a search for possible delayed side effects.
These questions urgently need research by some good electrochemists,
but the work isn't being done. We were probably lucky we hadn't found
this effect in our first round of lab tests on silver electrodes. The Food
and Drug Administration let us test the antibacterial technique on se-
lected patients because we found no toxicity and because a few hours a
day was enough. To say that the same electrodes run for a longer time
could stimulate healing was such a bold claim that permission probably
would have been denied. At this point, however, we sorely need enough
imagination on the part of research sponsors to follow up these leads in
the laboratories, while making the treatment available now to the des-
perate few who have no other hope.
The Fracture Market
Where does all this leave us in our understanding of electrically trig-

gered bone healing? I'm afraid we're not too much better off than the
nineteenth-century doctors who lost this effective treatment because no
one understood it well enough to defend it from electrotherapy's oppo-
nents. Of course, we have more pieces of the puzzle today, but we still
don't have a complete picture of how any of the competing techniques
work.
Besides our low-current silver electrodes, there are two other basic
types of bone growth stimulators. Friedenberg and Brighton at first
placed their stiff stainless-steel wires through holes drilled into the bone
near the break. Now a "semi-invasive" refinement is used in many pa-
tients—sticking the electrodes through the flesh into the fracture gap
under local anesthetic; several may be needed for a large bone. They're
connected to a self-contained battery pack set right into the cast.
Friedenberg and Brighton patented their invention, and it's now ap-
proved by the FDA and marketed. About three fourths of the groups
treating patients use some variation on this theme.
Australian researchers under D. C. Patterson devised a spiral titanium
electrode that's placed into a notch cut in the bone on both sides of the
fracture. It's now also FDA approved and marketed. Since this device,
battery pack and all, must be implanted and removed in two separate
operations, and since the electrode usually must be left behind in the
bone, late complications may occur.
Others have taken a completely different approach, using pulsed elec-
tromagnetic fields (PEMF) to induce currents in the fracture area from
outside the body. The best-known proponents of this method, Andrew
Bassett and electrochemist Arthur Pilla, worked together at the Ortho-
pedic Research Laboratories of Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in
New York until 1982; Pilla is now at the Mount Sinai Medical Center.
They developed a pair of electromagnetic coils sheathed in plastic pads,
connected to a book-sized generator that plugs into a wall socket.
Having experimented with a wide variety of pulsed fields, Bassett and
Pilla found four that stimulate fracture healing. The one that works
best, which is now also approved and available commercially, is pro-
duced by electromagnets driven by alternating current supplied in bursts
of pulses. Although it ties the patient to an electrical outlet for twelve
hours a day (mostly during sleep, of course), this apparatus completely
avoids surgery and its attendant risks.
The funny thing is that all three methods—low current, high cur-
rent, and PEMF—seem to work equally well. Since the FDA approved
them in late 1979, success rates have stabilized at about 80 percent.
As far as the two electrode methods are concerned, I believe some
experiments wedid in 1977 and 1978 revealed why they both work.
When we arranged all the reports in order from lowest current to high-
est, we found a narrow band of low amperages and a wide band of higher
The Silver Wand 177
ones that worked, separated by a range in between that failed. We tested
various nonsilver electrodes on animals and found that, at the effective
currents, they all produced some electrochemical changes even at the nega-
tive pole. Among other products, they created various highly reactive ions
called free radicals, essential in cellular chemistry but also destructive in
excess. These radicals irritate cells, and, since any continuous irritation
stimulates bone-forming cells to lay down new matrix in self-defense, we
concluded that the higher-current methods worked primarily by such
irritation. Conversely, I believe low-current silver electrodes stimulate
bone formation directly—by dedifferentiating the marrow cells and per-
haps also by stimulating the periosteal cells.
At first, PEMF research suggested that the coils worked by inducing
in the tissues electrical currents that changed the permeability of cell
membranes to calcium. In most nonunions at least a small amount of
fracture callus has appeared, consisting of collagen fibers, but for some\
reason it hasn't entered the next stage, in which apatite crystals form on
the fibers. Work by Pilla and Bassett suggested that the currents in-
duced by the pulsed fields caused the cells of the callus to absorb large
amounts of calcium. Later, when the coils were turned off, they rea-
soned, the cells dumped this calcium outside among the collagen fibers,
and apatite crystals finally formed where they belonged.
Their experiments raised the hope that other wave forms might regu-
late membrane passage of other ions or even control DNA transcription
and protein synthesis. It seemed these field-induced currents might act
as "vocal cords," allowing us to "speak" to the cell nucleus via the mem-
brane, much as sound waves communicate with the brain via the ear.
PEMF does in fact induce currents—of a type never found normally
in the body. Each pulse produces millions of tiny eddy currents briefly
flowing in circles. As the magnetic field expands at the beginning of a
pulse, the currents circle in one direction; as it collapses, they reverse.
However, the latest research has cast doubt on the idea that these cur-
rents affect specific cellular processes. Rather, it seems that artificial
time-varying magnetic fields directly activate the cells by speeding up
their mitotic rate, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 15.
You may ask, "As long as something works, why quibble about
how?" My answer is that understanding how is our best hope for using
the tool right, without causing our patients other problems later. By
sticking our own neologisms into the cell's delicate grammar, we auto-
matically risk garbling it in unforeseen ways.
As of now, we're like blind people crossing a minefield. Accelerated
mitosis is a hallmark of malignancy as well as healing, and long-term
exposure to time-varying electromagnetic fields has been linked to in-
creased rates of cancer in humans. Bassett has discounted potential dan-
gers, saying, "You would experience almost the same field strength by
standing under a fluorescent light." However, a fluorescent lamp may
well feel like a floodlight to cells that can see nanoamperes of current.
One of the main lessons of bioelectromagnetism so far is that less is often
more.
On the other hand, it's too easy to assume that "natural is better."
Since it would vindicate our low-current method, I obviously hope it's
true, but the fact remains that putting electrodes in a bone is itself a
very unnatural act. Stimulation of healing outside the normal limits of
the process may incur fewer risks in the end. So far the evidence suggests
otherwise, but we don't yet know for sure. That's why I keep emphasiz-
ing the need to go slowly, using these contraptions only when all else
has failed, until we understand them better.
The most urgent need is a search for possible malignant effects. As far
as I know, I've done the only such research on electrodes to date—one
simple tissue culture study without grant support, using some money I
saved from our last research project funded by the manufacturer of the
battery pack. I proposed more extensive tests to various granting agen-
cies before our lab was closed, but was turned down every time.
I exposed standard cultures of human fibrosarcoma cells to 360
nanoamps from stainless steel electrodes. I tried it five times, and each
time there was a threefold increase in cell population at both electrodes.
Even for cancer cells, this is remarkable proliferation for such a short
time. To my knowledge, none of the developers or marketers of elec-
trode devices have chosen to duplicate this test or try their own, despite
the ease of doing the work and the fact that they have plenty of money.
Whatever evidence on this point that may have been presented to the
FDA hasn't been made public. After the evaluation panel granted com-
mercial approval, however, several of its members expressed fears that
this possibility hadn't been adequately tested. At this time, therefore, I
must conclude that high-current electrodes might enhance the growth of
any preexisting tumor cells in the electrical path—unlike low-current
silver, which when negative had no effect on, and when positive sus-
pended, mitosis of cancer cells in our lab.
As for PEMF, Bassett and Pilla believe that only cells in a healing
process gone awry can "hear" their wave form, so they discount the idea
of cancel enhancement from it. They claim to have found no PEMFs that
produce or accelerate malignant growth; on the contrary, Pilla and on-
cologist Larry Norton of Mount Sinai say they've found at least one that
The Silver Wand 179
seems to inhibit it in lab animals. This claim is seriously flawed, how-
ever, because of the difference between subjecting an entire animal to a
magnetic field, and directing the same field to a small area around a
fracture (see Chapter 12). Moreover, in 1983, Akamine, a Japanese
orthopedic researcher, reported that the pulsed magnetic fields used for
bone healing dramatically increased the mitotic rate of cancer cells. The
same fields inhibited the return of such "stimulated" cancer cells to a
more normal state. Thus PEMF, like high-current treatments, appar-
ently does enhance cancer growth.
In the last decade or so, electrobiologists have learned a great deal
about the effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields (as opposed to
steady-state fields) on living tissue. We'll review these discoveries in
Chapters 14 and 15. The evidence to date indicates that PEMF works by
increasing the mitotic rate of the healing cells, not by altering calcium
metabolism. If so, it can't possibly discriminate between bone-healing
cells and any other type. It will accelerate the growth of any cellular
system that is actively growing; this includes not only healing tissues,
but fetal and malignant tissues as well.
At the present rate of basic research, we won't have direct proof on
whether electrical healing stimulators are nurturing seeds of cancer in
humans until two or three decades from now. We could find out much
sooner by simple experiments on animals having shorter life-spans. Until
we have that definitive answer, I contend that all three techniques
should remain available as a last resort to prevent loss of limb, but I'm
appalled at their increasing use to speed up orthodontics or accelerate
healing of fresh fractures.
Unfortunately, the trend is away from caution. By the time this book
is published, tens of thousands of patients will have been treated with
the devices, many as a first, rather than last, resort. At a recent
orthopedic meeting, I learned that four more companies are hoping to
market new models. Several have asked me to advise them, but I haven't
found one yet that wants to embark on any serious research. Without
such a commitment, I refuse to take part in any battle of salesmen. I
never even tried to patent the low-current silver method, because a med-
ical device generally isn't considered patentable if the research that went
into it was conducted throughout the scientific community and pub-
lished for all to read. As I see it, the rush to the marketplace can only
spawn jurisdictional disputes and ensure that important findings are
kept as proprietary secrets.
Electrical osteogenesis could be the opening wedge into a new era of
medicine. Within a few years, we may know how to use these tech-
niques to repair joint cartilage, or even replace whole joints, and to
correct various defects of bone growth. In the further future, we may be
able to extend regeneration as needed to nearly all human tissues. For
the first time a physician can now direct nature, albeit in a small way,
rather than play her helpless servant. We must use this power wisely.
We're tapping into the most potent force in all of biology. If we're
irresponsible about it, we risk another electrical letdown that could put
off medicine's glorious future for many years.
Nine
The Organ Tree
"I have yet to see any problem, however complicated, which when you
looked at it the right way did not become still more complicated," sci-
ence fiction writer Poul Anderson once observed. To a certain extent this
is true of regeneration. Intricate nature is still more than a match for our
finest-spun hypotheses. Yet we've now reached the oasis of science that
we call an interim understanding, where the data begin to shake into
place and we can sense the pattern of the rebus from the blanks we've
filled in.
Ultimately we must relate all we learn about regeneration to a general
system of communication among cells, for regrowth is only a special case
of the cooperative cohesion that's the essence of multicellular life. This
communication system includes but extends beyond the gene-protein-
enzyme subsystems that govern the specialization of cells and unite their
chemical trade routes into smoothly working tissues and organs. During
embryonic development, cells where muscle will appear must receive
instructions from their environment telling them to repress all genes
except the muscle genome, or subcode. In many tissues, perhaps in all,
chemical inductors from previously formed tissue perform this task,
leading embryonic cells step by step through the stages of differentia-
tion. However, chemical reactions and the passage of compounds from
cell to cell can't account for structure, such as the alignment of muscle
fiber bundles, the proper shape of the whole muscle, and its precise
attachment to bones. Molecullar dynamics, the simple gradients of diffu-
sion, can't explain anatomy. The control system we're seeking unites all
levels of organization, from the idiosyncratic yet regular outline of the
whole organism to the precisely engineered traceries of its microstruc-
ture. The DNA-RNA apparatus isn't the whole secret of life, but a sort
of computer program by which the real secret, the control system, ex-
presses its pattern in terms of living cells.
This pattern is part of what many people mean by the soul, which so
many philosophies have tried to explicate. However, most of the pro-
posed answers haven't been connected with the physical world of biology
in a way that offered a toehold for experiment. Like many attempts, the
latest major scientific guess, the morphogenetic field proposed by Paul
Weiss in 1939, was just a restatement of the problem, though a useful
one. Weiss conjectured that development was guided by some sort of
field projected from the fertilized egg. As the dividing cell mass became
an embryo and then an adult, the field changed its shape and somehow
led the cells onward.
The problem was that there were too many "somehows." Even if one
accepted Burr's largely ignored measurements of an electric L-field and
admitted that it might be the morphogenetic field (a possibility Weiss
dogmatically rejected), there was still no way of telling where the L-field
came from or how it acted upon cells. Nor was there an explanation of
how, if the field was an emanation from the cells, it could also guide them
in building an animal or plant. In applying the idea to regeneration,
biologists faced the related and seemingly insurmountable problem of
how a more or less uniform outflow of energy could carry enough infor-
mation to characterize a limb or organ. Given the complexity of biolog-
ical structures, this was even harder than imagining how a field could
"somehow" survive when the part it referred to was missing.
However, the morphogenetic field no longer has to account for every-
thing. Acceptance of dedifferentiation lets us divide regrowth into two
phases and better understand each. The first phase begins with the
cleanup of wound debris by phagocytes (the scavenger race of white
blood cells) and culminates in dedifferentiation of tissue to form a
blastema. Redifferentiation and orderly growth of the needed part con-
stitute the second phase.
Simplifying the problem in this way should give biologists an imme-
diate sense of accomplishment, for the first stage is now well under-
stood. After phagocytosis, while the other tissues are dying back a short
distance behind the amputation line, the epidermal cells divide and mi-
grate over the end of the stump. Then, as this epidermis thickens into
an apical cap, nerve fibers grow outward and subdivide to form individ-
ual synapselike connections the neuroepidermal junction (NEJ) - with
the cap cells. This connection transmits or generates a simple but highly
The Organ Tree 183
specific electrical signal in regenerating animals: a few hundred nanoam-
peres of direct current, initially positive, then changing in the course of
a few days to negative.
The pituitary hormone prolactin, the same substance that stimulates
milk flow in nursing mothers, seems to sensitize cells to electric current.
Then the signal causes nearby cells to dedifferentiate and form a
blastema, apparently by changing the way cell membranes pass calcium
ions. After confirming our frog blood-cell work, Art Pilla went on to
produce the same changes by using pulsed DC to make a wave of cal-
cium ions flowing across the culture dish. Steve Smith then confirmed
the importance of calcium by preventing dedifferentiation with a cal-
cium-blocking compound, and restarting it with another substance that
enhanced passage of calcium ions. Working together, Smith and Pilla
next used the same PEMF wave form now in clinical use to nearly dou-
ble the rate of salamander limb regeneration, while completely prevent-
ing it with a different pulse pattern. Widespread recent work on
calcium-binding proteins, such as calmodulin, has made it fairly certain
that electrical control of calcium movement through cell membranes di-
rects the give-and-take among these proteins, which in turn supervises
the cell's entire genetic and metabolic industry.
Although not conclusive, the available evidence suggests that the cur-
rent flows through the perineural cells rather than the neurons them-
selves (see Chapter 13). These are several types of cells that completely
surround every nerve cell, enclosing all the peripheral fibers in a sheath
and composing 90 percent of the brain. Lizards can replace their tails
without the spinal cord, as long as the ependyma, or perineural cells
surrounding the cord, remains intact, and ependymal tissue transplanted
to leg stumps gives lizards some artificial regeneration there. However,
the circuit may shift tissues near the wound, for Elizabeth Hay's electron
microscope studies clearly show that the peripheral nerve's Schwann cell
sheaths stop just short of the epidermis, and only the naked neuron tips
participate in the NEJ. The exact current pathway in this microscopic
area remains to be charted.
Not all cells can respond, however, as Jim Cullen and I found in one
part of our fortuitous rat-regeneration experiments of 1979. Dedifferen-
tiation occurred only when we passed the deviated sciatic nerve to the
epidermis through the bone marrow. When we led it through the muscle
yet sutured it to the skin in exactly the same way, an NEJ producing the
right current appeared, but no blastema and no regrowth. Muscle cells
apparently weren't competent to differentiate in the adult rat. The
cellular target proved to be just as important as the electrical arrow.
There's still some opposition to parts of this scenario. Among some
scientists, the prejudice against electrobiology remains so strong that
one otherwise fine recent review doesn't even mention the NEJ or the
difference between currents of injury in frogs versus salamanders!
Other objections are a little more substantial. A Purdue University
group has measured electrical potentials near the surface of regenerating
limbs underwater, using a vibrating probe. This is an electrode whose
tip, ending in a tiny platinum ball, oscillates rapidly to and fro, giving
the average voltage between the two ends of its motion. These research-
ers describe an arc of ion flow—they categorically deny the possibility of
electron currents in living tissue—out from the stump and through the
water or, in semiaquatic animals, a film of moisture on the skin. From
the water, they suggest, these ions travel to the limb skin behind the
amputation, then in through all the inner tissues, and finally out of the
stump again to complete the circuit. They believe the epidermis drives
these currents by its normal amphibian function of pumping sodium
(positive) ions from the outside water into the body. They conceive of
this ion flow as the regeneration current itself, because changing the
concentration of sodium in the water directly affects their current mea-
surements, and because certain sodium-blocking techniques have inter-
fered with limb regrowth in about half of their experimental animals.
Of course, the Purdue researchers don't dispute the amply proven
need for nerve and injury currents during regeneration. They've even
confirmed Smith's induction of leg regrowth in frogs with batteries gen-
erating electron currents. Nevertheless, they consider nerves the target
rather than the source of current, even though they propose no reason
why their ion flow should be restricted to nerve tissue. In fact, they base
their hypothesis partly on evidence that sodium flows even from dener-
vated limbs.
There are several other problems with this theory: Its proponents' own
measurements show that the sodium ion current almost disappears just
when its supposed effect, blastema formation, is occurring. Moreover, it
fails to explain the easily observed reversal of polarity in injury currents
measured directly on the limb, as well as the crucial role of the NEJ.
The proposed circuit goes right past the NEJ! Finally, it can't account
for the several tests of semiconducting current throughout the nervous
system, or regeneration in dry-skinned animals such as lizards.
To the lay person all this may seem like academic hairsplitting, until
we reflect on the stakes: understanding regeneration well enough to re-
store it to ourselves. Certainly skin is electrically active. It's piezoelectric
and pyroelectric (turning heat into electricity) as well as a transporter of
The Organ Tree 185
ions in wet animals. In the last two decades nearly all tissues have been
proven to produce or carry various kinds of electrical charge. Skin may
play an as-yet-unknown role in regeneration besides its part in the NEJ,
or it may merely be producing unrelated electrical effects. In any case,
there are far too many data about the role of nerves to call skin the major
source of the regeneration current. In fact, even the Purdue group has
measured a stump current that's independent of sodium concentration.
A recent experiment by Meryl Rose gave further evidence of neural
DC, without clearing up all aspects of the question. Rose removed the
nerves From larval salamander legs before amputation. Normally such
denervated larval stumps die right back to the body wall, but when Rose
artificially supplied direct currents like those I measured in my first ex-
periment, they regrew normally. This is pretty conclusive proof that the
nerves are the electrical source in phase one. However, since it looks as
though nerves also organize regeneration's second phase (see below), it's
hard to understand how the new legs could have been completely normal
when they were disconnected from the rest of the nervous system. Per-
haps salamanders can pinch-hit for nerves at this stage through a tissue
other than nerve. On the other hand, new nerves may simply have re-
grown into the limbs unbeknownst to Rose by the later stages of the
experiment.
Phase two begins as the embryonal cells pile up and the blastema
elongates. Early in this stage a sort of spatial memory becomes fixed in the
blastema cells so the limb-to-be will have its proper orientation to the rest
of the body. At the same time or shortly afterward, the cells at the inner
edge of the blastema receive their new marching orders and platoon
assignments. Then they redifferentiate and take their places in the new
structure.
We can infer two things about the control for this part of the process.
Since the blastema forms the right structure in relation to the whole organ-
ism, the guidance can't be purely local, but must come from a system
that likewise pervades the whole body. Furthermore, there are no de-
differentiated cells left over when the work is done; there are just enough
and no more. Thus there must be a feedback mechanism between the
redifferentiation controls at the body side of the blastema and the NEJ's
dedifferentiation stimulus at its outer edge.
A large body of earlier work has shown that the redifferentiation in-
structions are passed along a tissue arc whose main element is the circuit
already established between nerves and epidermis in the first phase. The
electrical component persuasively explains how this arc, an update of the
morphogenetic field, may work. The direction (polarity) plus the magni-
tude and force (amperage and voltage) of current could serve as a vector
system giving distinct values for every area of the body. The electric
field surrounding continuously charged cells and diminishing with the
distance from the nerve would provide a third coordinate, giving each
cell a slightly different electrical potential. In addition, a magnetic field
must exist around the current flow, possibly adding a fourth dimension
to the system. Together these values might suffice to pinpoint any cell
in the body. The electric and magnetic fields, varying as the current
varies with the animal's state of consciousness and health, could move
charged molecules wherever they were needed for control of growth or
other processes. Since currents and electromagnetic fields affect the cell
membrane's "choice" of what ions to absorb, reject, or expel, this sys-
tem—in concert with the chemical code by which neighboring cells
recognize each other—could precisely regulate the activities of every
cell. It could express the exact point along the limb at which new
growth must start; distinguish between right and left, top and bottom;
even explain how totally missing parts, like extirpated bones or all the
little bones of wrist and hand, can reappear.
Furthermore, the difference between electrical values at the inner and
outer edges of the blastema would lessen as a new limb grew behind it.
(Remember that the electrical potential grows increasingly negative
toward the end of an intact limb.) The gradual convergence of these two
values could constitute a feedback signal perfectly reflecting the number
of dedifferentiated cells still needed. Although the results weren't en-
tirely conclusive, perhaps because measurements had to be made under
anesthesia, several experiments in the 1950s suggested that such a volt-
age differential governed restitution of the proper number of segments in
earthworms. There was even a surge of positive potential that seemed to
indicate when the job was finished.
This is a rich concept, and the details are without doubt more com-
plex than this sketch, but they're all open to experimentation in a way
that Weiss's morphogenetic field and Burr's L-field were not. The best
part of this two-stage analysis is that it gives us a rationale for trying to
foster regeneration after human injuries before we know all the details of
the second phase.
The rat limb experiments strongly suggest that mammals lack two
crucial requirements for the first phase of regeneration: They don't have
the necessary ratio of nerve tissue to total limb tissue, the amount
needed to make the dedifferentation stimulus srong enough; and they
lack sufficient sensititive cells to respond to the electrical stimulus and
form a big enough blastema. The work on rats pointed the way to defin-
The Organ Tree 187
ing the proper current, and the ability of electrically injected silver ions
to dedifferentiate fibroblasts now gives us a possible method for produc-
ing an adequate blastema. We should now be able to supply the require-
ments for phase one in humans. Once this is done, the body itself can
probably take care of phase two, even though we don't understand the
process. Fingertip regrowth in children suggests that our bodies still
have the ability to redifferentiate the cells and organize the missing part,
as long as the electrical stimulus and the supply of sensitive cells are
sufficient.
Microsurgeons have performed wonders in reimplanting cleanly sev-
ered portions of arms, legs, and fingers, but these limbs are subject to
atrophy and obviously can't be grafted if they're too badly mangled or
riddled with disease. As one who has performed too many amputations
in his time, I find the prospect of being able to give a patient the real
thing instead of a prosthesis tremendously exciting. There's a good
chance that we'll eventually treat some nongenetic birth defects or old
injuries by cutting off the defective part and inducing a normal one to
grow. Perhaps, combined with gene splicing, such techniques could
even rectify genetic birth defects.
Since no one has yet achieved full regeneration in rats or any other
mammal, these dreams won't come true overnight. They aren't
chimerical, however. The remaining problems could probably be solved
in a decade or two of concerted basic research. Meanwhile, human capac-
ities for repair of certain tissues are greater than most people realize, and
there are already promising ways of enhancing some of them.
Cartilage
Fossils show that even the dinosaurs had arthritis, but unfortunately it
outlived them. Many varieties have been described, all of which result in
destruction of the hyaline (glassy) cartilage that lines the ends of the
bones. The remaining cartilage cells try to heal the defect by proliferat-
ing and making more cartilage. They're almost never equal to the task,
and scar tissue fills the rest of the hole. The result is pain, for scar tissue
is too spongy to bear much weight or keep the bones from grinding
against each other.
After our success at getting rat legs to partially regenerate, we studied
this problem in 1973. We reasoned that, suite cartilage was made by
only one kind of cell, getting it to regrow would be easier than working
with a whole limb.
With orthopedic resident surgeon Bruce Baker of the Upstate Medical
Center, we removed the cartilage layer from one side of the femur at the
knee in a series of white rabbits. The operation left a circular hole of
bare bone about 4 millimeters across. In the experimental animals we
implanted silver-platinum couplings like those used on the rats, drilling
the platinum end into the defect and tucking the rest along the bone.
Most of the control animals filled in the defect with scar tissue along
with some inferior fibrous cartilage. About a tenth of them grew a milli-
meter or two of good hyaline cartilage at the edge of the hole. But sure
enough, the rabbits with the implants showed greatly enhanced repair.
When we used an improved battery implant with silver wires at each
end, we got even better results. Two of the rabbits healed the damage
completely with beautiful hyaline cartilage just like the original mate-
rial.
A few years later, when we were testing various electrode metals, we
tried a different approach specifically for rheumatoid arthritis, in which
runaway inflammation causes phagocytes to attack healthy cartilage
cells. Gold salts taken orally sometimes control this disease but often
produce toxic side effects. We figured electrical injection of pure gold
directly into the joint with no other ions might work better. To find
out, Joe Spadaro and I produced rheumatoid arthritis in the knees of
both hind legs in forty rabbits, using a standard experimental procedure.
Then we treated one knee in each animal with a positive gold electrode
stuck right into the space between the two bones for two hours. Joe did
the actual treatments. Then we sacrificed the animals gradually over a
period of two months, and I examined both arthritic knees, not knowing
until later which had been given gold. During the first two weeks about
70 percent of the treated knees were markedly better than the untreated
ones. The improvement fell off to about 40 percent thereafter, suggest-
ing that the treatment must be repeated for continued results.
Obviously, these were only preliminary experiments. However, since
an estimated 31 million Americans suffer from arthritis, for which there
is no cure yet, I think both avenues should be thoroughly explored as
soon as possible.
Skull Bones
Lev Polezhaev has spent his career investigating what might be called
the Polezhaev principle - the greater the damage, the better the re-
growth. He has found he can often enhance repair by adding homoge-
The Organ Tree 189
nates, minces, and extracts of the damaged organs, even though this
doesn't augment the current of injury as his needling procedure did.
I
REGENERATING JOINT CARTILAGE—RESULTS
Eventually Polezhaev developed a way to induce regeneration of holes

in the skull, which normally heal over with scar tissue. As long as the
dura mater, the cough membrane between skull and brain, is intact, a
paste of blood and fresh (living) powdered bone will induce the bone
cells at the edges to grow and bridge the gap. Microscopic studies have
shown that the few live cells remaining in the paste don't survive and
the bone particles themselves soon dissolve. Instead, some substance
from the disintegrated bone stimulates repair. Since its first successful
trial on humans by several Russian surgeons in the mid-1960s, this
method has gradually come into increasing use in the Soviet Union.
Eyes
There is at present no indication whatsoever that humans could ever

regenerate any part of their eyes, but the ability of newts (salamanders of
the genus Triturus) to do so makes this a tantalizing research ideal for the
far future. If the lens in a newt's eye is destroyed, the colored cells of the
top half of the iris extrude their pigment granules, then transform by
direct metaplasia into lens cells. They soon start synthesizing the clear
fibers of which the lens is made, and the whole job is finished in about
forty days. In case the iris is gone, too, a newt can create a new one from
cells of the pigmented retina, and those cells can also transform into the
neural retina layer in front of them. If the optic nerve gets damaged, the
neural retina in turn can regenerate the nerve tract backward and recon-
nect it properly with the brain.
SALAMANDER EYE-LENS REGENERATION

The Organ Tree 191
No one knows why newts are so much more adept at this than all
other creatures; their eyes have no obvious structural or biochemical pe-
culiarities. Steve Smith gave us an important fact to work with when he
found two proteins in the lens that seem to prevent the iris cells from
changing into new lens cells as long as the old lens is in place. Since the
neural retina must be intact for most of the transformations to happen,
it may provide a constant electrical stimulus that goes into effect only
when the inhibitory proteins are removed by injury.
No blastema is formed; instead the cells change costume right
onstage. Furthermore, certain ingenious experiments have shown that a
wound isn't really necessary, only the interruption of the inhibitory
mechanism. Therefore, the stimulus from the neural retina probably
isn't the familiar injury current of limb regrowth. However, despite a
voluminous research literature on newt eye regeneration, no one has yet
studied its electrical aspects. This may be why we're still so far from
understanding the natural process, let alone trying to adapt it to human
eyes.
Muscle
Every muscle fiber is a long tube filled with rows of cells (myocytes) laid
end to end with no membranes between them—in effect, one multi-
nucleated cell, called a syncytium. These nuclei direct the manufacture
of contractile proteins, which are lined up side by side and visible, when
stained, as dark bands across the array of myocytes. Each muscle fiber is
surrounded by a sheath, and groups of them are bound together in bun-
dles by thicker sheaths. At the edge of each bundle are long, cylindrical
cells with huge nuclei and very little cytoplasm, called myoblasts or
spindle cells. Also along the edges, between the spindle cells, clusters of
tiny satellite cells can be seen at high magnifications.
After a crushing injury or loss of blood from a deep cut, muscle in the
damaged area degenerates. The myocyte nuclei shrivel up and the cells
die. Soon phagocytes enter to eat the old fibers and cell remnants. Only
the empty sheaths and a few spindle and satellite cells are left.
Now these remaining cells turn into new myocytes, fill up the empty
rubes, and begin secreting new contractile proteins. Although the early
part of this process proceeds without nerves, it can run to completion
only if motor nerve fibers reestablish contact with the terminals, called
end plates, that remain at specific distances along each fiber sheath. If
these end-plate areas are cut out, the nerve endings will enter, sniff
around, and then retract. The muscle will atrophy. If the nerves re-
establish the connections, new muscle cells will fill most of the original
volume, gradually build up strength, and then completely differentiate
into slow-twitch or fast-twitch fibers.
Attempts to enhance muscle regeneration in humans take two ap-
proaches. If available, a graft of a whole muscle from another source is
the more effective. This is actual single-tissue regeneration, because the
original muscle cells die and are replaced after new blood and nerve
connections are made. Since its first clinical use in 1971, this approach
has proven successful in replacing defective small muscles of the face and
also in restoring anal sphincter control. Large limb muscles haven't been
successfully transplanted yet.
Another method may soon be used in humans when grafts aren't pos-
sible. Muscle regeneration in birds and laboratory mammals has been
considerably enhanced by inserting muscle tissue minced with fine scis-
sors into pieces of no more than 1 cubic millimeter. Soviet biologist A.
N. Studitsky first devised this method in the 1950s, extending Pol-
ezhaev's work, but its development has been slow.
Abdominal Organs
Despite over two hundred years of descriptive work, new regenerative

capacities are still discovered in the animal kingdom from time to time.
We've recently learned, for example, that adult frogs can restore their
bile ducts, although for some reason females are better at it than males.
Doctors have long known that the liver can replace most of the mass lost
through injury by compensatory hypertrophy, in which its cells both
enlarge and increase their rate of division so that the organ's chemical-
processing duties can be maintained even though the ruined architecture
isn't restored. Similarly, damage in one kidney is made up by enlarge-
ment of the other without rebuilding the intricate mazes of microtubules
in the glomeruli. Recent studies of rat livers suggest that a combination
of insulin and an epidermal growth factor, modified by at least a dozen
other hormones, enzymes, and food metabolites, control the cell pro-
liferation.
Now it appears that the spleen can make the same kind of comeback,
at least in children. Adults who must have their splens removed rarely
miss them, but children become more susceptible to meningitis. A few
years ago, medical researcgers noted that children whose excised spleens
The Organ Tree 193
had been damaged by accident were less likely to get meningitis than
those whose spleens had been removed because of disease. Howard Pear-
son and his colleagues at the Yale University School of Medicine found
that, when ruptured, the delicate spleen left bits of itself scattered in the
abdomen, which grew and gradually resumed the organ's obscure blood-
cleansing functions. Now when they remove a spleen, many surgeons
wipe it on the peritoneum (the tough membrane that lines the abdomi-
nal cavity) to sow replacement seeds.
Another late discovery of regeneration was made in the late 1950s, when
several scientists learned that tadpoles, larval salamanders, and sometimes
adult salamanders could restore up to about four inches of their intestines.
Moreover, all adult amphibians could reconnect the cut ends even if they
couldn't replace a missing section. Allan Dumont, one of my best friends
during medical school and now Jules Leonard Whitehill Professor of Surgery
at NYU-Bellevue, decided to check this potential in mammals after I told him
about my work on rat limbs. He wanted to find out whether regeneration
could be stimulated in mammals to solve one of a general surgeon's most
vexing problems—poor healing of sutured ends of gut after a cancerous or
degenerated segment has been cut out. Even a small opening can spill feces
into the abdominal cavity, with disastrous peritonitis the result.
Like any good scientist, Al started from the basics. After several years
he'd confirmed the earlier reports. When he cut pieces from the gut of
adult frogs and newts and merely put the ends close together in the
abdomen, 40 percent of the animals survived by quickly reconnecting
the two ends and completely healing them in about a month, although
even the newts didn't replace much of the lost length in his experi-
ments. Gut regeneration actually involves several tissues; Al's cell stud-
ies showed a blastema quickly forming at the junction and then
differentiating into smooth muscle, mucus cells, and the structural cells
of the villi.
Naturally, when I was organizing a conference on regeneration in
1979, I invited Al to present his results. About a month before the
meeting, after the program had already gone to the printer, he wanted
to change the title of his paper, for he'd just finished some surprising
work. He asked me, "What would you expect to happen if I took some
adult rats, cut out a centimeter of gut, and dropped the two loose ends
back into the abdomen?" Like any first-year med student, I said they'd
be dead of peritonitis in two or three days. Well, 20 percent of Al's rats
had reconnected then bowels better than surgery could have done, and
were alive and healthy. When Al had given one group of animals a
temporary colostomy above the experimental cut, the survival rate
jumped threefold. The perfect healing of the test animals compared with
the controls indicated that sutures actually interfered with regeneration
producing unnecessary scars and adhesions.
No one knows for sure how the two cut ends find each other, but
there's certainly some active search going on, for peritonitis sets in too
quickly for the results to be due to chance. The process resembles a
regrowing nerve fiber's search for its severed part, which may be con-
ducted by electrical factors, a chemical recognition system, or both.
Electrical potentials probably play the most important part, for recent
research has found DC potentials at injuries on the peritoneum, and
experimental changes in the peritoneum's normal bioelectric pattern at-
tract the inner membrane enclosing the bowels, causing it to adhere to
the site of the disturbance. Al has recently learned that, if the ends don't
have to look for each other but instead are connected by a piece of Si-
lastic tubing, rats can, like tadpoles, replace up to 3 centimeters of
missing intestine. There's no reason to believe this technique couldn't be
adapted to humans.
Even though we don't know enough yet to electrically stimulate intes-
tinal healing, Al has proposed a preliminary test of regeneration in large
mammals that could spare some patients a lifetime of misery. It's almost
impossible to surgically rejoin the colon to the anus, and when
The Organ Tree 195
sutures fail, the person ends up with a colostomy. Since the free end of the
colon would be held near its proper position by the local anatomy, Al sug-
gests replacing it without stitches and giving such animals a temporary co-
lostomy upstream from the gap. If X rays later showed regrowth, the
temporary colostomy would be closed, and the animal would have a continu-
ous, healthy intestine. If even a few patients could be spared the indignity of
living attached to a bag, the effort would be well worth the little—yet still
nonexistent—funding required. Intensive study of the electrical details of gut
healing would probably make surgery less devastating for many additional
patients.
Exciting as the prospects in this survey are, they're by no means the
only ones, or even the most spectacular, which are reserved for the fol-
lowing chapters. Many researchers are working to turn the break-
throughs of the last two decades to practical use. Even so, progress isn't
nearly as fast as it could be, perhaps due to disbelief that such wide-
spread self-repair is really possible for us. It's not only possible, it's
nearly certain, given even a modest monetary push, for the "useful dis-
positions" foreseen by Spallanzani are within our reach.
Ten
The Lazarus Heart
Like Columbus, scientists sometimes stumble upon new continents

when merely seeking a quicker trade route. Our research group had this
good fortune in 1973.
We'd gone back to basics after learning how to dedifferentiate frog
red blood cells and start regeneration in rat limbs. We decided to study
nucleated red cells in a variety of creatures, hoping for leads toward
better regrowth in mammals. Although their circulating erythrocytes
have no nuclei, even mammals have young red cells, with nuclei, form-
ing in the bone marrow. After severe bleeding, up to a fifth of those in
the bloodstream may be immature nucleated types, as the marrow rushes
them into service to make up for the loss. We surveyed the effect of
direct current on red cells from fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. All
of the cells responded, but in a different way for each species. We de-
cided to have a more detailed look at the largest and hence most easily
studied red blood cells available, those of our old friend Triturus vir-
idescens, the common green newt.
A newt is so small that you can't just poke a needle into one of its
veins and take a blood sample. The only practical way to get pure blood
is to anesthetize the animal, slice open its chest, cut its heart in two,
extract the blood with a pipette, and throw away the carcass.
As the phrase goes, we "harvested" blood from three newts each week
by this method. One day, when Sharon Chapin had finished the chore,
she asked me, "What would happen if I sewed these animals up?" I
answered that, because their hearts had been destroyed, they would die
within minutes, with or without sutures, from lack of oxygen to the
The Lazarus Heart 197
brain, just as all our other amphibian blood donors had. We looked it
up just to make sure. The standard works on regeneration all agreed that
no animal's heart could repair major wounds. Unlike skeletal muscle,
the cardiac variety had no satellite cells to serve as precursors for mature
heart-muscle cells. In any case, the textbooks stated, the animal would
die long before such repair could occur.
Next week Sharon put our three intended sacrifices in a bowl of water
and with a straight face asked me if they looked healthy enough to use. I
told her they looked fine. "Good!" she exclaimed. "These are the same
three we used last week." Score one for the open mind!
Flabbergasted, I helped anesthetize and dissect this trio of miracles.
Their hearts were perfectly normal, with no evidence of ever having been
damaged in any way.
The Five-Alarm Blastema
Abruptly I changed my research plans. I asked Sharon to test a series of

newts by cutting away large sections of their hearts and sewing up their
chests, then killing some of the survivors every day and slicing, mount-
ing, and staining the hearts for study under the microscope. Over 90
percent lived through the first operation, and several weeks later we had
hundreds of slides ready for my examination and diagnosis. Unfor-
tunately they all looked the same! Even those from the day after that
horrendous mutilation showed only normal tissues with no sign of in-
jury.
By now we knew we had come upon a first-class mystery and had
better jettison our preconceptions. We reasoned that we could tell when
regeneration was finished by finding out when the blood began flowing
again. Under the microscope we could easily see blood cells streaming
through capillaries in the transparent tail fins of lightly anesthetized
newts. The motion stopped when we cut the heart, and restarted about
four hours later. We sectioned a new series of hearts, this time covering
the first six hours at intervals gradually increasing from fifteen minutes
to one hour.
While waiting for the specimens, we rummaged more thoroughly
through the literature for other reports on heart regeneration. There was
evidence for very limited repair—but no true regeneration—of small
heart wounds in a few animals. The process seemed limited to the very
young. Even then, the results were of poor quality, combining a lot of
scar tissue with only a little proliferation of nearby heart cells, but the
mitotic component could be enhanced by various experimental aids.
In 1971, John O. and Jean C. Oberpriller, anatomists at the Univer-
sity of North Dakota School of Medicine in Grand Forks, reported that
small wounds in salamander hearts healed this way but required two
months. A year after that, the English edition of a book by Lev Pol-
ezhaev summarized several decades of Russian research, mainly on the
hearts of frogs and lizards. Pavel Rumyantsev, now at the Cytology In-
stitute of the USSR Academy of Sciences in Leningrad, had found in
1954 that newborn mammals (rats and kittens) could repair tiny punc-
ture wounds, and recently he has proved the same capacity in the atria,
or receiving chambers, of adult rat hearts. We even found a German
report of 1914 claiming that human babies had sometimes regenerated
small areas of their hearts damaged by diphtheria.
The Russians claimed some progress in extending this marginal native
healing. In the late 1950s, N. P. Sinitsyn had repaired large holes (up
to 16 square centimeters) in the hearts of dogs by covering the wounds
with patches made of muscle sheath, canvas, suede, or other materials.
Scar tissue still covered the outside, but the patch guided a thin layer of
new muscle fibers forming along its inner surface. Using dogs whose
wounds had already closed with scar tissue, Polezhaev then found he
could induce heart muscle to fill in part of the gap by cutting away the
scar and irritating the edges of the remaining cardiac muscle. Other
Soviet researchers enhanced the muscle cell proliferation a little more
with vitamins B1, B6, and B12, various drugs, extra RNA and DNA,
and heart tissue extracts or minces.
Despite such goads, heart regrowth was limited to very small injuries
or the border zone around larger ones, and it always took several weeks.
No one had even imagined that half a heart could restore its other half,
much less in a matter of hours. I could hardly wait until the next batch
of slides was ready.
They showed us an unprecedented type of regeneration. Where the
missing part of the heart had been, a blastema formed in about two and
a half hours. We saw no evidence of dedifferentiation or mitosis in the
remaining heart-muscle cells, and indeed it would have been impossible
for the processes we'd already studied to make a blastema in such a short
time. Instead, the mass of primitive cells arose dramatically from the
blood.
As soon as the salamander heart is cut open, blood pools around the
wound and clots quickly, usuallyin about one minute, sealing the hole
like wet plaster. Almost immediately, the nearest red blood cells crack
open like eggs. Their nuclei, surrounded by a thin coating of cytoplasm,
glide by some means yet unknown directly to the raw, fraved edge of the
heart muscle and insinuate themselves into the tangle of dying and in-
jured cells. To a biologist this sight is bizarre, uncanny. It's as though
the engine of a passing car could walk up to a stranded truck, climb
under the hood, and drive it away.
Farther away from the wound surface, the red cells also spill out their
nuclei, but these cell yolks clump together, fusing their remaining
cytoplasm to form a syncytium. Still farther away from the center of
action, the red cells undergo the more leisurely dedifferentiation we ob-
served in our frog fractures and DC culture studies. They turn into
primitive ameboid cells that move toward the area of damage and attach
themselves by pseudopods to the injured muscle fibers. In all of biology
there's no precedent for these virtuosic cellular metamorphoses. In fact,
they're so strange that most researchers have simply refused to believe in
their existence or try the experiment for themselves.
All these changes are well under way within fifteen minutes. Soon
afterward the extruded nuclei, the interconnected syncytial nuclei, and
the ameboid cells are all dividing as fast as they can, building up the
blastema. It's fully formed within three hours after the injury. By then
its cells have already started to redifferentiate into new heart-muscle
cells, synthesizing their orderly arrays of contractile fibers and con-
necting up with the intact tissue. If the clot contained more blood cells
than were needed, the extras outside of the area now degenerate, appar-
ently so as not to get in the way of the the repair work.
Meanwhile, the newt has survived by absorbing dissolved oxygen from
the water through its skin. Now, at about the four-hour mark, there are
enough new muscle cells to withstand contraction, and the heart begins
pumping again, slowly. After five or six hours, most of the blastema cells
have redifferentiated into muscle, which is still somewhat "lacy" or deli-
cate compared with the established tissue. After about eight or ten hours,
however, the heart is virtually normal in appearance and structure, and
after a day it's indistinguishable from an uninjured one.
Why did we see this colossal regeneration, while the Oberprillers
found only a tiny, slow healing response in the salamander heart? Appar-
ently this was another manifestation of the Polezhaev principle. We
made a big wound; they made a small one. Only massive damage un-
leashed the full power of the cells.
Is this fantastic cellular power forever restricted to salamanders, or
does it reside latent in us, ready at the appropriate impetus to repair
damaged hearts without problem-filled (and frightfully expensive) trans-
plants of donated or artificial pumps? We don't know, but we've found
no other regenerative process that's forever off limits to mammals. At
this point we can only speculate on how such a treatment might be
accomplished, but at least the idea isn't wholly fantasy.
The first job is to identify human target cells able to dedifferentiate
into primitive totipotent cells. Bone marrow cells or immature eryth-
rocytes, the nearest equivalents to amphibian nucleated red blood cells,
are one obvious candidate population, especially since they seem to be
the crucial cells in rat limb regeneration and the inner part of fracture
healing. Fibroblasts despecialized by electrically injected silver ions
might be used. Another possibility is lymphocytes, one class of infec-
tion-fighting white blood cells. In our lab we've demonstrated that they,
too, can dedifferentiate in response to appropriate electrical stimuli.
Since newt-type heart regeneration doesn't occur naturally in mam-
mals, we would probably have to grow a large mass of the target cells in
tissue culture. Then, with the patient on a heart-lung machine, the
surgeon could cut away scar tissue and otherwise freshen the wound if it
wasn't recent enough, then apply enough of these ready-made pre-
blastema cells to fill the defect. They would be held in place by a blood
clot, sutured pericardium, or some type of patch. Then, assuming we'd
learned the electrical parameters already, electrodes would induce nu-
clear extrusion, dedifferentiarion, consolidation with surrounding mus-
cle, and the final transformation into normal cardiac muscle. The current
would probably have to be adjusted throughout the process to get us
various steps in synchrony, and vitamins or drugs might be used to
enhance mitosis or protein synthesis. Once the scar had been removed,
the instructions as to what cells were needed would come from the sur-
rounding healthy heart muscle.
In the salamander this process takes about six hours. Since this ex-
ceeds the current limits of "machine time" for artificial circulation in
humans, we would have to extend the capacities of heart-lung devices or
else speed up the cellular processes. Obviously there's a long road of
experiment to travel before we can be more specific about techniques.
One of the things we must learn is whether the newt's electrocardiogram
shuts down during repair. We must know how its presence or absence
relates to the current of injury and other electrical factors in this novel
method of blastema formation.
Personally, I'm sure we can get the human heart to mend itself. As a
result of being confronted by this wonder in newts, I'm convinced that
the potential repertoire of living cells is absolutely enormous, far greater
than the healing powers normally manifested by most animals or even
those dreamed of by doctors. Even in the newt this "superregeneration"
doesn't appear unless 30 to 50 percent of the heart is gone. Something
about the massiveness of the injury or the approach of death then boosts
the healing process into overdrive.
I readily admit that the discovery sounds a bit like science fiction,
even as toned down into the subdued technical prose of our report, pub-
lished by Nature in 1974. I had trouble believing it myself at first.
Because it seemed so incredible, there was no rush to confirm and extend
our discovery. Today, even though our observations have been corrobo-
rated by University of Michigan anatomist Bruce Carlson in 1978 and
by Phil Person in 1979, complete with electron micrographs of the cell
changes, most biologists still don't accept heart restoration as fact. Per-
haps because the reality is so outlandish, Carlson wouldn't publish, and
Person has been unable to get his work published in the peer-reviewed
journals. Our original paper of ten years ago is still officially uncon-
firmed, and the other workers are still puttering around with little
wounds. This attitude must change. Knowledge about the controls of
this process will be of incalculable value to medicine, for this is ideal
healing. Spilled blood closes a wound at the body's center and replaces
the missing part in a few hours. You can't get much more efficient than
that.
Eleven
The Self-Mending Net
Spinal paralysis is the most devastating of injuries and also one of the
commonest; it afflicts over half a million Americans, including fifteen
thousand new sufferers every year. Until recently their outlook was abso-
lutely bleak, for the human central nervous system (CNS) had no known
regenerative capacity whatsoever. Only if part of the spinal cord re-
mained unsevered was some recovery possible with physical therapy.
Now, however, there's hope that we'll soon be able to coax nerve cells
into reestablishing the proper connections across the damaged section
and thus return the use of arms, legs, sexual and excretory organs, respi-
ratory muscles, and the sense of touch to quadriplegics and paraplegics.
In one way or another, this dream involves making human nerve cells
behave more like those in simpler animals.
The neuron is the basic unit of all nervous systems. It consists of a cell
body, containing the nucleus and metabolic organelles, surrounded by
dozens of filaments that carry messages in and out. The incoming den-
drites predominate in sensory neurons. There's usually only one motor
fiber, or axon, which carries the neuron's outgoing messages to dendrites
of other neurons or to receptors on muscle or gland cells. An axon, often
several feet long, is the principal fiber of a motor neuron, which relays
orders from the brain or spinal cord to the tissues and organs.
All neuron cell bodies reside in the brain and spinal cord. Only their
axons and dendrites extend outward, forming the peripheral nerves that
connect every part of the body with the CNS. Other fibers connect cer-
tain sensory and motor neurons within the spinal cord, creating reflex
arcs, like those that jerk our hands from hot stows without our having
to send the impulse all the way to the brain for instructions. Still other
fibers connect spinal neurons with those in the brain, and in the brain
itself the interconnections reach such a density that each nerve cell may
hook up with as many as twenty-five thousand others.
Except for a few specialized components like the naked fiber tips that
enter into neuroepidermal junctions, all parts of every neuron are swad-
dled in various types of perineural cells. In the brain there are several
kinds, collectively called the glia, in which the neurons are embedded
like hairy raisins in a pudding. The cell bodies in the cord also are
surrounded by glial cells, but their axons and dendrites, which include
The Self-Mending Net 205
the fibers of the peripheral nerves, are surrounded by Schwann cells.
These form tubes, made up of spiraling layers of membrane rich in a
fatty substance called myelin, around some of the largest fibers. A third
type, ependymal cells, line the four cavities within the brain, or ventri-
cles, and the narrow central canal that runs the length of the spinal cord.
These cells are close relatives, having all developed from the same part of
the ectoderm, or outer cell layer, that formed the primitive neural tube
in the embryo. The nervous system actually consists of several times
SCHWANN CELL SHEATH AROUND A PERIPHERAL NERVE FIBER
Until recently the perineural cells were considered merely a "packing

tissue," whose only job was to insulate and support the neurons. We've
now learned that they play a major role in getting nutrients to the neu-
rons. They also help control the diffusion of ions through the nerve cell
membrane and hence regulate the speed of impulse firing, even to the
point of inhibiting seizures, the random spread of impulses in the brain.
They may also have an important part in memory, and they probably
conduct the direct currents so important to regeneration. They're essen-
tial to healing wherever it occurs in nerve tissue.
Peripheral Nerves
Peripheral nerve fibers can regrow—otherwise we'd lose sensation when-

ever we cut a finger—but neurons and their fibers in the CNS cannot.
The peripheral nerve's cell body survives, safe in the cord or brain, and
the cut end of the attached part of the fiber is sealed off. The outer,
severed part dies and degenerates; some of its Schwann cells digest it,
along with the now-useless myelinated membrane layers. The empty
Schwann tube remains, however, and begins to grow toward the prox-
imal fiber (the one nearer the center of the body), whose Schwann cells
are also growing across the chasm. When these cells meet, the nerve
fiber grows along its reconnected sheath and eventually makes contact
with the same terminals it originally served.
In salamanders this process is very efficient. The Schwann cells can
cross large gaps, and an experimenter who wishes to work with dener-
vated limbs must be diligent to keep the nerves from reentering. In
humans, the two ends of the tube usually can't find each other over a
distance of more than a centimeter. In that case the proximal sheath
with its intact nerve fiber hunts for its opposite number by growing in
an ever increasing spiral, apparently searching for some signal from the
distal end (the part farther from the body center). Since each nerve is
formed of many fibers, these spiraling tubes entangle each other in a
lump of nerve tissue called a neuroma. Neuromas are painfully sensitive
and often must be cut away. Occasionally a surgeon can move the two
ends of the nerve close enough for the Schwann cells to make contact. If
that's impossible, the gap may be closed with a piece of nerve grafted
from a less important peripheral nerve that can be sacrificed. Unfor-
tunately, nerve grafts don't take reliably, and other methods, such as
making artificial channels with tiny plastic tubules, are still in the ex-
perimental stage.
We don't know why the salamander's peripheral nerve regrowth is so
much more effective than ours, but I surmise that its more efficient DC
electrical system accounts for the difference. If the locator signal is elec-
trical, it should be possible to augment it in humans so as to grow nerve
fibers over longer distances. Beginning with a 1974 report from David
H. Wilson of the Leeds General Infirmary in England, there have been
some interesting claims that pulsed electromagnetic fields have speeded
recovery of limb function in rats after peripheral nerve damage, but the
effect hasn't yet been substantiated for humans. If these findings hold
up, we may soon be able to boost nerves past their 1-centimeter limit,
even if the action is indirect, and a thorough investigation of the elec-
trical basics could drive nerve regrowth to even greater lengths.
SCHWANN CELLS GUIDE PERIPHERAL NERVE REGROWTH
The Spinal Cord
A sad and crucial difference separates peripheral fibers from those in the
human spinal cord, for the latter don't reconnect over even a fraction of a
centimeter. However, in most injuries relatively few of the neurons
themselves are killed. It's important to realize that most of the cord cells
below the injury don't die. The reflex arcs remain intact. In fact, reflexes
are stronger than normal, because the neurons are now disconnected
from the regulating influence of the brain. For the same reason, the
broken bones of paraplegics heal in half the normal time, whereas a bone
will heal very slowly or not at all if its peripheral nerve supply has been
cut. Only the communication between brain and spine is silenced in
paraplegia, and that makes all the difference.
Spinal fibers do reconnect in some animals, notably goldfish and, as
you might expect, salamanders. Their ability seems to decline dramati-
cally with age, however. Jerald Bernstein, a neurophysiologist now at
George Washington University Medical School who has studied goldfish
spinal regeneration extensively, has found that one-year-old fish heal al-
most all of the damage. This competence declines to about 70 percent at
two years and 50 percent at three. Since salamanders aren't raised in
biological supply houses but rather collected from the wild, any group is
likely to include young and old individuals, making comparisons diffi-
cult. In our lab we found that cord regeneration isn't uniform in sala-
manders, probably due to age differences.
Maturity may reduce the response of the ependymal cells, which are
responsible for the first step. They proliferate outward from the central
canal and bridge the gap in a few days. Marc Singer, in a recent study of
this process, concluded that the ependymal cells extend "arms" radiating
outward, which line up like the spokes of wheels stacked one atop an-
other, forming channels for the regrowing fibers to follow. The nerves
then reestablish their continuity within a few weeks.
SALAMANDER SPINAL-CORD REGENERATION
Bernstein also found that there's a critical period during which re-
growth must be completed or it will fail. After cutting the cords of
goldlfish, he inserted Teflonon spacers to block regeneration. The normal
processes took place, but of course the cells couldn't penetrate the di-
vider. After the cellular activity had died down, Bernstein removed the
barriers, but there was no further change. However, when he then cut
off each damaged end, producing an even larger gap and reinjuring the
cord, the cells started from scratch and healed the defect completely.
Thus there's good reason to believe that even long-standing spinal inju-
ries can potentially be regenerated if we can extend the basic capabilities
of human cells.
One would expect to see some healing response in mammals, even if
it fell short. After all, we only need the elongation and reattachment of
fibers, which does take place in peripheral nerves. Instead the opposite
happens. The cord cells die a short distance above and below the injury.
Cysts form near the ends, and, instead of ependyma, scar tissue fills the
gap. Only after this destruction is there an abortive attempt at re-
growth. In humans this amounts to only a few millimeters of fiber
elongation many months after the injury. By then it's too late; the epen-
dymal cells and nerve fibers can't penetrate the scar.
CYSTS AND SCARS PREVENT CORD REGROWTH IN MAMMALS
Why the difference between salamanders and mammals? The reason

may lie in the cord's immediate response. In all animals the injury in-
stantly results in spinal shock, during which all neuronal activity is pro-
foundly depressed, especially in the part of the cord still connected to
the brain. Even the simplest reflexes disappear. As the shock wears off,
the cord below the injury becomes hyperactive. Its reflexes become tre-
mendously exaggerated and lead to spastic paralysis of the muscles. The
interesting difference is in the duration of shock. In young salamanders
and goldfish it lasts only a few minutes, but it may endure for over a
week in old ones. In mammals it takes even longer to wear off—as long
as six months in humans.
We made some electrical measurements on salamander and frog spines
in our lab. The injured area turned out to be strongly positive during
spinal shock, even though all direct-current flow ceased in the entire
cord and in the peripheral nerves arising from the part below the
trauma. Then, as the shock resolved, a steadily increasing negative po-
tential appeared, its size reflecting the amount of outgrowth by epen-
dyma and nerve fibers. We found that we'd only rediscovered these
potentials, however. G. N. Sorokhtin and Y. B. Temper had made the
same measurements at the Khabarovsk Medical Institute twenty years
before. The patterns of shock and polarity both correlated, not only with
the cell activity, but with the end result of regenerative success or
failure. A few minutes of shock and a correspondingly short period of
positivity led to full repair of the cord. Longer delays produced in-
complete regeneration, and, when the shock and positive potential per-
sisted for five to eight days or longer, the salamander became completely
SPINAL SHOCK AND AGE INHIBIT CORD REGROWTH

As far as I know, the only electrical measurements of spinal shock in
mammals were preliminary ones done at our laboratory in conjunction
with Carl Kao of the VA hospital in Washington, D.C. We tested the
severed cord ends in cats for twenty-four hours and found only an in-
creasing positive potential. The situation seemed quite similar to the
electrical difference between salamander and frog limbs. As in most in-
stances, positive potentials appeared to inhibit constructive cellular ac-
tivity while negative ones fostered it.
An experiment Kao did several years ago provided some supporting
evidence. Kao made two cuts through the spinal cord in each of several
cats, producing a central fragment about 5 millimeters long, separated
from each end. He then grafted pieces of sciatic nerve as spacers in the
two cuts. Typical degeneration with cysts occurred in each end of the
cord but not in the isolated piece. In fact, this part showed some growth
of its ependyma and nerve fibers. The small piece was probably isolated
from the positive potentials produced in the rest of the cord. Hence it
escaped inhibition and grew. It seems the prolonged electrical positivity
of spinal shock is the main roadblock in the way of human cord repair.
KAO'S EXPERIMENT
It should be possible to cancel that polarity and replace it with a

growth-stimulating negative one, using a properly shaped electrode.
Older injuries in which spinal shock has subsided might require a dif-
ferent input of current, as well as surgical removal of scar and cysts. The
electrode material would have to be chosen carefully, for some metals are
toxic to nerve cells. Also, humans have a low ratio of ependyma com-
pared to spinal neurons, so we might have to add more. However, it
should be relatively easy to culture more ependymal cells from a sample
of the patient's own, and then inject them when we put in the electrode.
POSSIBLE TREATMENT FOR PARAPLEGIA
Not too many years ago spinal accident victims usually died of infec-
tions or other complications quite soon. Now we can prolong their lives,
but only at enormous social, financial, and psychological cost. Looking
ahead, as in the case of heart damage, we now have hope for releasing
regeneration in humans. Actually, the outlook for spinal regrowth is
more promising. The cellular processes are more familiar, and there are a
few groups, like the American Paralysis Association, that sponsor re-
search more imaginatively than the government agencies. Thus the elec-
trical problems in spinal healing may be tackled sooner than in other
fields.
The public imagination has been captured by the computerized mus-
cle-stimulation techniques being developed by Jerrold Petrofsky, an en-
gineer at Wright State University in Dayton. The nationally televised
sight of his patient Nan Davis and other paraplegics taking tentative
steps and pedaling tricycles with their own muscle power was tremen-
dously exciting. But if we can get the body to do the same things by
itself, that will be even better. Any amount of regeneration would only
make other techniques more effective. Even restoring 10 percent of lost
function would be an unimaginable blessing to those who are now help-
less. I feel the electrical manipulation of spinal shock must be tested
vigorously now, for this is perhaps the one area where the barriers of
tragedy are closest to being broken.
The Brain
It might seem foolish to expect any regeneration in the most complex of

all biological structures, the brain, yet salamanders, some fish, and most
frogs in the tadpole stage can replace large parts of it, including the
optic lobes and the olfactory lobes, or forebrain, the part from which our
prized cerebral hemispheres developed in the course of evolution. Re-
placement depends on ingrowth of remaining sensory nerves, the olfac-
tory nerves in the case of the forebrain and the optic nerves for the optic
lobes. When these nerves grow back into the area where brain has been
destroyed, they stimulate the ependymal cells in the brain ventricles,
which proliferate outward into the damaged part and then differentiate
into new neurons and glial cells. If the animal's nose or eyes are removed
so that the injury zone receives no nerve input, no regeneration occurs.
Thus brain regrowth begins much like that of limbs, with the connec-
tion of nerve fibers to an epithelial tissue. The ependyma, remember, is
embryologically a close relative of the epidermis, and in fact can be
considered the central nervous system's "inner skin." Since the electrical
environment produced by the neuroepidermal junction is what stimu-
lates cells to dedifferentiate and divide in the salamander limb stump,
and since we started limb regeneration in the rat by crudely mimicking
this signal, it seems likely that a similar stratagem could induce brain
regeneration in animals normally lacking this ability.
A form of shock, called the spreading depression of Leao after its
discoverer, neurologist A. A. P. Leao, occurs after brain injuries. Start-
ing at the site of damage, it extends in all directions until the entire
cortex becomes electrically positive and all its neurons shut down. Leao
studied it only in response to small injuries, when it persists for a few
hours. We don't know whether it occurs in the salamander or how long
it lasts after major damage to the mammalian brain. Concerted study of
Leao's depression combined with experiments in electrically stimulating
the ependymal cells could open the way to self-repair of the human
AMPHIBIANS CAN REGENERATE LARGE PARTS OF THE BRAIN
Recovery from stroke and head wounds taught us long ago that the
brain has a great deal of plasticity; that is, it can reorganize so that
undamaged regions take over tasks formerly done by the lost cells. Sup-
plementation of this ability with even a small amount of regeneration
might make recovery nearly complete for many brain-damaged people.
For the first time in history, neurologists can hope to progress from
describing the brain and cord to mending them. As Geoffrey Raisman of
London's Laboratory of Neurobiology recently reminded his colleagues:
". . . no immutable natural laws have been discovered that forever rule
out repair of the nervous system."
Twelve
Righting a Wrong
Turn
Good and evil often sprout from the same tree, in the body as in Eden.
Nothing illustrates this paradox better than cancer. Today, because of
breakthroughs in genetics, thousands of scientists are searching for on-
cogenes, bits of DNA that are presumed to pull the trigger that fires the
malignant bullet. It has been known for a long time, of course, that
cancer isn't inherited through egg and sperm the way hemophilia is.
However, many have postulated that the immediate cause of cancer may
be genetic changes in somatic cells. Normally suppressed genes held in
an unnoticed corner of our genetic bookshelves since long ago in our
evolution might be dusted off only when other bodily conditions are
"just wrong." While the premise of this idea is apparently true, biolo-
gists have recently concluded that the difference between a normal gene
producing a normal protein and one that could theoretically cause cancer
is a single "typographical error" in a whole chapter of amino acid se-
quences. Such mistakes happen so often that we would all be riddled
with cancer from infancy if that were all it took to start the disease.
Something else must go awry before a few misspellings can turn the
whole library into gibberish.
Three basic criteria by which a doctor diagnoses cancer must serve as
the starting point in solving the mystery of its cause. First of all, the
disease always always arises not from an alien germ but from a formerly normal
cell of the host's body, and the cancer cells are more primitive than their
healthy precursors. Moreover, this atavism reflects the seriousness of the
disease: The simpler the cells, the faster they grow and the harder they
are to treat, whereas a tumor that still resembles its tissue of origin is
less malignant.
The second criterion is growth rate. Cancer cells multiply wildly, in
contrast to the slow, carefully controlled mitosis of normal cells. Going
hand in hand with this uncontrolled proliferation is a similar lack of
control in the structural arrangement of the cells. Their membranes
don't line up in the normal, specific ways, and they form a jumbled
mass instead of useful architecture. As a further result of runaway multi-
plication, cancer doesn't observe the "boundary laws" of normal tissue.
Instead it encroaches imperialistically upon its neighbors. In addition,
since the cells don't adhere in any kind of structure, some of them are
constantly breaking off, flowing through the blood and lymph, and set-
ting up colonies—metastases—throughout the body.
The third basic criterion of cancer is metabolic priority. The diseased
tissue greedily takes first choice of all nutrients circulating in the blood;
the healthy part of the body gets what's left over. As the tumors dis-
seminate and grow, they consume all available food, and the host wastes
away and dies.
We can make one crucial observation at this point: Except for the lack
of control, all three characteristics—cell simplicity, mitotic speed, and
metabolic priority—are hallmarks of two normal conditions, embryonic
growth and regeneration.
When considering the similarities between an embryo and a tumor,
it's important to keep in mind one difference. Even though contained
within the body of its mother, the embryo is a complete organism, and
the controls over its cells are primarily its own, not those of an adult.
Over thirty years ago in Switzerland, G. Andres probed this relationship
by implanting frog embryos in various body tissues of adult frogs.
Whenever the host didn't simply reject the graft, the embryo degener-
ated into a highly malignant metastasizing tumor. As a result, Andres
proposed a theory of cancer that remains provocative today: A normal
cell becomes cancerous by dedifferentiation. This change is not dan-
gerous per se, according to Andres, but, because it occurs in a postfetal
animal, the controls that would normally hold these neo-embryonic cells
in check aren't working.
Cancer's relationship to regeneration is even more interesting. In the
latter, a rapid growth of primitive cells having metabolic priority occurs
in an adult, but with proper control as in an embryo Those animals that
regenerate best are least susceptible to cancer. In general, as complexity
increases up the evolutionary ladder to humans, regenera-
Righting a Wrong Turn 217
tion decreases and cancer becomes more common. Although salamanders
stand about midway in degree of complexity, they're perhaps the least
specialized of all land vertebrates. They have tremendous regenerative
abilities and almost no cancer. Even to give them tumors in the labora-
tory requires much effort. Adult frogs, on the other hand, have bodies
that are much more specialized for their amphibious way of life; they
regenerate very little and are subject to several kinds of cancer.
AS REGENERATION DECREASES, CANCER INCREASES
In 1948 Meryl Rose decided to see whether the environment of a

salamander's regenerating limb could control the primitive cells of can-
cer as well as those of the blastema. He took pieces of a type of kidney
tumor common in frogs and transplanted them to the limbs of salaman-
ders. These tumors took better than most, and soon killed the animals
when allowed to spread unchecked. However, when Rose amputated the
leg just below or through the malignancy, normal regeneration fol-
lowed, and the cancer cells dedifferentiated more fully as the blastema
formed. Then as the new leg grew, the former frog tumor cells re-
differentiated along with the blastema. The frog cells were easily distin-
guished from salamander cells by their smaller nuclei, and microscopic
study showed frog muscle mixed in with salamander muscle, frog car-
tilage cells amid salamander cartilage, and so on.
This monumentally imporrant experiment proved Rose's hypothesis
that regeneration's guidance system could control cancer, too. It implied
that cancer cells weren't special but merely embryonic cells in a post-
embryonic body. Rose's work led directly to Andres's theory a few years
Unfortunately, biology was still firmly gripped by anti-dedifferentia-

tionism, and these ideas were partly ridiculed, partly ignored. The reac-
tion held back cancer research for decades, because the dogma implied
that carcinogenesis, like differentiation, was irreversible—once a cancer
cell, always a cancer cell. As long as this view was sacred, the only
possible way to cure cancer was to cut it out or kill it with drugs and X
rays. We've been beating that dead horse for fifty years now with trag-
ically modest increases in survival rates. Surgery works only against tu-
mors that haven't yet spread. Chemotherapy depends on differences
between malignant and healthy cells. However, the differences aren't as
great as we would like, because cancer arises, not in some distant
swamp, but from a slight change in our own cells. Therefore chemother-
apy and X rays inevitably produce some damage in normal cells, too.
Doctors, being only human and sharing in their patients' pain and ter-
ror, have devised ever more ferocious treatments. In our war on cancer
we've stampeded ourselves into a sort of Vietnam syndrome: To destroy
our foes, we're killing our friends. As Walt Kelly's cartoon character
Pogo observed in that context, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
CANCER CELLS RETURNED TO NORMAL BY REGENERATION
A Reintegrative Approach
But surely, you may be thinking, if this theory of cancer had any poten-
tial for a cure, the research establishment would have considered it. And
surely there would be some supporting evidence. Unfortunately, even
though the detooling and retooling of cells have now been accepted by
all of biology, the old habits still persist throughout most of the grant-
ing hierarchy. A few years ago, for example, I met a young research
fellow at the National Cancer Institute who wanted to study the re-
generation-cancer link. He even showed me his proposal, an excellent
one. I told him he was asking for trouble if he submitted it to NCI, but
he said his boss approved and he was sure he'd get the grant. A month
later he was forced out of the institute, and the project has never been
funded. Nevertheless, supporting evidence, from research on the periph-
ery, does exist.
Since regeneration can't occur without the stimulus and control of
nerves, one would expect them to exert some controlling effect on can-
cer. They apparently do. As far back as the 1920s, several experimenters
implanted tumors into denervated areas. Without exception the cancer
cells took root better and grew faster than where the nerves were intact.
The early work on this point was criticized on the grounds that denerva-
tion might have reduced the efficiency of the circulatory system, which
in turn would have enhanced malignant growth. Then in the mid-1950s
and 1960s more sophisticated techniques established the same rela-
tionship. Absence of nerves accelerated tumor growth, and variations in
the blood supply had no significant effect.
Further evidence confirming Rose's conclusion that regenerative con-
trols caused tumors to regress came from a series of experiments by F.
Seilern-Aspang and K. Kratochwil of the Austrian Cancer Research In-
stitute in 1962 and 1963. They worked on salamanders, but instead of
implanting frog tumor cells they induced skin cancer with large, re-
peated applications of carcinogenic chemicals. With persistence they
eventually got tumors that would invade subsurface tissues, metastasize,
and kill the animals. In one series they applied the carcinogen to the
base of the tail; the primary tumor formed there, and metastases ap-
peared at random in the rest of the body. If they then amputated the
tail, leaving the primary tumor intact, this malignancy would disappear
as the tail regrew. Cell studies showed that it didn't die or degenerate
but apparently reverted to normal skin. Furthermore, all the secondary
tumors vanished, too, as though they were being operated by remote
control from the main one. The salamander ended up with a new tail
and no cancer. However, if the primary tumor was at a distant point on
the body, amputation of the tail had no effect. Even though the tail
regenerated, the main cancer and its offshoots all progressed, and the
animal died.
This research, combined with Rose's, indicates that regeneration near
a primary tumor can make it regress by reverting to its normal tissue
type. I doubt that there's anything special about legs or tails; I would
predict that regrowth in any part of the body, as long as it was near the
primary tumor, would have the same effect. The key to regression ap-
pears to be a change in the malignancy's immediate neighborhood. The
electrical currents in nerve and particularly in the neuroepidermal junc-
tion seem likely candidates, since they suffice to start regeneration in
animals normally incapable of it.
ROSE'S EXPERIMENT CONFIRMED
There's abundant evidence that the state of the entire nervous system
can affect cancer. Back in 1927 Elida Evans, a student of Carl Jung,
documented a link between depression and cancer in a study almost
totally neglected in the intervening years. In a long-term project begun
in 1946 by Dr. Caroline Bedell Thomas at Johns Hopkins School of
Medicine, students were given personality tests, and the occurrence of
disease among them was charted over several decades. In this and later
studies, a high risk of developing cancer has been correlated with a spe-
cific psychological profile that includes a poor relationship with parents,
self-pity, self-deprecation, passivity, a compulsive need to please, and
above all an inability to rise from depres'sion after some traumatic event
such as the death of a loved one or loss of a job. In such a person, cancer
typically follows the loss in a year or two.
Several physicians have found they can greatly increase cancer patients'
chances of a cure with biofeedback, meditation, hypnosis, or visualiza-
tion techniques. Several years ago O. Carl Simonton, an oncologist, and
Stephanie Matthews-Simonton, a psychologist, began using all these
methods, with emphasis on having patients develop a clear picture of the
cancer and their body's response to it. For example, a patient might
spend a meditative period each day imagining white blood cells as
knights on white horses defeating an army of black-caped marauders.
When the Simontons tabulated their first results in "terminal" cases,
they found that, of 159 people expected to die in less than a year, those
who eventually did succumb lived twice as long. The cancer had com-
pletely regressed in 22 percent and was receding in an additional 19
percent. These results have held up, and visualization is now being
adopted in some other cancer-treatment programs.
Penn State psychologist Howard Hall, testing hypnosis for boosting

white blood cell activity, found a 40 percent increase in cell counts
among his younger, more responsive subjects just one week after the
trance session. New Haven surgeon Bernie Siegel has developed the Si-
montons' methods further with therapy groups called Exceptional Cancer
Patients. Having patients make drawings to reveal their true psychologi-
cal state sans defenses, then working toward a comprehensive change in
outlook (total CNS response) to mobilize the will to live, Siegel has
helped his patients greatly improve the quality and quantity of their
lives, as compared to clinical prognoses. This approach also enhances
chemotherapy's effectiveness while minimizing its side effects, and it
dramatically increases the likelihood of a "miracle"—total regression and
cure of the cancer.
All this really shouldn't be so surprising. Under hypnosis the mind
can completely block pain, and research described in the next chapter
has shown that it does so by changing electrical potentials in the body.
How can we be sure it couldn't create appropriate electrical changes
around a tumor and melt it away? There are still major problems with
these psychological approaches, however. Only a minority of people are
able or willing to muster the high level of dedication needed to make
them work, even under the gun of death. Moreover, they require time,
the very thing a cancer patient is short of, and they often don't produce
a complete cure even when practiced diligently. Still, they're encourag-
ing signs that the tide is beginning to turn from the warfare mode to the
simpler—more elegant, as a mathematician would say—ideal of chang-
ing the cellular environment that allows a tumor to flourish.
Could we really do the job more directly by applying the proper elec-
trical input to aim a surefire regenerative influence at the tumor? I'm sad
to say that most of the few researchers who've tried electricity against
cancer have used the "kill the enemy" approach. Tumors are somewhat
more sensitive to heat than normal tissue, so some doctors are using
directed beams of microwaves to cook them without, it's hoped, destroy-
ing too many healthy cells. FDA approval for general use of this method
is expected soon. It has been known since the time of Burr and Lund
that growing tissue is electrically negative, and cancer is the most nega-
tive of all. Hence some researchers have tried to inhibit tumor growth
by canceling the offending polarity with positive current. Early reports
were encouraging, but we now know that toxic metallic ions are released
from most positive electrodes, so this method must be tested with great
caution.
Only one research team has sought a reintegrative effect of electric
current. In the late 1950s Carroll E. Humphrey and E. H. Seal of the
Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins tried pulsed direct cur-
rents on standardized fast-growing skin tumors in mice. Even though
they used both positive and negative polarities, their results seemed sen-
sational. In one series they got total remission in 60 percent of the test
animals after only three weeks; all the control mice had died by then. In
another series the control tumors averaged seven times the size of the
ones treated with current. Unfortunately, present evidence doesn't really
support this approach either. In my group's experiments with human
fibrosarcoma cells in vitro, negative and positive currents both speeded up
growth by over 300 percent. On the other hand, as mentioned in Chap-
ter 8, we found that we could suspend mitosis in the fibrosarcoma cells
with silver ions injected by minute levels of positive current. During one
day of exposure, the cells appeared to dedifferentiate completely, and
they stopped dividing for a month without additional treatment, even
though we changed the nutrient medium regularly. Obviously, this en-
tire subject needs to be investigated more thoroughly.
Some researchers believe pulsed electromagnetic fields may be of some
benefit in treating cancer. Art Pilla, working with Larry Norton and
Laurie Tansman of New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, as well
as William Riegelson of the Medical College of Virginia, claims to have
found a pulse sequence that significantly increases the survival time of
mice with cancer. So far, these experimenters say they've increased the
effectiveness of chemotherapy in lab animals with PEMF, but haven't
found a pulse pattern that consistently regresses tumors in vivo, although
Pilla and Steve Smith have been able to transform malignant lymphoma
(lymph node cancer) cells into benign fibroblasts in culture.
The claim that PEMF may retard cancer in animals is seriously
flawed, however. In these experiments the entire animal was exposed to
the field, not just the part with the cancer. The pulsing field (like al-
most any time-varying magnetic field) induces a stress response in the
animal (see Chapter 15). For a short while this increases the activity of
the immune system, which slows the growth of the tumor. However,
the field's effect on the tumor itself is to speed it up, and, in the long
run, added stress is the last thing an animal with cancer needs. These
experiments cannot be used to indicate the safety or benefit of PEMF in
regard to cancer. Since to heal bones the fields are directed only at small
regions, PEMF as used on humans does not produce stress, increased
immune system response, or any concomitant antitumor activity.
Certain leads, such as the electrically injected silver, remain promis-
ing. In the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. Kenneth MacLean published some
interesting work on the use of magnetic fields versus tumors in mice. He
believed he'd healed several cases of cancer with steady-state magnetic
fields, and certain unorthodox healers in America and India who use
permanent magnets have made similar claims. The difference in effect
between steady-state and time-varying fields (see Chapters 14 and 15)
leads me to theorize that a steady-state magnetic field, if strong enough,
may indeed halt mitosis in malignant cells.
Due to the prevailing outlook in cancer research, the key work re-
mains to be done. Even promising nonelectromagnetic approaches have
been victims of bias. There's sound evidence, for example, that mega-
doses of vitamin C do slow tumor growth and increase the chances for a
complete cure, but Linus Pauling hasn't been able to persuade any of the
powerful institutes to perform a large-scale trial. Some animal tests are
now being funded, but, since vitamin C is nontoxic, immediate clinical
experiments on large numbers of humans would make much more sense.
In following up the regeneration connection, two experiments in par-
ticular are crying out to be tried. Someone must attempt to duplicate
the electrical environment of regeneration around tumors in lab animals,
using electrodes. This would involve introducing small negative currents
to thoroughly test the hypothesis that cancer cells are stuck in a state of
incomplete dedifferentiation. The idea would be to dedifferentiate them
the rest of the way and then let normal processes in the body turn them
into healthy mature cells. The same hypothesis should be tested another
way by surgically creating neuroepidermal junctions near the tumors.
Will these experiments be done soon? I wish I knew. The multi-
billion-dollar cancer research bureaucracy could certainly afford them,
but, although there are a few signs of change, the establishment is stuck
in the near-primitive state of the war mentality. I've maintained for
many years that we won't learn much more about abnormal growth until
we learn more about the normal kind. That approach can lead to cancer
treatments that are truly compatible with our bodies, far safer and more
effective than the simplistic, dangerous ones now in vogue.
Part 4
The Essence of Life
And if the body were not the soul, what is the soul?
—Walt Whitman
A hallucination is merely a reality that we normally don't

have to bother with.
—Stella Denova
Thirteen
The Missing Chapter
Medical students often experience a profound, ego-wrenching shock at

the midpoint of their training, as the focus shifts from classroom to
bedside. My experience was typical, since this division was even sharper
in the 1940s than it is today. After two years' study of the scientific
underpinnings of medicine, my classmates and I thought we were pretty
smart. During long days and longer nights of lectures, notes, labs,
books, reviews, papers, and exams, we'd drunk so deeply of the distilled
wisdom of the ages that surely we must know all there was to know
about bodies and diseases. All that was left, it seemed, was learning how
to apply that knowledge as apprentice doctors. Then we began to study
with the senior members of the clinical departments, veterans of a less
scientific era, who brought us up short. Their message soon became
clear: We didn't know so damn much after all; no one did. All our
learning was fine as far as it went, but on the hectic wards of Bellevue
things often didn't go by the book.
The greatest teacher I had in those days was my surgery professor, Dr.
John Mulholland, a granite cliff of a man whose iron-gray crew cut
emphasized his uncompromising idealism. Any hint of laziness, impa-
tience, or unconcern from his students brought a brusque reprimand,
but Mulholland was gravely polite and compassionate to the dirtiest
wino who needed a doctor. He showed us countless problems and tech-
niques in his demonstration-lectures held in the nineteenth-century am-
phitheater, but he repeated one salient message over and over: "The
surgeon can cut, remove, or rearrange the tissues, and sew up the
wound, but only the patient can do the healing. Surgeons must always
be humble before this miracle. We must treat the tissues with sure, deft
gentleness, and above all we must do no harm, for we are nothing more
than nature's assistants."
None of our textbooks could tell us the how and why of healing. They
explained the basics of scientific medicine—anatomy, biochemistry, bac-
teriology, pathology, and physiology—each dealing with one aspect of
the human body and its discontents. Within each subject the body was
further subdivided into systems. The chemistry of muscle and bone, for
example, was taught separately from that of the digestive and nervous
systems. The same approach is used today, for fragmentation is the only
way to deal with a complexity that would otherwise be overwhelming.
The strategy works perfectly for understanding spaceships, computers,
or other complicated machines, and it's very useful in biology. However,
it leads to the reductionist assumption that once you understand the
parts, you understand the whole. That approach ultimately fails in the
study of living things—hence the widespread demand for an alternative,
holistic medicine—for life is like no machine humans have ever built:
It's always more than the sum of its parts.
With delicate lab culture methods we can remove from an animal
certain organs and tissues, such as bone, a heart, a pancreas, a brain, or
groups of nerve cells, keeping them alive for days or weeks. Much of
modern biology in the West is based on the behavior of such isolated
systems, which is assumed to be the same as in the living body. Russian
biology, based on Ivan Pavlov's concept of the body as an indivisible
unit, has always been skeptical of tissue culture results, considering
these "parabiotic" reactions only hints toward definitive studies of the
entire animal. The good sense of this view is shown by the fact that life
tolerates fragmentation very poorly: Except in the simplest species re-
moval of anything more than a few cells always destroys the organiza-
tion, and hence the organism. Even if we could culture separately all the
organs and tissues and then put them together like Dr. Frankenstein's
monster, we would still, at our present level of knowledge, have only a
collection of different kinds of meat, not a living entity. As Albert
Szent-Gyorgyi once wrote, "Biology is the science of the improbable,"
and seldom can we predict new discoveries from what we already under-
stand.
These limitations were clearly recognized by American medicine in
the 1940s, but they seem to have been gradually forgotten. Today most
M.D.'s tacitly assume that once a few blank spots are filled in, the
established basic sciences will be all we'll ever need to take care of the
sick. As a result, they're losing the forest among the trees. Of the disci-
The Missing Chapter 231
plines that form medicine's foundation, only physiology tries to units
structure and function into a complete picture of how the body works.
Hence it's often called the queen of the biological sciences, yet even in
this realm the synthesis is made organ by organ. There is, however, one
organ group—the nervous system—that coordinates the activities of all
the others; by receiving, transmitting, and storing information, it unites
all the parts into that transcendence of fragments, the organism. There-
fore the one discipline that comes closest to dealing with a living thing
in its entirety is neurophysiology, which in the 1940s was already so
sophisticated as to be almost a science unto itself.
Even neurophysiology couldn't explain the mystery of healing, how-
ever. My best texts either ignored it completely or shrugged it off in a
few vague paragraphs. Moreover, my experiences at Bellevue during my
internship and early residency convinced me that a physician's success
was largely due, not to technical prowess, but to the concern he or she
displayed toward patients. The patient's faith in the doctor profoundly
affected the outcome of many treatments. Certain remedies, such as pen-
icillin used against bacteria susceptible to it, worked every time. Other
prescriptions weren't so predictable, however. If the patient thought the
remedy would work, it usually did; otherwise it often didn't, no matter
how up-to-date it was. Unfortunately, the importance of the doctor-
patient relationship was being downgraded by the new scientific medi-
cine. The new breed of physicians argued that this power of belief
somehow wasn't real, that the patients only thought they were getting
better—a bit of arrant nonsense that should have been quickly dispelled
by a little open-minded, caring attentiveness on daily rounds. There was
no known anatomical structure or biochemical process that provided the
slightest reason to believe in such a thing, so it came to be dismissed as
a mirage left over from the days of witchcraft. The placebo effect, as it's
now called, wasn't documented until several decades later and still isn't
fully accepted as an integral part of the healing process, but over the
years I became convinced that it was a physiological effect of mind on
body, just as real as the effects of wind on a tree.
Our lack of knowledge about healing in general and its psychological
component in particular sowed seeds of doubt in my mind. I no longer
believed that our science alone was an adequate basis for medical prac-
tice. As a surgeon, I tried to apply the principle of interaction on my
own wards, by spending more time talking with patients, letting them
know that I cared for them as well as taking care of the m. Naturally, as I
became a teacher, I tried to pass on my beliefs to others. As I gained
experience, I grew more and more convinced that all the textbooks were
missing a chapter—the one that should have tied it all together and
helped us doctors understand the bodily harmony we were trying to
restore.
When I entered research, I aimed for a fairly limited goal among the
many that lured me—finding out what stimulated and controlled the
growth needed for healing—but always in the back of my mind were
the larger questions that had haunted me since medical school: What
unified an organism, making every cell subservient to the needs of the
whole? How was it that the whole being could do things that none of its
components could do separately? What made an organism self-con-
tained, self-directed, self-repairing? When you get right down to it, I
wanted to know what made living things alive. Intuitively I felt sure the
answers needn't be forever hidden in mystic conundrums but were scien-
tifically knowable. However, they would require a fresh approach from
science, not the simple mechanistic dogmas left over from last century.
As a result of the research on nerves and regeneration described in the
foregoing pages, I believe I can now sketch at least an outline of that
missing chapter.
It had been known for centuries that the nerves are the body's com-
munications lines. Still, all the information collected by neurophysi-
ologists hadn't revealed the integrating factor behind healing. Marc
Singer proved that nerves are essential for regeneration, yet the elaborate
impulse and neurotransmitter system, which until recently constituted
everything we knew about nerves, carries no messages during the pro-
cess. Nerves are just as essential to simpler kinds of healing. Leprosy and
diabetes sometimes destroy nerve function to the extremities. When this
happens, a wounded limb not only fails to heal but often degenerates far
beyond the actual injury. I often thought about this paradox in connec-
tion with the other realities that were poorly explained by nerve im-
pulses, such as consciousness and its many levels, sleep, biological
cycles, and extrasensory experiences. As a doctor, however, I was most
concerned with the mystery of pain.
This is the least understood of sensory functions, but it must have
been one of the very first to evolve. Without it, living things would be
so poorly designed that they couldn't survive, for they would never
know what constituted danger or when to take defensive action. Pain is
quite distinct from the sense of touch. If you place your finger on a hot
stove, you feel the touch first and the pain appears a discernible time
later, after the reflex has already drawn your hand away. Clearly the pain
is conveyed by a different means. Furthermore, there are different types
of pain. Pain in the skin is different from pain in the head or belly or
muscles. If you ever want to embarrass a neurophysiologist, ask for an
explanation of pain.
Early in my work on regeneration it occurred to me that I'd stumbled
upon another method of nerve function. I imagined slowly varying cur-
rents flowing along the neurons, their fluctuations transmitting informa-
tion in analog fashion. Though I kept my main focus on the role of these
currents in healing, I pursued other lines of inquiry on the side. I did so
partly out of simple curiosity, but also because I realized that, no matter
how much merit my DC theory might have for healing, it would have a
better chance of being considered if I could fill in some of its details in a
wider context.
In the study of healing I dealt only with the output side of the sys-
tem, the voltages and currents sent to the injured area to guide cells in
repairing the damage. Cybernetics and common sense alike told me
that, before an organism could repair itself, it must know it had been
injured. In other words, the wound must hurt, and the pain must be
part of an input side of the system. Certainly if the output side was run
by electrical currents, it made no sense to assume that the input side
relied on nerve impulses.
At the same time another problem nagged me. The impulses and the
current seemed to coexist, yet everything we knew about nerve impulses
and electricity said they couldn't travel through the same neuron at the
same time without interfering with each other. We now have solutions
to both problems, thanks to serendipity. The ways in which the answers
came show how one experiment often furthers an unrelated one, and how
politics occasionally benefits science.
The Constellation of the Body
In the early 1960s, after I'd published a few research papers, I had an
unannounced visitor, a colonel from the Army Surgeon General's office.
He said he'd been following my work from the start and had an idea he
wanted to discuss. He liked if I'd ever heard of acupuncture.
I told him it wasn't the sort of thing taught in medical school. Al-
though I'd read about it, I had no direct experience of it and didn't
know whether it did any good.
"I can tell you for sure it does work ," he replied. "It definitely re-
lieves pain. But we don't know how it works. If we knew that, the Army
might adopt it for use by medics in wartime. After reading your work,
some of us wondered if it might work electrically, the same as regenera-
tion seems to. What do you think?"
That was a new idea to me, but right away I thought it was a good
one. Although neurophysiologists had studied pain intensively for dec-
ades, there was still no coherent theory of it, or its blockage by anesthet-
ics and anodynes. Because of Western medicine's biochemical bias, no
pain-killers other than drugs were considered seriously. Maybe a physical
method could give us a clue as to what pain really was.
We talked for several hours, but afterward I heard no more from the
colonel, and I didn't get the chance to follow up his idea until more
than a decade later. In 1971, while touring China as one of the first
Western journalists admitted by the Communists, New York Times col-
umnist James Reston saw several operations in which acupuncture was
the only anesthetic, and he himself had postoperative pain relieved by
needles after an emergency appendectomy. His reports put acupuncture
in the news in a big way. It was almost the medical equivalent of Sput-
nik. Soon the National Institutes of Health solicited proposals for re-
search on the Chinese technique, and I jumped at the chance.
At that time the prevailing view in the West was that if acupuncture
worked at all, it acted through the placebo effect, as a function of belief.
Hence it should be effective only about a third of the time, just like
dummy pills in clinical tests. Many of those applying for the first grants
began with this idea, and with the corollary that it wouldn't matter
where you put the needles. Thus, much of our earliest research merely
disproved this fallacy, which the Chinese—and apparently the U.S.
Army—had done long ago. Recalling my talk with the colonel, I pro-
posed a more elegant hypothesis.
The acupuncture meridians, I suggested, were electrical conductors
that carried an injury message to the brain, which responded by sending
back the appropriate level of direct current to stimulate healing in the
troubled area. I also postulated that the brain's integration of the input
included a message to the conscious mind that we interpreted as pain.
Obviously, if you could block the incoming message, you would prevent
the pain, and I suggested that acupuncture did exactly that.
Any current grows weaker with distance, due to resistance along the
transmission cable. The smaller the amperage and voltage, the faster the
current dies out. Electrical engineers solve this problem by building
booster amplifiers every so often along a power line to get the signal
back up to strength. For currents measured in nanoamperes and micro-
volts, the amplifiers would have to be no more than a few inches apart—
just like the acupuncture points! I envisioned hundreds of little DC
generators like dark stars sending their electricity along the meridians,
an interior galaxy that the Chinese had somehow found and explored by
trial and error over two thousand years ago. If the points really were
amplifiers, then a metal needle stuck in one of them, connecting it with
nearby tissue fluids, would short it out and stop the pain message. And
if the integrity of health really was maintained by a balanced circulation
of invisible energy through this constellation, as the Chinese believed,
then various patterns of needle placement might indeed bring the cur-
rents into harmony, although that part of the treatment has yet to be
evaluated by Western medical science.
The biggest problem Western medicine had in accepting acupuncture
was that there were no known anatomical structures corresponding to
the meridians, those live wires supposedly just under the skin. Some
investigators claimed to have located tiny clusters of sensory neurons
where the points were, but others had looked for them in vain. My
proposal offered a convenient way into the problem. If the lines and
points really were conductors and amplifiers, the skin above them would
show specific electrical differences compared to the surrounding skin:
Resistance would be less and electrical conductivity correspondingly
greater, and a DC power source should be detectable right at the point.
Some doctors, especially in China, had already measured lower skin re-
sistance over the points and had begun using slow pulses of current,
about two per second, instead of needles. If we could confirm these
variations in skin resistance and measure current coming from the
points, we'd know acupuncture was real in the Western sense, and we
could go on confidently in search of the physical structures.
I got the grant and used part of the money to hire Maria Reichmanis,
a brilliant young biophysicist who was Charlie Bachman's last Ph.D.
student. Her combination of mathematical gifts and practicality got us
results fast. Together we designed a "pizza cutter" electrode, a wheel
that we could roll along the meridians to give us a reliable continuous
reading, as well as a square grid of thirty-six electrodes to give us a map
of readings around each point.
Along the first meridians Maria measured, the large-intestine and per-
icardial lines on the upper and lower surfaces, respectively, of each arm,
she found the predicted electrical characteristics at half of the points. Most
important, the same points showed up on all the people tested. Since
acupuncture is scuh a delicate blend of tradition, experiment, and theory,
the other points may be spurious; or they may simply be weaker, or a
different kind, than the ones our instruments revealed. Our readings also
indicated that the meridians were conducting current, and its polarity,
matching the input side of the two-way system we'd charted in amphibi-
ans, showed a flow into the central nervous system. Each point was
positive compared to its environs, and each one had a field surrounding it,
with its own characteristic shape. We even found a fifteen-minute rhythm
in the current strength at the points, superimposed on the circadian
("about a day") rhythm we'd found a decade earlier in the overall DC
system. It was obvious by then that at least the major parts of the
acupuncture charts had, as the jargon goes, "an objective basis in reality."
ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY MAPS OF SKIN AT ACUPUNCTURE

POINTS
Maria, Joe Spadaro, and I began a more sophisticated series of tests.

We planned to record from six major points along one meridian as a
needle was inserted into the outermost point. If the DC theory was
valid, a change in potential should travel from point to point along the
line. However, just as we were entering this second phase, the NIH
canceled our grant, even though we'd published four papers in a year.
Supposedly it had lost interest in acupuncture, at least in the kind of
basic research we were doing on it. Even so, I was fairly satisfied. The
input system worked as I'd predicted. The other major question re-
mained: What structure carried the current so as not to interfere with
the nerve impulses?
Of course, I've given away the answer in previous chapters. The peri-
neural cells appear to carry the current. In the early 1970s, however, we
only suspected this. The evidence came unexpectedly by cross-fertiliza-
rion from an unrelated project.
One of the main problems of medical research is finding a suitable
"animal model" for human diseases. The study of unmended fractures is
especially hard, because people are endowed with lesser fracture-healing
abilities than most other animals, for whom nonunions are a non-
problem. Based on what I'd learned about the importance of nerves in
bone healing, I figured we could produce nonunions in rats by cutting
the nerves to the broken leg, particularly if we removed whole segments
of the nerves so they couldn't grow back. I assigned this part of the
project to Dr. Bruce Baker, a young orthopedic surgeon who was then
finishing his residency with an extra year on a fellowship in my lab.
After Bruce had worked out the complicated surgical procedure, we
anesthetized a series of rats, removed the nerve supply to one leg of each
animal, and broke the fibula, or smaller bone of the calf, in a standard
way. Then every day we reanesthetized a few of the rats and took out the
fracture area to mount it for the microscope. At the same time, Bruce
checked the cut nerves to make sure there was no regrowth. Successful
denervation was confirmed by the microscope and by complete paralysis
of the affected leg.
The results were encouraging yet puzzling. The nerves didn't regrow,
and the broken bones took twice the normal six or seven days to heal,
but heal they did, even though theoretically they shouldn't have knit at
all without nerves.
It was well known that the severed end of a nerve would die after a
couple of days, but, since we'd cut the nerves at the same time as we'd
broken the bones, maybe the cut ends had exerted a subdued healing
effect while they remained alive. In another series of animals, we cut the
nerves first. Three days later, after making sure the legs were fully de-
nervated, we operated again to make the fractures. We felt sure the
delay would give us true nonunions. To our surprise, however, the bones
healed faster than they had in our first series, although they still took a
few days longer than normal.
Here was a first-class enigma. The only thing we could think of doing
was to cut the nerves even earlier, six days before the fractures. When
we got that series of slides back, we found that these animals, whose
legs were still completely without nerves, healed the breaks just as fast
and just as well as the normal control animals. Then we took a more
detailed microscopic look at the specimens Bruce had taken from around
the nerve cut. We found that the Schwann cell sheaths were growing
across the gap during the six-day delay. As soon as the perineural sleeve
was mended, the bones began to heal normally, indicating that at least
the healing, or output, signal was being carried by the sheath rather
than the nerve itself. The cells that biologists had considered merely
insulation turned out to be the real wires.
Unifying Pathways
The experiments I'd done with psychiatrist Howard Friedman in the

early 1960s, mentioned in Chapter 5, were the first to provide strong
support for an analog theory of pain. In all animals, including humans,
the normal negative potentials at the extremities weakened or vanished
as an anesthetic took effect. Under deep total anesthesia, the potentials
often reversed entirely, the extremities becoming positive and the brain
and spine negative. At that time we didn't yet know about the two-way
system, inward along sensory nerves and outward along motor nerves,
but it was obvious that a current flow was being reversed by the pain-
preventing drugs. In lab animals and humans under local anesthetic,
such as a shot of procaine in one arm, the negative potential was abol-
ished only for that arm. The DC potentials over the head were un-
affected—except for a little blip in the recording that registered the
prick of the needle!
In addition, the DC potentials react slowly enough to account for
pain. A wound usually doesn't start to hurt in earnest until minutes, or
even hours, after the injury. This delay has been especially hard to ex-
plain in terms of nerve impulses, which travel at 30 feet per second.
However, when Friedman and I injured the limbs of salamanders while
monitoring the potentials on their limbs and heads, we found that the
change in the limb reading showed up in the head after a time approx-
imating that of delayed pain. Acupuncture likewise involves a delay,
usually twenty minutes or more, before its effects are felt.
We also found we could work backward, using the currents to pro-
duce anesthesia. A strong enough magnetic field oriented at right angles
to a current magnetically "clamped" it, stopping the flow. By placing
frogs and salamanders between the poles of an electromagnet so that the
back-to-front current in their heads was perpendicular to the magnetic
lines of force, we could anesthetize the animals just as well as we could
with chemicals, and EEG recordings of magnetic and chemical anesthe-
sia were identical. We got the same effect by passing a current through
the brain from front to back, canceling out the normal current of waking
consciousness, as in electrosleep.
One of the most exciting results of my collaboration with Dr. Fried-
man was proof that one's state of waking consciousness could change the
perception of pain. Friedman, who already used hypnosis to control
chronic pain in his patients, gave several of his best subjects hypnotic
suggestions of arm numbness deep enough that they couldn't feel the
prick of a needle. In each case, I found that the frontal negative poten-
tial of the head became less negative, often reaching zero, as the client
attained deep trance. The reading changed in the same direction as in
anesthesia, only not as far. Then, when the suggestion for pain control
was given, the arm potential reversed just as it had in response to pro-
caine. Conversely, when a control subject was asked in normal waking
consciousness to concentrate forcefully on one arm, its sensitivity to pain
increased, and the hand potential became more negative. We found we
could use this difference to determine whether a person was really hyp-
notized or just cooperating.
Some doubters (including myself, I'm afraid) had believed hypno-
analgesia was merely a state in which the patient still felt the pain but
didn't respond to it, but these experiments proved it was a real blockage
of pain perception. It seems that the brain can shut off pain by altering the
direct-current potentials in the rest of the body "at will." There's every
reason to suppose that pain control through biofeedback or yoga likewise
works by using an innate circuit for attenuating the pain signal, which
releases a shot of the body's own pain-killers. When the signal is appro-
priately modulated, it releases endorphins (internally produced opiates),
as shown by experiments in which an injection of the opiate-antagonist
naloxone negates the anesthesia of acupuncture. I predict that research
on this system will eventually let us learn to control pain, healing, and
growth with our minds alone, substantially reducing the need for physi-
cians.
Direct evidence for the perineural DC system has been accumulating
gradually for several decades. Electric currents were detected in the glial
cells of rat brains as long ago as 1958, and good (though long-ignored)
measurements of direct currents in the frog's brain go back to the work
of Ralph Gerard and Benjamin Libet in the early 1940s. Electron micro-
scope work has shown that the cytoplasm of all Schwann cells is linked
together through holes in the adjacent membranes, forming a syncytium
that could provide the uninterrupted pathway needed by the current.
The other perineural cells—the ependyma and glia—are probably con-
nected in the same way, for syncytial links have recently been found in
the glia of the leech, whose nervous system is much studied because of
its unusually large cells. Recent use of selective radiation to isolate
Schwann cells has shown that they, and not the neuron fibers, supply the
nerve stimulus essential to regeneration.
The invention of a better magnetometer has yielded definitive proof
that's now widely acknowledged. Any electric current automatically
generates a magnetic field around itself. Hence, as the perineural current
conveys information in its fluctuations, it must be reflected by a mag-
netic field around the body, whose pulsing would reveal the same infor-
mation. When I first proposed this idea, many of my colleagues
dismissed it as rank nonsense. I couldn't prove them wrong, because
there were no instruments to measure a field as weak as that generated
by such small currents. Everyone knew the human body had no effect on
a compass needle or any other magnetic-field detector available at the
time.
Then, in 1964, a solid-state physicist named Brian D. Josephson in-
vented the electronic device now called a Josephson junction, a simple
item that won him a Nobel Prize. Basically it consists of two semicon-
ductors connected so that current can oscillate in a controlled fashion
between them. Today it has many applications, especially in computers.
When cooled near absolute zero in a bath of liquid helium, it becomes a
superconductor in which the current plays back and forth endlessly. Su-
perconduction is the passage of electrons through a substance without
the resistance normally found in any conductor. This apparatus, called a
superconducting quantum interferometric device, or SQUID for short, is
a magnetic field detector thousands of times more sensitive than any
previously known.
In 1963, G. M. Boule and R. McFee just barely managed to measure
the relatively large magnetic field produced by the human heart—using
the best old-fashioned instrument, a coil with 2 million turns of wire.
Then, in 1971, working in a null-field chamber, from which the earth's
magnetism and all artificial fields were screened out, Dr. David Cohen of
MIT's Francis Bitter National Magnet Laboratory, who'd been corre-
sponding with our lab since the early years, first used the SQUID to
measure the human head's magnetic field. Two kinds of magnetic fields
have been found. Quickly reversing AC fields are produced by the back-
and-forth ion currents in nerve and muscle. They're strongest in the
heart, since its cells contract in synchrony. The SQUID has also con-
firmed the existence of the direct-current perineural system, which, es-
pecially in the brain, produces steady DC magnetic fields one billionth
the strength of earth's field of about one-half gauss.
By 1975, Drs. Samuel Williamson, Lloyd Kaufman, and Douglas
Brenner of NYU had succeeded in measuring the head's field without a
shielded enclosure, even amid the electromagnetic noise of downtown
Manhattan. More important, they've found that the magnetoencepha-
logram (MHG)—a recording of changes in the brain's field analogous to
the EEG - is often a more accurate reflection of mental activity than the
EEG. Because the magnetic field passes right through the dura, skull
bones, and scalp without being diffused, an MEG locates the current
source more accurately than EEG measurements. The NYU group has
since begun correlating magnetic events with well-known cerebral re-
sponses, such as the reaction of cells in the visual cortex to simple pat-
terns and flashes of light. When the brain reacts to any stimulus, it
produces a wave of electrical activity that's contained in the EEG. It's
invisible in a standard EEG recording, because so much else is always
going on in the brain at the same time. However, when one simple
stimulus is repeated many times and the EEG tracings are averaged by
computer, the particular electrical response to that one stimulus—called
an evoked potential—can be teased out. Several research groups have
slowly built up a small vocabulary of wave forms with specific meanings,
including a "surprise wave," an "intention wave," and a "double-take
wave," which appears when the mind briefly tries to make sense of se-
mantic nonsense, as in the statement "She took a drink from the radio."
Taken together, the MEG research so far seems to be establishing that
every electrical evoked potential is accompanied by a magnetic evoked
potential. This would mean that the evoked potentials and the EEG of
which they're a part reflect true electrical activity, not some artifact of
nerve impulses being discharged in unison, as was earlier theorized.
Some of the MEG's components could come from such additive nerve
impulses, but other aspects of it clearly indicate direct currents in the
brain, particularly the central front-to-back flow. The MEG doesn't
show the EEG's higher-frequency components, however, suggesting that
some parts of the two arise from different sources.
Since every reaction and thought seems to produce an evoked poten-
tial, the DC system seems directly involved in every phase of mental
activity. At the very least, the electric sheath acts as a bias control, a
sort of background stabilizer that keeps the nerve impulses flowing in
the proper direction and regulates their speed and frequency. But the
analog structure probably plays a more active role in the life of the
mind. Variations in the current from one place to another in the peri-
neural system apparently form part of every decision, every interpreta-
tion, every command, every vacillation, every feeling, and every word of
interior monologue, conscious or unconscious, that we conduct in our
heads.
This part of the analog system's job is much less well understood,
however, than its integrative function throughout the rest of the body.
Perineural cells accompany every part of the nervous system. Even the
tiniest twiglets of sensory nerves in the skin, which don't have a myelin
covering, are surrounded by Schwann cells. The perineural
thus just as well distributed to integrate bodily processes as the nerves
themselves. They reach into each area of the body to create a normal
electrical environment around each cell, or a stimulatory one when heal-
ing growth is needed. Likewise they enable an organism to sense the
type and extent of damage anywhere in the body by transmitting the
current of injury, with its by-product of pain, to the CNS. One could
take a "fantastic voyage" from the farthest Schwann cell outpost in the
big toe through the spinal cord and into all parts of the brain. Indeed,
electrons are making this trip every moment of our lives.
Thus our bodies have an intricate and multilayered self-regulating
feedback arrangement. We know, on the psychological level, that a per-
son's emotions affect the efficiency of healing and the level of pain, and
there's every reason to believe that emotions, on the physiological level,
have their effect by modulating the current that directly controls pain
and healing.
These discoveries give us a testable physical basis for the placebo effect
and the importance of the doctor-patient bond. They also may give us
the key to understanding the "miracle" cures of shamans, faith healers,
and saints, as well as the spontaneous healing reported by means of
visions, prayer, yoga, or battlefield terror. At the Menninger Founda-
tion, Elmer Green has long been using biofeedback to explore the mind-
body relationship. Green has described the full yogic control of pain and
healing developed by one of his subjects, an otherwise average busi-
nessman. He lay against a bed of nails with no pain, and, when in-
formed that a puncture from one of the points was bleeding, he turned
his head, gazed at the wound, and immediately stopped the flow. A
combination of biofeedback, recording electrodes, and the SQUID mag-
netometer would seem to be the ideal setup for the next level of inquiry
into the mind's healing powers.
Moreover, since the analog system, like the impulse network, appears
to work on both conscious and subconscious levels simultaneously, it's a
likely missing link in several other poorly understood integrative func-
tions that also cross from one realm to the other. It may lead us at last to
fathom the twin wells of memory and emotion. It may even help us
understand what happens when a new synthesis of creative thought,
a.k.a. inspiration, bursts forth like a mushroom from strands of mycelia
that have been quietly gathering their subterranean forces. Then science
for the first time will begin to comprehend the artistic essence that
makes its rational side productive.
Fourteen
Breathing with the
Earth
Major changes in one's life often proceed improbably from the most
minor events. So it was that I became involved in one of the most inter-
esting parts of my work in 1961 because a dog bit someone I didn't even
know at the time.
My first electrical measurements on salamanders had just revealed part
of the DC control system to me. Elementary physics told me that the
currents and their associated electromagnetic fields would have to be
affected in some way by external fields. In engineering terms, the bio-
magnetic field would be coupled to the DC currents. Hence changes
impressed upon it by external fields would be "read out" through pertur-
bations in the current. Outside fields would also couple directly to the
currents themselves, without acting through the biofield as intermedi-
ary, especially if the currents were semiconducting. In short, all living
things having such a system would share the common experience of
being plugged in to the electromagnetic fields of earth, which in turn
vary in response to the moon and sun. In the late eighteenth century,
the Viennese hypnotist and healer Franz Anton Mesmer proposed direct
magnetic influences on earthly bodies from the heavenly ones, but his
idea came from the scientifically unacceptable domain of astrology. With
the notable exception of Nikola Tesla, most prominent researchers have
derided it until recently. I figured the DC system must be the missing
link in a very different, but very real, connection between geophysics
and the responses of living things. I was eager to investigate it, but at
firsr I didn't know how.
I was an orthopedic surgeon, about as far removed as possible from
the psychiatric expertise needed for a serious study of behavior. And
suppose I did find something? Who would believe me if I ventured so
far from my specialty? The whole idea was preposterous to the science of
the time, anyway. Still, I had to do something.
During the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58, I'd been a
volunteer in the Aurora Watch Program. To find out whether the north-
ern lights appeared simultaneously throughout the north latitudes in
response to changes in the earth's magnetic field (they did), IGY orga-
nizers recruited a worldwide network of amateur observers to go out into
their backyards every night and look at the sky. All of us got weekly
reports on the state of the field from the national magnetic observatory
at Fredericksburg, Virginia. I decided to go back through this data and
see if there was any correlation between the disturbances in earth's field
caused by magnetic storms on the sun, and the rate of psychiatric admis-
sions to our VA hospital.
Luckily for me, Howard Friedman, the hospital's chief of psychology,
was collecting donations door to door for a local Boy Scout troop at
about this time. At one house, the family dog took an instant dislike to
him and bit his ankle. After bandaging the wound, Howard's doctor
gave him a tetanus booster shot. As luck would have it, Howard came
down with a rare allergic reaction that involved fever, fatigue, nausea,
and painful swelling of all the joints.
Since I was the nearest bone-and-joint man, Howard came to see me.
This type of reaction is frightening, but not dangerous, and disappears
of its own accord in a day or two. After I made the diagnosis and reas-
sured him, we sat and talked for a few minutes. After some chitchat
about the shortcomings of the hospital administration, he gestured at
the papers tacked all over the walls of my office and asked, "What are all
those charts?" I told him about my magnetic brainstorms.
He obviously thought I was as crazy as the people whose admissions I
was charting, and probably wondered about the advice I'd just given.
However, after hearing the background, he agreed it wasn't as silly as it
sounded, and offered to help. It was a real break for me, since he was
already a respected researcher, and a practical, open-minded one to boot.
My diagnosis was correct, and our collaboration lasted almost two dec-
ades.
Howard's reputation got us access to the records of state psychiatric
hospitals, giving us a sample large enough to be statistically useful. We
matched the admissions of over twenty-eight thousand patients at eight
hospitals against sixty-seven magnetic storms over the previous four
Breathing with the Earth 245
years. The relationship was there: Significantly more persons were signed
in to the psychiatric services just after magnetic disturbances than when
the field was stable. Of course, such a finding could only serve as a guide
to further investigation, because so many factors determined whether a
person sought psychiatric help, but we felt that other influences would
even out over such a large number of patients.
Next we looked for the same type of influence in patients already
hospitalized. We selected a dozen schizophrenics who were scheduled to
remain in the VA hospital for the next few months with no changes in
treatment. We asked the ward nurses to fill out a standard evaluation of
their behavior once every eight-hour shift. Then we correlated the results
with cosmic ray measurements taken every two hours from government
measuring stations in Ontario and Colorado. Since magnetic storms were
generally accompanied by a decrease in the cosmic radiation reaching
earth, we thought we might find changes in the patients' actions and
moods during these declines. We decided to use cosmic rays instead of
direct reports of the magnetic field strength because of problems in dis-
tinguishing between magnetic storms and other variations in the earth's
field.
The nurses reported various behavior changes in almost all the sub-
jects one or two days after cosmic ray decreases. This was a revealing
delay, for one type of incoming radiation—low-energy cosmic ray flares
from the sun—was known to produce strong disruptions in the earth's
field one or two days later.
With this encouragement we went on in 1967 to confirm, by experi-
ments described more fully in the next chapter, that abnormal magnetic
fields did produce abnormalities in various human and animal responses.
We found slowed reaction times in humans and a generalized stress re-
sponse in rabbits exposed to fields ten or twenty times the normal
strength of the earth's. Hence we suspected that the earth's normal field
played a major role in keeping the DC system's control of bodily func-
tions within normal bounds. The proof of this idea has come mainly
from the work of two men: Frank Brown at Northwestern and Rutger
Wever, working at the Max Planck Institute in Munich.
Already a respected endocrinologist, Brown became interested in bio-
cycles in the 1950s. It was common knowledge that most organisms had
a circadian rhythm of metabolic activity, which most people assumed
was directly linked to the alternation of night and day or, in the case of
shore life, to the tides. Oysters, for example, would open their shells to
feed whenever the tide came in, covering them with water. It was a
simple, obvious observation, but Brown didn't take it for granted. To
his surprise, oysters in an aquarium with constant light, temperature,
and water level still opened and closed their shells in time with their
compatriots at the beach. To find out why, Brown flew oysters in a
lightproof box from New Haven to his lab, in Evanston, Illinois. At first
they kept time with Connecticut oysters, then in a few weeks gradually
shifted to the tide pattern Evanston would have had if it had been on a
seacoast. The oysters not only knew they'd been taken 1,000 miles west-
ward, they also suffered from jet lag!
In his search for a creature whose response to magnetic fields might
tell him more about biocycles, Brown settled upon the mud snail
Nassarius, at home in the intertidal zone anywhere in the world. In his
lab he placed the snails under uniform illumination in a box with an exit
facing magnetic south. When they left the enclosure in early morning,
they turned west. When leaving at noon, they turned east, but took a
westerly course again in early evening. Furthermore, at new and full
moon, the snails' paths veered to the west, while at the quarters they
tended more eastward than at other times.
Brown's precise data from this and many other experiments showed
that Nassarius had two clocks, one on solar time and one on lunar, and
subsequent work with magnets told something about how the time-
pieces ran. The earth's magnetic field averaged 0.17 gauss in Evanston.
When Brown put a 1.5 gauss permanent magnet facing north-south
underneath the snails' doorways to augment the natural field, the ani-
mals made sharper turns, but their direction wasn't affected. Turning
either the magnet or the enclosure through various angles made the
snails change course a specific number of degrees. Brown concluded: "It
seemed as if the snails possessed two directional antennae for detecting
the magnetic field direction, and that these were turning, one with a
solar day rhythm and the other with a lunar day one." This crucial
experiment not only showed the dependence of biocycles on the earth's
magnetic field, it also demonstrated the subtlety of the link. No longer
could we expect changes in the magnetic environment to be as obvious
in their effects on life as changes in oxygen levels, food supply, or tem-
perature.
The niceties of the earth's electromagnetic field itself became better
known as Brown's work progressed. Far from a static, simple magnetic
field like that around a uniform bar of magnetized iron, the earth's field
has turned out to have many components, each full of quirks.
At the end of the nineteenth century, geophysicists found that the
earth's magnetic field varied as the moon revolved around it. In the same
period, anthropologists were learning that most preliterate cultures reck-
oned their calendar time primarily by the moon. These discoveries led
Svante Arrhenius, the Swedish natural philosopher and father of ion
chemistry, to suggest that this tidal magnetic rhythm was an innate
timekeeper regulating the few obvious biocycles then known.
Since then we've learned of many other cyclic changes in the energy
structure around us:
The earth's electromagnetic field is largely a result of interaction
between the magnetic field per se, emanating from the planet's
molten iron-nickel core, and the charged gas of the ionosphere. It
varies with the lunar day and month, and there's also a yearly
change as we revolve around the sun.
A cycle of several centuries is driven from somewhere in the galac-
tic center.
The earth's surface and the ionosphere form an electrodynamic res-
onating cavity that produces micropulsations in the magnetic field
at extremely low frequencies, from about 25 per second down to 1
every ten seconds. Most of the micropulsation energy is concen-
trated at about 10 hertz (cycles per second).
Solar flares spew charged particles into the earth's field, causing
magnetic storms. The particles join those already in the outer
reaches of the field (the Van Allen belts), which protect us by
absorbing these and other high-energy cosmic rays.
Every flash of lightning releases a burst of radio energy at kilocycle
frequencies, which travels parallel to the magnetic field's lines of
force and bounces back and forth between the north and south
poles many times before fading out.
The surface and ionosphere act as the charged plates of a condenser
(a charge storage device), producing an electrostatic field of hun-
dreds or thousands of volts per foot. This electric field continually
ionizes many of the molecules of the air's gases, and it, too, pulses
in the ELF (extremely low frequency) range.
There are also large direct currents continually flowing within the
ionosphere and as telluric (within-the-earth) currents, generating
their own subsidiary electromagnetic fields.
In the 1970s we learned that the sun's magnetic field is divided
from pole to pole into sectors, like the sections of an orange, and
the field in each sector is oriented in the direction opposite to
adjacent sectors. About every eight days the sun's rotation brings
a new region of the interplanetary (solar) magnetic field opposite
us, and the earth's field is slihgtly changed in response to the flip-
flop in polarity. The sector boundary's passage also induces a day
or two of turbulence in earth's field.
The potential interactions among all these electromagnetic phenomena
and life are almost infinitely complex.
For many years most scientists dismissed Brown's conclusions as im-
possible. Given the old premise that life was entirely a matter of water
chemistry, none of these electromagnetic changes would have enough
energy to affect an organic process in any way. Discovery of the DC
system showed how the interaction could work without energy transfer;
it gave living things a way of "sensing" the fields directly. Undaunted
by the slow acceptance of his work, Brown went on to document
Nassaria's sensitivity to electrostatic fields as well. He also found mag-
netically driven cycles in all other organisms he tested, including mice,
fruit flies, and humans. Even potatoes in a bin showed a field-linked
rhythm of oxygen consumption. In humans, hormone output and the
number of lymphocytes in the bloodstream are but two of many vari-
ables that dance to the same beat. One of the most important is cell
cycle time. The actual process of cell division—in which chromosomes
appear, line up, split in half, and are distributed equally between the
two cells—takes only a few minutes. It must be preceded by several
longer stages, one of which is duplication of all the cell's DNA. All
stages together take about one day. Thus all growth and repair, which
depend on regulated cell division, are synchronized with the earth's
field.
Rutger Wever has done some even more telling work with humans
during the last decade and a half. He built two underground rooms to
completely isolate people from all clues to the passage of time. One was
kept free of outside changes in light, temperature, sound, and such ordi-
nary cues, but wasn't shielded from electromagnetic fields. The other
room was identical but also field free. Observing several hundred sub-
jects, who lived in the bunkers as long as two months, and charting
such markers as body temperature, sleep-waking cycles, and urinary ex-
cretion of sodium, potassium, and calcium, Wever found that persons in
both rooms soon developed irregular rhythms, but those in the com-
pletely shielded room had significantly longer ones. Those still exposed
to the earth's field kept to a rhythm close to twenty-four hours. In some
of these people, a few variables wandered from the circadian rate, but
they always stabilized at some new rate in harmony with the basic one—
two days instead of one, for example. People kept from contact with the
earth field, on the other hand, became thoroughly desynchronized. Sev-
eral variables shifted away from the rhythms of other metabolic systems,
which had already lost the circadian rhythm, and established new rates
having no relationship to each other.
Wever next tried introducing various electric and magnetic fields into
his completely shielded room. Only one had any effect on the amorphous
cycles. An infinitesimal electric field (0.025 volts per centimeter) puls-
ing at 10 hertz dramatically restored normal patterns to most of the
biological measurements. Wever concluded that this frequency in the
micropulsations of the earth's electromagnetic field was the prime timer
of biocycles. The results have since been confirmed in guinea pigs and
mice. In light of this work, the fact that 10 hertz is also the dominant
(alpha) frequency of the EEG in all animals becomes another significant
bit of evidence that every creature is hooked up to the earth electromag-
netically through its DC system. Recently a group under Indian bio-
physicist Sarada Subrahmanyam reported that the human EEG not only
responded to the micropulsations, but responded differently depending
on which way the subject's head was facing in relation to the earth's
field. Oddly enough, however, the head direction had no effect if the
subject was a yogi.
The relationship has been conclusively proven by recent studies of the
pineal gland. This tiny organ in the center of the cranium has turned
out to be more than the vaguely defined "third eye" of the mystics. It
produces melatonin and serotonin, two neurohormones that, among
many other functions, directly control all of the biocycles. The lamprey,
akin to the ancestor of all vertebrates, as well as certain lizards, has an
actual third eye, close to the head's surface and directly responsive to
light, instead of the "blind" pineal found in other vertebrates. The emi-
nent British anatomist J. Z. Young has recently shown that this organ
controls the daily rhythm of skin color changes that these animals un-
dergo.
For our story the most important point is that very small magnetic
fields influence the pineal gland. Several research groups have shown that
applying a magnetic field of half a gauss or less, oriented so as to add to
or subtract from the earth's normal field, will increase or decrease pro-
duction of pineal melatonin and serotonin. Other groups have observed
physical changes in the gland's cells in response to such fields. The ex-
periments were controlled for illumination, since it has been known for
several years that shining a light on the head somehow modifies the
gland's hormone output even though it's buried so deeply within the
head in most vertebrates that, as far as we know, it can't react directly to
the light.
We likely have yet to discover many other ways that energy cycles in
the solar system affect life on earth. They may strongly affect the out-
break of disease, for example. The last six peaks of the eleven-year sun-
spot cycle have coincided with major flu epidemics. A Soviet group
under Yu. N. Achkasova at the Crimean Medical Institute, working
with astronomer B. M. Vladimirsky of the Crimean Observatory, has
found a connection between the sun's magnetic field and the Escherichia
coli bacteria that live in our intestines and help us digest our food. The
Russians found the bacteria grew faster when the sun's field was positive,
or pointing toward earth, and slowed down when it was negative. Two
days after the passage of each sector boundary there was a dip in bacterial
growth corresponding to the maximum geomagnetic turbulence. The
data also showed a decline in growth in response to large solar flares.
Other Russian scientists have drawn a tentative correlation between the
sector cycle and reports from two groups of persons with neurological
diseases. The patients felt worse within sectors of positive polarity, when
bacteria seemed to grow faster. Life's geomagnetic coupling to heaven
and earth is apparently more like a web than a simple cord and socket.
The Attractions of Home
An animal's biocycles must be appropriate for its environment if it's to

survive, so they must be precisely tuned to its geographic location. We
might suspect, therefore, that many creatures would use magnetic infor-
mation for their sense of place. A great deal of recent work has shown
that they do. A built-in compass helps guide them in foraging or other
local business, as well as migration over much longer routes. The latter
feats often rival those of any modern navigator. Monarch butterflies
travel from Hudson Bay to South America straight across the Caribbean
without ever getting lost. The arctic tern breeds in summer on the
northern ice cap, then moves to Antarctica for the other hemisphere's
summer, flying 11,000 miles each way. Some salamanders, only inches
long and built very low to the ground, travel up to 30 miles of rugged
mountain country in California to set up housekeeping, then return to
their home stream to breed. Such activities are hard to experiment with,
however, so we've learned more about day-to-day travel.
Karl von Frisch was the first to attack the problem, with his famous
1940s studies of the honeybee dance, which won him a Nobel Prize in
1973. He established that on clear days bees navigated by combining
the sun's angle with their sense of time, the way Boy Scouts are taught
to use wristwatches as compasses. The bees also had a polarized light
system that could determine the sun's direction through light clouds or
forest canopy. Even more amazing, Frisch found, the scouts told workers
back at the hive where the flowers were by means of a dance using the
sun's angle and the direction to earth's center (the gravity vector) as
references. However, Frisch noted that bees could still navigate between
food and home just as well on completely overcast days, when the sun's
angle and polarized light weren't available. There had to be a backup
system.
It soon turned out that homing pigeons had the same abilities. In
1953 G. Kramer inferred that the birds must have a compass in addition
to a map of remembered landmarks from the way they immediately
pointed their beaks toward home after circling once after release. Soon
others found the same kind of sun compass as bees used, but the pigeons
could also steer perfectly on cloudy days. Back in 1947, H. L. Yeagley
had had the temerity to suggest in the Journal of Applied Physics that
pigeons might have a magnetic sense that allowed them to use the
earth's field just as we use magnetic compasses. He was ridiculed and
"refuted" by a few inadequate experiments—such as placing a pigeon in
a variety of electromagnetic fields and noting that it seemed to be com-
fortable! Others, including Yeagley, attached small magnets to the
birds' heads or wings, but found no clear-cut changes in their flight
patterns.
Only a few researchers quietly looked into the matter further. After
Hans Fromme of the Frankfurt Zoological Institute noted in the late
1950s that caged European robins faced longingly in their normal south-
west migratory direction even when they were kept from seeing sun and
stars, their usual signposts, his co-worker Friedrich Merkel discovered
that, insulated from the earth's field by a steel cage, they no longer faced
in one particular direction. Furthermore, by changing the orientation of
the surrounding field with coils, he could give the birds a false sense of
where southwest was. The experiment was validated with indigo bunt-
ings several years later.
There the matter rested until 1971, when William T. Keeton of Cor-
nell realized that the pigeon's magnetic sense, if it existed, would be
overshadowed by its sun compass, so naturally magnets affixed to the
birds would have no effect on clear days. He soon found that the same
birds released on a cloudy day got lost.
To study this magnetic interference in any weather, Keeton made
translucent contact lenses for his birds, then released them in the moun-
tains of northern New York. Simulating dense clouds, the contacts
blocked the sun's angle and polarized light, and with 1-gauss magnets
attached to their heads the birds couldn't find their way home. How-
ever, each avian Ulysses who wore the lenses but no magnets faultlessly
navigated the 150 miles southwest to Ithaca, then flew ever tighter cir-
cles around the loft and fluttered in like a helicopter to a perfect blind
landing.
Carrying the work forward after Keeton's untimely death soon after
this experiment, Charles Walcott and Robert Green of the State Univer-
sity of New York at Stony Brook, working with James L. Gould of
Princeton, outfitted pigeons with miniaturized electromagnetic coils
that let the researchers vary the type and orientation of applied field at
will. They discovered that if the south pole of the field was directed up,
the birds could still find home, but with the north pole up they flew
directly away from it. That meant they were using magnetic north as a
reference point. At about the same time two German scientists, Martin
Lindauer and Herman Martin, analyzed half a million bee dances and
found a "magnetic error" in them—a compensation for the difference
between magnetic north and true north. They were also able to intro-
duce specific angles of error in the dances with specifically oriented coils
around the hive. Here was proof that magnetic guidance systems existed
in both the birds and the bees. * The next question was how the systems
worked.
In 1975 Richard P. Blakemore, then a graduate student at the Uni-
versity of Massachusetts in Amherst, astonished the world of biology
with the announcement that some bacteria, the lowliest of all cells, also
had a magnetic sense. Blakemore made the discovery when, studying the
salt marshes of Cape Cod, he noticed that one type of bacterium always
oriented itself north-south on his microscope slides. Soon he found mag-
netotactic bacteria (those reactive to magnetism) near Cambridge, Mas-
sachusetts, where he set about studying them with Richard Frankel of
MIT's magnet lab. The direction to magnetic north points through the
earth somewhat down from the horizon, and the scientists became con-
vinced that the bacteria were using the field to guide themselves ever
downward to the mud where they throve, since they were too small to
sink through the random molecular motion of the water around them.
* Recent work by Cornell biologist Kraig Adler showed that the magnetic sense of sala-
manders was many times more acute than even even that of pigeons. Not only could the
amphibians find home without tight or other common cues; in addition, when Adler
tried to confuse them with artificial fields, they quickly adapted to the interference and
oriented themselves correctly in relation to the weaker geomagnetic background.
This idea was later confirmed by findings that microbes at Rio and in
New Zealand were south-seekers.
Blakemore's electron micrographs soon revealed a surprising structure.
Each bacterium contained within it, like a chain of cut jet stones, a
straight line of magnetite microcrystals. Surrounded by a thin mem-
brane, each of these particles was a single domain, the smallest piece of
the mineral that could still be a magnet.
Blakemore's bacteria led Gould to look for similar crystals in bees and
pigeons. Since an electron microscope survey of even a bee's brain would
take several lifetimes, he examined the insects with a SQUID magne-
tometer. After confirming that they were magnetic, he dissected them
and narrowed the location down to a part of the abdomen. Using the
same method, Walcott and Green dissected the heads of two dozen
pigeons, gradually subdividing them with nonmagnetic probes and scal-
pels. After a painstaking search the investigators found a tiny magnetic
deposit in a 1- by 2-millimeter piece of tissue richly festooned with
nerves, on the right side of the head, between the brain and the inner
table of the skull. The same dot of tissue contained yellow crystals of the
iron-storage protein ferritin, indicating that the pigeons, like the bacte-
ria, synthesized their own lodestone crystals.
As usual, these recent answers have raised plenty of new questions.
The existence of magnetic sensors in such diverse creatures as bacteria,
bees, and birds—the current count of species with magnetic organs is
twenty-seven, including three primates—suggests that a magnetic sense
has existed from the very beginning of life, perhaps only to be perfected
by creatures that need to get around a lot. Do all animals, then, have
the same sensors, and do they always serve the same function? How is
the information read out of the crystals by the nervous system and trans-
lated into directions? What aspect of the earth's field do these organs
sense?
Keeton noticed an especially odd thing about his pigeons' flight pat-
terns. When flying on visual flight rules by sun compass, they would
circle once, get their bearings, then move off straight toward Ithaca. But
when using their magnetic compass, the birds would fly due west from
their release point until they got out over Lake Ontario, due north of
Ithaca. Then, out of sight of land, they would make a right-angle turn
to the left and follow the exact meridian of home. Keeton told me this
but never published the observation because he didn't know what to
make of it. He said, "I asked a physicist: 'Are they making contact with
a certain magnetic line of force?' The man said, 'No, magnetic lines of
force an just an arbitrary convention we use to symbolize a field and
describe anomalies in it, such as occur around iron ore deposits. As far as
we know, the lines have no equivalent in reality, and if they did, they
would vary all over the place as the earth's field changes, anyway.'" Do
pigeons then follow some maplike structure in the earth's field itself, a
grid like that described by dowsers and geomancers since ancient times,
something we can't find today even with our SQUID? Some migrating
birds make a dogleg to the east in their north-south flyway, sailing out
of sight of land over Lake Superior. Do they go out of their way to avoid
being disoriented by iron ore deposits in the Mesabi Range? We can
suspect, but we don't yet know.
To most people, of course, the most interesting questions concern
themselves. Do we, too, have compasses in our heads?
On June 29, 1979, R. Robin Baker, a young University of Man-
chester researcher into bionavigation, led a group of high school students
into a bus at Barnard Castle, near Leeds, England. Baker blindfolded
and earmuffed them, then gave them all headbands. Half of the head-
gear contained magnets and half contained brass bars that their wearers
thought were magnets. As the volunteers leaned back to concentrate,
Baker wove a mazelike course through the town's tangled streets, then
traveled a straight highway to the southwest. After a few miles the coach
stopped while the students wrote on cards an estimate of the compass
direction toward the school. Then the driver turned through 135 degrees
and continued east to a spot southeast of the school, where the students
again estimated their direction. When the cards were analyzed, it turned
out that the persons with brass bars by their heads had been able to sense
the proper heading quite reliably, while those wearing magnets had not.
Gould and his Princeton co-worker K. P. Able recently tried to repli-
cate Baker's experiment but failed. However, Baker's review of the at-
tempt suggested that the volunteers' directional sense may have been
thrown off by magnetic storms, weak magnetic gradients inside the bus,
and/or the greater electromagnetic contamination of Princeton compared
with rural England. Baker and co-worker Janice Mather have recently
devised a simpler test method. In the middle of a specially built, light-
tight wooden hut free of magnetic interference, the subject is blind-
folded, earmuffed, and seated on a friction-free swivel chair. After being
turned around several times, the subject must estimate his or her com-
pass heading as before. With statistically consistent success in more than
150 persons, Baker believes he has proven the existence of a human
magnetic sense.
Oddly enough, he finds that as long as people can't feel the sun or
sense some other obvious cue, they can judge direction better with blind-
folds on. Otherwise they start rationalizing the process, trying to deduce
the right way from too little evidence and becoming confused. He sur-
mises that the magnetic sense serves its purpose best by unconsciously
giving a continuous sense of direction without its owner's having to be
aware of it all the time, and thus freeing attention for the search for
food, a mate, shelter, and so on.
In 1983, using magnetic measurements in selective-shielding experi-
ments, Baker and his co-workers reported locating magnetic deposits
close to the pineal and pituitary glands in the sinuses of the human
ethmoid bone, the spongy bone in the center of the head behind the
nose and between the eyes. It's interesting to note that selective-shield-
ing studies done in the early 1970s, by Czech emigre biophysicist Zaboj
Harvalik, an adviser to the U.S. Army Advanced Material Concepts
Agency, pointed to this same spot as one of two areas—the other was
the adrenal glands—where the dowsing ability resided.
In 1984 a group headed by zoologist Michael Walker of the Univer-
sity of Hawaii in Honolulu isolated single-domain magnetite crystals
from a sinus of the same bone in the yellowfin tuna and Chinook
salmon. The crystals were of a shape normally shown only by magnetite
synthesized by living things rather than geological processes. Abundant
nerve endings entered the magnetic tissue, and the crystals were orga-
nized in chains much like those in magnetotactic bacteria. Each crystal
was apparently fixed in place but free to rotate slightly in response to
external magnetic forces. Calculations showed that such chains would be
able to sense the earth's magnetic field with an accuracy of a few seconds
of arc, or a few hundred feet of surface position. This result correlated
perfectly with earlier homing studies on live tuna by the same group.
This detailed work, along with related earlier research, strongly suggests
that all vertebrates have a similar magnetic organ in the ethmoid sinus
area, and I suspect that this organ also transmits the biocycle timing
cues from the earth field's micropulsations to the pineal gland.
The Face of the Deep
DNA pioneer Erwin Chargaff has called the origin of life "a subject for
the scientist who has everything," but that hasn't stopped many of us (or
even him, for that matter) from speculating about it. There are numer-
ous detailed pictures of that primal scene in print today, but most are
variations on one theory - "warm soup and lightning."
Life on earth began some 4 billion years ago, or roughly l or 2 billion
years after the world itself was born. The atmosphere then was com-
pletely different, much like Jupiter's today, mostly ammonia and meth-
ane. Into that atmosphere some source of energy—lightning, heat, and
ultraviolet radiation have all been suggested—led to the spontaneous
formation of simple organic compounds. Sifting into the oceans for mil-
lions of centuries, these compounds would have coalesced by chance into
ever more elaborate patterns. According to the theory, this process
culminated in closed "protocells" able to resist the reactivity of other
structures while growing through incorporation of similar compounds.
This idea owes its dominance largely to an important experiment made
by S. L. Miller in 1953. Miller pumped a facsimile of the presumed early
atmosphere—ammonia, methane, and water vapor—continuously past an
electric spark. After several days he had some amino acids. Since these are
the bricks of DNA, RNA, and all proteins, the evidence seemed very good.
Later runs yielded even more sophisticated molecules. In water they co-
alesced into globules with a sort of membrane around them—called
"coacervates" by A. I. Oparin and "proteinoids" by Sidney Fox, two of the
most assiduous students of biogenesis.
Nothing came close to being alive in any of these spark chambers,
however. More important, the experiments raised two difficulties, one
theoretical, one practical. The soup theory needed to come up with a
very sophisticated entity, a living cell with some genetic system using
DNA or RNA, right off the bat. According to our notions of biology,
nothing could be alive before that point, yet it seemed incredible that
chance associations of the building blocks could form a palace of such
complexity without passing through a mud-hut stage.
When the warm soup theory was first advanced, the mechanistic per-
suasion was at its height. Living things were complicated machines, but
molecular machinery they were. However, the concept of a cell was
much simpler than it is today. No longer is it considered a mere baglet
of jelly with a few master molecules telling it what to do. Even the
membrane of the simplest bacterium responds in intricate ways to infor-
mation from outside, yet our best electron microscopes haven't yet re-
vealed a complexity of structure adequate to explain its work.
There was a basic chemical problem as well. All organic compounds
exist in two forms, or isomers. Each contains the same number and type
of atoms, but in one they're arranged as a mirror image of the other.
One is "right-handed" and the other is "left-handed." They're identified
by the way they bend light in solution. The dextrorotatory (D) forms
rotate it to the right, while levorotatory (L) isomers refract it to the left.
All artificial methods of synthesizing organic compounds - including
the spark experiments—yield a roughly equal mixture of D and L mole-
cules. However, all living things consist of either D or L forms, depend-
ing on the species, but never both.
We must conceive of the first living things as something unexpected,
not just simpler versions of what we see around us. They couldn't have
been cells; they couldn't have had a DNA-RNA-protein system, a living
membrane, or a nerve impulse network.
We can try to define the bare minimum, the processes that must be
available before an entity can be called living. There must be a way to
receive information about external conditions, process it, and store it so
that the data change the being's response to the same stimulus in the
future. In other words, a sort of crude consciousness and memory must
be present from the first. A life-form must also be able to sense damage
and repair itself. Third, we can expect that it would show some sort of
cyclic activity, perhaps tuned primarily to the circadian rhythm of the
lunar day. Self-replication, one of the main requirements in the DNA-
based theory, can be dispensed with. An organism that can fully heal its
injuries is theoretically immortal. The criteria for life can be summarized
as organization, information processing, regeneration, and rhythm.
The funny thing is that all of these criteria are met by the activities of
semiconducting crystals. Semiconductivity occurs naturally in several in-
organic crystals, including silicon, one of the most common elements,
and the rare earth germanium. Moreover, extremely small amounts of
contaminants will change the crystal's electrical properties dramatically
in doping. The earth's volcanic mixing would have produced minerals
with a wide variety of current-handling abilities to start from. Most
important, the piezoelectric, pyroelectric, photoelectric, and other re-
sponses of semiconducting crystals could have served as an analog
method of processing and storing information about pressure, heat, and
light. Moreover, repeated passage of current through some semiconduc-
tors permanently changes the materials' characteristics so as to make the
same electrical responses easier in the future. Movement of electrons
along the crystal lattices inevitably would have been shaped by geo-
celestial cycles in the earth's electromagnetic field, as well as by the
fields around other such crystalline organisms nearby—providing a sense
of time and information about the neighbors. The currents also would
have instantly refllected any loss of material and guided the deposition of
replacement atoms to restore the original structure.
The idea of certain rocks, in the course of a billion years or so, gradu-
ally becoming responsive to their surroundings, growing, learning to
"hurt" when a lava flow or sulfuric rain ate away part of a vertex, slowly
rebuilding, pulsing with, well, life, even developing to a liquid crystal
stage and climbing free of their stony nests like Cadmus' dragon's teeth
or the lizards in an M. C. Escher print—all this may seen a bit bizarre.
Yet it's really no more strange than imagining the same transformation
from droplets of broth. The change happened somehow.
The biggest hurdle for this theory is accepting the idea that life could
develop in the dry state, either out of the oceans or in the rocks under-
neath them. Since the mid-1960s it has seemed more plausible, for it
was then that H. E. Hinton, of the University of Bristol, England,
learned that at least one organism spends part of its life completely with-
out liquid water. Certain flies of the Sahara desert lay their eggs in the
brief pools formed by the rare rains. The larvae go through several meta-
morphoses in the water, but they're almost always interrupted by the
evaporation of the pool. Though completely desiccated, in a state Hin-
ton named cryptobiosis, they survive months or years until the next
rainstorm, whereupon they take up where they left off. The larvae can be
quick-dried and stored in a vacuum bottle for many years. Placed in
water, they resurrect in a few minutes. If a larva is cut in two when
active, it takes six minutes to die. If it's flash-dried in the first minute,
the two pieces can be kept on a shelf for years, but when returned to
water they'll live out their remaining five minutes. Contrary to common
sense, it appears that in this case life doesn't need water, but death can't
occur without it.
Getting rid of the water-equals-life assumption makes the crystalline
theory more believable. Conditions on the young planet favored forests
of crystals: It was hot; volcanoes were constantly firing new materials
into the dense, dark shell of turbulent gases. However, the crystals
would still have needed outside energy to overcome the entropy of non-
living matter. With an organizing principle built into them from the
start, it's not too hard to imagine them acquiring other kinds of mole-
cules, including the organics raining from the sky and dissolving in the
waters. Then life would have been on its way to developing the bio-
chemistry we now know—the genetic system and the consequent ap-
pearance of sexuality—which is the basis of all the creatures now alive or
known from the fossil record. Still, we need an energy source for the
transition. Lightning won't work in this context. We also need an expla-
nation for the exclusively left- or right-handed molecules.
In 1974 F. E. Cole and E. R. Graf of New Orleans made a theoretical
analysis of the Precambrian earth's electromignetic field that fulfilled
both needs. They reasoned that since the atmosphere was much larger
then, it must have pushed the ionosphere much farther out than it is
today, into the region of the Van Allen belts. The earth would then have
had an electromagnetic resonator of two concentric spheres—the upper
atmosphere and the surface. Today, as in the past, the earth's pulsing
magnetic field combines with the solar wind to induce large currents in
the Van Allen belts. In the Precambrian era, however, the fluctuations
of current in the Van Allen belts in turn would have generated huge
currents in the nearby ionosphere. Since the earth's metallic core is an
excellent conductor, the ionospheric currents would have coupled to it,
producing an enormous and constant electrical discharge through the
atmosphere and into the earth. Moreover, since the distance around the
core at that time was roughly equal to 1 wavelength of electromagnetic
energy at 10 cycles per second, or about 18,000 miles, this discharge
would have pulsed at 10 hertz throughout the resonant cavity, which
encompassed the whole atmosphere and surface. Besides directly provid-
ing electrical energy, this discharge would have produced abundant
heat, ultraviolet radiation, and infrasound (or pressure waves), all of
which would have fostered varied chemical activity.
Such a dense and electrically supercharged atmosphere undoubtedly
would have produced great quantities of amino acids and peptides. As
they came together in the air and water, linking chainwise to form pro-
teins and nucleic acids, the vectors of electromagnetic force would have
favored spiral shapes twisting in one direction or the other, depending
on whether the reaction occurred in the Northern or the Southern Hemi-
sphere. In 1981, W. Thiermann and U. Jarzak found some direct evi-
dence for this theory by synthesizing organic compounds in a steady-
state magnetic field. Changing the orientation of the field gave them
high yields of either D or L forms.
It may be possible to run a further check on the Cole and Graf hy-
pothesis at one place in the solar system—the Great Red Spot of
Jupiter. This permanent hurricane, whose eye could swallow the earth,
continually emits prodigious electrical discharges through an atmosphere
much like the one proposed for Precambrian times. It may be synthesiz-
ing organic compounds and energizing a transition to life even now.
On earth, all entities formed within the 10-hertz discharge—and all
of their descendants—would resonate at the same frequency or show
extreme sensitivity to it, even after the original power source had been
disconnected. The 10-hertz band would remain supremely important for
most life-forms, as indeed it has. As already noted, it's the primary
frequency of the EEG in all animals, and it can be used to restore normal
circadian rhythms to humans cut off from the normal fields of earth,
moon, and sun. William Ross Adey of the Loma Linda VA Hospital in
California has found that magnetic fields modulated at about the same
frequency can be used to change the behavior of monkeys in several
important ways, which are described more fully in the next chapter.
The Cole and Graf theory also suggests how the spark of life turned
itself off. The currents driving the discharges would have ceased as the
atmosphere gradually became depleted by escape of the lighter gases and
by incorporation of the ammonia and methane into organic compounds.
As this happened, the ionosphere would have gradually descended, be-
coming disconnected from the Van Allen belts. The ionospheric currents
would have become too small to couple to the earth's core, and the
atmospheric cavity too small to resonate at the core's prescribed fre-
quency. At that point, the plug was pulled, but life was well on its way.
Aside from competition from more advanced creatures, the loss of the
energy source would explain why we see today no remnants of the transi-
tional forms still emerging from inanimate matter.
This solid-state theory of life's creation is more than an exciting pic-
ture of our birth in a shower of sparks. It leads us to another of biology's
great mysteries—the evolution of nervous systems—by a sensible se-
quence of steps. First there would have been a crystalline protocell trans-
mitting information directly through its molecular lattice. As the first
cells developed, we can envision chains of microcrystals, then chains of
organic polymers transmitting information in the form of semiconduct-
ing currents. Although the exact mechanism of electron passage through
living tissue is far from clear, nearly all organic matter exhibits
piezoelectricity and all the other hallmarks of semiconduction. Further-
more, in a series of experiments during the 1970s, Freeman Cope, a
Navy biophysicist building on Szent-Gyorgyi's work, has found evidence
of superconduction at room temperature in a variety of living matter.
Currents briefly induced in superconductors have been known to flow for
many years without decay, but the phenomenon has heretofore been at-
tained only near absolute zero. Although Cope's work is still preliminary
and uncorroborated, he has found electromagnetic data consistent with
superconduction in E. coli bacteria, frog and crayfish nerves, yeast, sea
urchin eggs, and molecules of RNA, melanin pigment, and the enzyme
lysozyme.
Whatever the exact details of the conducting system, the first multi-
cellular organisms probably had networks of cells that were much like
the first single cells. Later, these network cells would have specialized
for their DC-carrying duties, linking into syncytia to avoid the high
resistance of intercellular junctions. Somewhere along the line a central
processing center and information storehouse would have developed. At
the same time separate input and output tracts would have appeared,
and the DC system would have neared its peak of specialization as its
cells evolved into the prototypes of glial, ependymal, and Schwann cells.
At about this point the high-speed digital impulse system for handling
more complex information would have begun to form inside the older
one. Today all multicellular animals have this kind of hybrid system,
whose complexities should provide work for at least a few more genera-
tions of neurophysiologists.
Crossroads of Evolution
The Cole and Graf theory has one crucial requirement. The polarity of
the earth's magnetic field must have stayed the same during the resonant
period. Otherwise there would be a mixture of right and left isomers in
living tissues. As far as we can tell, the field did remain steady in Pre-
cambrian times, but we have ample proof that its poles have reversed
many times during the last half-billion years. Each time, the shift has
coincided with the extinction of many species.
The geomagnetic record is written in two places: in igneous rocks
bearing magnetic minerals, and in ocean floor sediments. Magnetic par-
ticles in molten rock are free to move and align themselves with the
prevailing magnetic field. As the rock cools they're frozen in place. In
the same way magnetic particles settling onto the ocean floor reflect the
orientation of the field at the time of the deposit. Ocean sediments and
the rock they eventually become have given us an undisturbed magnetic
chronology for many millions of years, while the relatively few strata of
igneous rock undisturbed by later upheavals give us occasional glimpses
further back.
The reversals happen very fast, as geologic time goes. The field
strength falls to about half its average for a few thousand years. Then
during another thousand years the poles change places; then the field
regains its normal strength in another few thousand years. All told, the
change takes about five thousand years.
In the early 1960s, when the reversals were first discovered, geophysi-
cists believed the magnetic field disappeared completely during the pole
reversal. Thus they thought that the absence of the electromagnetic um-
brella that protected life from high energy ultraviolet and cosmic rays
would account for large-scale extinctions, These "great dyings" had long
puzzled paleontologists . Soon the demise of a species of radiolarian was
correlated with a magnetic field reversal. Radiolarians are microscopic
plankton animals with hard calcareous skeletons. Each species has a dis-
tinct, intricate shape, so their remains form an easily recognizable, con-
tinuous record in sediment cores. By 1967 James D. Hayes and Neil D.
Opdyke of Columbia's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory had cor-
related the disappearance of eight types of radiolarians with the reversals.
Each species had been widespread and abundant; each extinction took
place abruptly, with no previous decline in population. The "radiation
barrage" theory seemed confirmed.
However, it has since been learned that the field strength drops only
by half, not enough to drastically reduce the protective power of the Van
Allen belts and ionosphere. Moreover, radiolarian populations extend
down into several yards of water, which should protect them from the
radiation anyway. Hays has since drawn the less specific outlines of cur-
rent knowledge thus: As animals grow more specialized in the course of
evolution, they become more sensitive to some as yet unknown, lethal
effect of the reversals. Long periods without reversals—the quiescent
eras sometimes last tens of millions of years—seem to produce a profu-
sion of species especially susceptible to the effect, and they're weeded out
at the next shift.
We know of two especially widespread extinctions. One, at the end of
the Permian period, about 225 million years ago, wiped out half the
kinds of animals then alive, from protozoa to early reptiles. The same
kind of curtain dropped on the age of dinosaurs at the end of the Cre-
taceous period, some 70 million years ago. In both cases frequent mag-
netic pole reversals had resumed after a long quiescence. Many periods of
less extensive extinction have also been documented in the fossil record
and correlated with the field reversals. Most recently, J. John Sepkoski,
Jr., and David M. Raup of the University of Chicago reported what they
believed to be a 26-million-year cycle in the major dyings. If their hy-
pothesis holds up, there may be some solar or galactic influence that
interacts with a magnetic reversal for maximum destructive effect.
We can only surmise that the earth's field was instrumental in life's
beginning, but by 1971 we knew virtually for certain that its polarity
shifts had shaped life's development by a "pruning" of species. That year
I was invited to a private meeting at Lamont to talk about the reversals,
the sole M.D. among a score of biologists and geophysicists. At that
time we could only speculate as to how the extinction effect came about.
We didn't even have a workable theory of what changes inside the earth
caused the turnabouts, or how the process affected the micropulsations
and other aspects of the field. All we could agree on was that there were
probably changes in every aspect of it, and our knowledge hasn't pro-
gressed much since then.
The pole shift happens so slowly that living things may well adapt to
it easily; the 50-percent decline in field strength also seems rather unim-
portant. However, since we know the micropulsations control biocycles,
including the timing of the mitotic rhythm, a major change in their
frequency could be catastrophic. Experiments with artificial extremely
low frequency fields (see Chapter 15) have shown that vibrational rates
near normal but slightly above, from about 30 to 100 hertz, cause dra-
matic changes in the cell cycle time. This interferes with normal growth
of the embryo and may tend to foster abnormal, malignant growth as
well. If a geomagnetic reversal raises the micropulsation frequencies into
this range, the accumulation of growth errors over many generations
could well mean extinction.
We have no way of making a forecast, however. Reversals seem to
happen at widely varied intervals, as often as every fifty thousand years
during some periods, many millions of years apart during other times.
The last one seems to have occurred about seven hundred thirty thou-
sand years ago. Several scientists have interpreted data from NASA's
MAGSAT orbiter, and from measurements of magnetic particles in lake
sediments, as indicating that the earth's magnetic field strength is
steadily declining, and has been for the last few thousand years. If so, we
may already be entering the next reversal, but it's also possible we're
merely experiencing one of the field's many short-term variations.
Nor can we be sure how serious a reversal would be for us. Hominids
have weathered them in the past, but we have an extra reason for being
uneasy this time. If we're entering a reversal now, it will be the first one
in which the normal field is contaminated with our own electromagnetic
effluvia, and the most powerful of these, at 50 and 60 hertz, fall right in
the middle of the "danger band" in which interference with growth
controls can be expected.
The field giveth as well as taketh away, however. If we can hang on
until the next peak of its strength, we may benefit from a subtle infusion
of electromagnetic wisdom. An ingenious theory recently proposed by
Francis Ivanhoe, a pharmacologist and anthropologist at two universities
in San Francisco, suggests how important it may have been to our own
development.
Ivanhoe made a statistical survey of the braincase volume of all known
Paleolithic human skulls, and correlated the increase with the magnetic
field strength and major advances in human culture during the same
period. Ivanhoe found bursts of brain-size evolution at about 380,000 to
340,000 years ago, and again at 55,000 to 30,000 years ago. Both
periods corresponded to major ice ages, the Mindel and Wurm, respec-
tively, and they were also eras when great cultural advances were made—
the widespread domestication of fire by Homo erectus in the early Mindel,
and the appearance of Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon peoples) and
gradual decline of Neanderthals (Homo sapiens) during the Wurm. Two
other glaciations in the same time span—the Ganz of about 1,200,000 to
1,050,000 years ago and the Riss of about 150,000 to 100,000 years
ago—didn't call forth such obvious advancements in human evolution.
They also differed from the other two in that the average geomagnetic
field intensity was much lower.
Ivanhoe has proposed a direct link from the magnetic field through
the growth-hormone regulator pathways in the brain to account for the
sharp evolutionary gains. He suggests that part of the hippocampus, a
section of the brain's temporal lobe, acts as a transducer of electromag-
netic energy. A part of the hippocampus called Ammon's horn, an arch
with one-way nerve traffic directed by a strong current flow, may read
out variations in the field strength, feeding them by a bundle of well-
documented pathways called the fornix to the hypothalamus and thence
to the anterior pituitary, where growth hormone is produced. It's known
that larger amounts of this hormone in pregnancy increase the size of the
cerebral cortex and the number of its nerve cells in the offspring, as
compared with other parts of the brain. Ivanhoe also notes that the hip-
pocampus and its connections with the hypothalamus are among the
parts of the brain that are much larger in humans than other primates.
The idea gains further support from the fact that neural activity in the
hippocampus increases with electrical stimulation and reaches a max-
imum at 10 to 15 cycles per second, at or slightly above the dominant
micropulsation frequency of today's field. The most powerful shaper of
our development may turn out to be the subtlest, a force that's com-
pletely invisible to us.
Hearing Without Ears
We've considered how the electromagnetic fields of earth, moon, and

sun affect life. In the next chapter, we'll ponder the effects of artificial
fields from our machines. There's probably another interaction, however,
of which we know much less: the effects produced on living things by
the biomagnetic fields of other creatures. If one nervous system could
sense the field of another, it would go a long way toward explaining
extrasensory perception.
Following the curious dogma that what we don't understand can't
exist, mainstream science has dismissed psychic phenomena as delusions
or hoaxes simply because they're rarer than sleep, dreams, memory,
growth, pain, or consciousness, which are all inexplicable in traditional
terms but are too common to be denied. Fifty years ago, when J. B.
Rhine of Duke University first published results of his card-guessing
experiments, scientists eagerly debated and tested the subject for a few
years. Then, although at least 60 percent of the attempts to confirm
Rhine's work also got better-than-chance results (a replication rate better
than that in most other areas of psychology), the openness somehow
disappeared. Ever since World War II, serious parapsychologists have
been hounded out of the forum of science. In the 1950s, for example,
Science and Nature both published attacks on certain results of Rhine and
S. G. Soal, an early psi researcher at London University. Today this
attitude may be waning. G. R. Price, the author of one of the diatribes,
apologized in Science in 1972, and both journals have begun accepting
occasional reports on psychic research, although still confining them-
selves mainly to negative findings. As the climate has begun to change,
a few researchers have looked for electromagnetic fields as a possible basis
for extrasensory perception.
The results so far have been as inconclusive as those from any other
approach. In 1978 E. Balanovski and J. G. Taylor used a variety of
antennae, skin electrodes, and magnetometers to monitor a number of
people claiming paranormal powers. They found no electric or magnetic
fields associated with successes in telepathy experiments. In 1982, Rob-
ert G. Jahn, dean of engineering at Princeton, assembled the most im-
pressive battery of electronic equipment ever brought to bear on the
subject. He found definite effects by mental forces on interferometer
displays and strain-gauge readings, along with positive results in re-
mote-viewing experiments. The tests couldn't be reliably repeated, how-
ever, and seemed to vary with the moods of researcher and subject, and
perhaps with other immeasurable environmental factors. The same de-
pendence on attitude—experiments seem to work more often for believ-
ers than doubters—has bedeviled psychic research from its beginning.
Although Jahn came up with no clear-cut findings on electromagnetic
factors, he was forced to the sublimely understated conclusion that
". . . once the illegitimate research and invalid criticism have been set
aside, the remaining accumulated evidence of psychic phenomena com-
prises an array of experimental observations . . . which compound to a
philosophical dilemma."
We must remember that our study of biofields is still in its infancy.
It's only a decade since the SQUID first enabled us to find the magnetic
field around our heads at all. Pigeons have a magnetic detector thou-
sands of times more sensitive than the latest instruments. We also know
that the interaction of semiconducting currents with external magnetic
fields is thousands of times greater than that of currents in a wire, and
engineers have built microscopic devices that enhance this sensitivity by
a factor of another thousand or more. The electron microscope has shown
us crystallike structures of previously unsuspected complexity in all liv-
ing cells, whose functions we can only guess at. There's now some evi-
dence that psychic intent can influence the flow of current in solid-state
devices, so we may be nearing the energy levels at which extrasensory
factors work. Since all living things generate weak electromagnetic
fields, and since many, if not all, can sense those of the earth, communi-
cation by this medium remains a strong possibility. Recent disclosure of
a multimillion-dollar research effort in this area by the hardheaded
weapons planners at the Department of Defense is one more reason why
those scientists who work in public shouldn't dismiss the idea.
We must always be careful to place more weight on observation than
current theory. We must remember that we don't yet fully understand
magnetism. It now appears that the single domain with both magnetic
poles may not be the smallest unit of magnetism after all. Physicists
now posit the existence of magnetic monopoles, particles having the
characteristics of just one pole, north or south. In fact there's some ex-
perimental evidence for them. Some theoreticians go even further, envi-
sioning a hitherto unsuspected kind of magnetism, a composite of waves
and monopole particles, like light. Living things may interact with such
a now immeasurable energy.
Any such message system would have at least two major difficulties to
overcome in the course of evolution. Our own electrical-engineering ex-
perience, however, suggests workable approaches life may have taken.
One problem is that the strength of biofields is far below that of the
earth's field. Hence any input from other creatures would be embedded
in noise. This is a common obstacle to telecommunications, and there
are several ways around it. The easiest is for sender and receiver both to
be frequency locked, that is, tuned to one frequency and insensitive to
others. Such a lock-in system might explain why spontaneous ESP expe-
riences most often happen between relatives or close friends. The sen-
sitivity of our instruments may someday develop to the point where we
can tune in to biomagnetic fields on select frequencies, thus experiment-
ing as directly with ESP as we now do with radio.
Another theoretical difficulty is the fact thatl psychic transmission
doesn't seem to fade with distance. The electromagnetic field around an
animal's nervous system, on the other hand, starts out unimaginably
small and then diminishes rapidly. However, extremely low frequency
(ELF) transmissions have a peculiar property. Because of their interaction
with the ionosphere, even weak signals in this frequency range (from 0.1
to 100 cycles per second) travel all the way around the world without
dying out. If an innate frequency selector is operating within this band,
reception should be the same anywhere on earth.
At this time the DC perineural system and its electromagnetic fields
provide the only theory of parapsychology that's amenable to direct ex-
periment. And it yields hypotheses for almost all such phenomena ex-
cept precognition. Telepathy may be transmission and reception via a
biologically programmed channel of ELF vibrations in the perineural
system's electromagnetic field. Dowsing may involve an unconscious
sense of the electromagnetic fields of underground water or minerals, an
idea given some support by Russian experiments in the 1960s. Nikolai
N. Sochevanov, now with the USSR's Ministry of Geology, found that
the accuracy of forty professional dowsers diminished by at least three
fourths when he wound a current-carrying wire around their wrists or
brought a horseshoe magnet near their heads.
Biological semiconductors even offer a possible basis for the aura often
reported around living things by "sensitives." There has long been specula-
tion that this "halo" might be some manifestation of an electromagnetic
biofield. The ability of high-voltage (Kirlian) photography to produce an
image very much like descriptions of the aura has aroused hope that the
technique might render some aspect of psychic phenomena visible in a way
that would be conducive to experiment. Because of this possibility, our lab
investigated Kirlian photography during the mid-1970s.
We obtained beautiful pictures that seemed to vary in response to
changes in the health of the test organism. However, the method failed
one crucial test. If the Kirlian halo actually reflected the biofield or some
other basic aspect of life, it should have disappeared when the organism
being photographed died. Alas, it did not. The image remained the
same as long as the water content of the corpse remained constant. We
found the images were entirely due to a simple physical event, a corona
discharge. This occurred when a high-voltage electric field broke down
the air molecules between the two condenser plates of the Kirlian appa-
ratus. The amount of water vapor in the air changed the voltage at
which this happened, and on color film produced coronas in different
colors and sizes. We found no evidence that the Kirlian image was re-
lated to the living state. Nor did we find that it could serve as a "screen"
on which might be reflected some invisible field or aura, another pos-
sibility that had been suggested.
This is not to say that the aura occasionally perceived by some people
around other organisms is imaginary. Things that appear so often in
folklore often turn out to have a basis in fact. However, the body's
magnetic field is far too weak to account for it. Our biofields, even if
they were many times stronger, couldn't possibly emit light, but an
appropriately sensitive magnetic detector in the brain, if it had nerve
connections to the visual cortex, might "see" the magnetic field, in a
manner of speaking. In a similar way astronauts in space "see" Cerenkov
radiation—flashes of light that have been traced to the passage of high-
energy cosmic rays through the retina.
On the other hand, the aura could literally be a form of light, perhaps
at frequencies invisible to all but a few of us. The discovery of light-
emitting diodes is still fairly recent. As you will recall, we found that
bone happens to have such properties. The point of that experiment was
its evidence that bone contains semiconducting PN junction diodes.
There may well be other diodes in living things. The relationship be-
tween the nerve endings and the skin is an interesting one in this con-
text. The skin-nerve interface—the closest normal equivalent to the
neuroepidermal junction that triggers regeneration—may well be a di-
ode. If so, the proper level of current could cause emission of light from
the skin. It's even possible that such an array of diodes with very large
currents might produce a holographic image of the body on an organic
screen, such as the reputed image of Christ on the Shroud of Turin.
If extrasensory communication really is a function of the DC system,
why isn't it more common and widely accepted? We may never know
how well distributed it is among animals, although the number of pets
who have returned to their owners over long distances suggests that
many dogs and cats can find specific people by an unknown sense. The
Duke University Parapsychology Laboratory has authenticated more than
fifty such cases, many involving travel of hundreds or thousands of
miles. We can expect that some species would be better at it than oth-
ers, just as pigeons navigate by the earth's magnetic field far better than
most other creatures. Among humans, some may simply be more gifted
than others through genetic chance or some facet of their upbringing.
Then again, the psychic sense may be a universal ability that was forgot-
ten or suppressed as we came to depend more and more on language to
get our messages across.
If they do depend on the same system, psychic ability and regenera-
tion may go together; they may generally be better among simple ani-
mals. As the digital impulse system grew more efficient, its information
may have overwhelmed the senses operating through the earlier mode.
In fact, this may be part of the digital system's purpose. The ever-
present hum of electromagnetic information from other creatures may
have become an intolerable burden. Think how confused you would feel
if you could simultaneously hear what everyone else in the world was
thinking. After all, mediums, sorcerers, and psi experimenters all agree
that some sort of trance or mental quietude—a reduction of nerve im-
pulse activity—is needed for best results. According to Elmer Green,
yogis of some Tibetan traditions teach clairvoyance to novices by having
them meditate seated on a glass plate, facing north toward a sheet of
polished copper in a dark, windowless room, with a bar magnet sus-
pended over their heads, its north pole pointing up to the zenith.
The biofield also lends itself to theories of psychokinesis and object
imprinting. All matter, living and nonliving, is ultimately an elec-
tromagnetic phenomenon. The material world, at least as far as physics
has penetrated, is an atomic structure held together by electromagnetic
forces. If some people can detect fields from other organisms, why
shouldn't some people be able to affect other beings by means of their
linked fields? Since the cellular functions of our bodies are controlled by
our own DC fields, there's reason to believe that gifted healers generate
supportive electromagnetic effects, which they convey to their patients
or manipulate to change the sufferer's internal currents directly, without
limiting themselves to the placebo effect of trust and hope.
Once we admit the idea of this kind of influence, then the same
kind of willed action of biofields on the electromagnetic structure of
inanimate matter becomes a possibility. This encompasses all forms of
psychokinesis, from metal-bending experiments in which trickery has
been excluded to more rigidly controlled tests with interferometers,
strain gauges, and random number generators. At present, it's the only
hypothesis that offers much hope of testability. On a less spectacular
level, we must ask whether the biofield can project the individual sig-
nature of a person's thoughts onto his or her surroundings, changing the
electromagnetic characteristics of these objects so that the person can be
sensed by others even though absent. This may well be the commonest
of all paranormal experiences, and the number of crimes solved by psy-
chics reacting to the mere scene of the crime should entitle scientists to
investigate the idea without fear of ridicule from their colleagues.
Over and over again biology has found that the whole is more than
the sum of its parts. We should expect that the same is true of bio-
electromagnetic fields. All life on earth can be considered a unit, a glaze
of sentience spread thinly over the crust. In toto, its field would be a
hollow, invisible sphere inscribed with a tracery of all the thoughts and
emotions of all creatures. The Jesuit priest and paleontologist-phi-
losopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin postulated the same thing, a
noosphere, or ocean of mind, arising from the biosphere like a spume.
Given a biological communications channel that can circle the whole
earth in an instant, possibly based on life's very mode of origin, it would
be a wonder if each creature had not retained a link with some such
aggregate mind. If so, the perineural DC system could lead us to the
great reservoir of image and dream variously called the collective uncon-
scious, intuition, the pool of archetypes, higher intelligences deific or
satanic, the Muse herself.
Fifteen
Maxwell's Silver
Hammer
In considering questions as remote as the origin of life, science must

skate toward new shores across the thin ice of speculation, but it also has
a duty to warn us of present dangers as specifically as possible. Since the
earth's electromagnetic activity has such a profound effect on life, the
obvious question is: What are the consequences of our artificial energies?
Electromagnetism can be discussed in two ways—in terms of fields
and in terms of radiation. A field is "something" that exists in space
around an object that produces it. We know there's a field around a
permanent magnet because it can make an iron particle jump through
space to the magnet. Obviously there's an invisible entity that exerts a
force on the iron, but as to just what it consists of—don't ask! No one
knows. A different but analogous something—an electric field—extends
outward from electrically charged objects.
Both electric and magnetic fields are static, unvarying. When the
factor of time is introduced, by varying the intensity of the field as in a
radio antenna, an electromagnetic field results. As its name implies, this
consists of an electric field and a magnetic field. The fluctuations in the
field radiate outward from the transmitter as waves of energy, although
somehow these waves simultaneously manage to behave as streams of
massless, chargeless particles (photons). As to just how this happens,
again—don't ask! Sometimes the phenomenon is called an electromag-
netic field (EMF), to emphasize its connection with the transmitter;
sometimes it's called electromagnetic radiation (EMR), to emphasize its
outward-flowing aspect. However, the two terms refer to the same phe-
nomenon and are interchangeable. The only meaningful distinction is
between static and time-varying fields.
Each energy wave consists of an electric field and a magnetic field at

right angles to each other, and both at right angles to the direction the
wave is traveling. The number of waves formed in one second is the
frequency; the distance the energy travels (at the speed of light) during
one oscillation is its wavelength. The higher the frequency, the shorter
the wavelength, and vice versa.
EMR spans an enormous range of frequencies. The shortest gamma
rays, a tenth of a billionth of a millimeter long, vibrate sextillions of
times a second. These, along with X rays and the shortest ultraviolet
wavelengths, are termed ionizing radiation, because their high photonic
energy can knock electrons away from atoms, creating highly reactive
ions where they don't belong. Much of the damage from nuclear radia-
tion is caused in this way. All lower frequencies, beginning with the
longer ultraviolet wavelengths, are nonionizing.
Next comes the only energy we can see—the narrow band of visible
light vibrating hundreds of trillions of times a second—and then the
infrared waves we feel as radiant heat. Below these lie the waves we've
harnessed for communication. They begin with microwaves (MW),
whose frequency is measured in gigahertz or megahertz—billions or
millions of cycles per second—and extend through the radio frequencies
(RF) down to ELF waves, whose frequency converges on zero. The MW
and RF spectrum is arbitrarily broken up into a further alphabet of ex-
tremely high, superhigh, ultrahigh, very high, high, medium, low,
very low, and extremely low frequencies (EHF, SHF, UHF, VHF, HF,
MF, LF, VLF, and ELF respectively). As we have seen, ELF waves ap-
proximate the dimensions of the earth; at 10 hertz one wave is about
18,600 miles long.
Except for light and infrared heat, we can't perceive any of these ener-
Maxwell's Silver Hammer 273
gies without instruments, so most people don't realize how drastically
and abruptly we've changed the electromagnetic environment in just one
century. Working at Cambridge University, Scottish physicist James
Clerk Maxwell showed mathematically in 1873 that light was but a
small part of the vast undiscovered realm of radiation. Heinrich Hertz
first found some of the radio waves in 1888. Meanwhile, Edison had set
up the first commercial electric-power system in New York in 1882.
For billions of years before then, the energies that life grew up among
were relatively simple. There was a weak electromagnetic field modulated
by micropulsations within it and further sculpted by the solar and lunar
cycles. There was a burst of static centered at 10,000 hertz and reverberat-
ing over the whole earth whenever lightning flashed in the scores of
thunderstorms in progress at any one time. There were a few weak radio
waves from the sun and other stars. Light, including some infrared and
ultraviolet, was the most abundant form of electromagnetic energy. At
higher frequencies, living things absorbed only small amounts of ionizing
X rays and gamma rays from space and from radioactive minerals in rocks.
Large parts of the energy spectrum were totally silent.
We'll never experience that quiet world again. In 1893 Nikola Tesla
lit the Chicago World's Fair with the first AC power system, and two
years later he began the modern era of electrical engineering by harness-
ing Niagara Falls. In 1901 Guglielmo Marconi sent a radiotelegraph
message across the Atlantic, using without acknowledgment a machine
designed by the prolific Tesla. The invention of the vacuum tube in
1907 led to the first voice transmission by radio in 1915 and the first
commercial station in 1920. Until then many people still ate supper by
candle or kerosene, and the ambient forces remained a reasonable fac-
simile of earth's pristine field.
The greatest changes have all come in the one generation since World
War II. The trend toward use of shorter and shorter radio waves, bounced
off the ionosphere for long-distance communication, had begun before the
war. The fight for survival against fascism impelled the development of
microwave radar, which helped win the Battle of Britain, allowed all-
weather bombing of Germany, and gave the American Navy a decisive
edge over the Japanese. The conflict also produced other electronic devices
of all types. In 1947 Bell Telephone set up the first microwave phone relay
towers between New York and Boston, the same year the first commercial
television broadcasts, also transmitted by microwaves, began. Since then
nearly every human involved an electrical appliance, and today
we're all awash in a sea of energies life has never before experienced, of
which the following list of sources only skims the surface:
Everything that runs on a battery produces a DC magnetic field—
from digital watches, cameras, flashlights, and portable radios to
car ignition systems.
Strong magnetic fields are used in industry to refine ore, concen-
trate and recycle scrap iron, purify sewage, soften water for steam
boilers, and many other tasks.
The starting and stopping of an electric train turns the power rail
into a giant antenna that radiates ELF waves for over 100 miles.
Electromagnetic fields vibrating at 60 hertz (50 hertz in Europe
and Russia) surround nearly every person on earth from appliances
at home and machines at work.
Over 500,000 miles of high-voltage power lines crisscross the
United States. Innumerable smaller lines feed into every home,
office, factory, and military base, all producing AC or DC fields.
Metal objects near the lines concentrate the fields to higher levels.
In addition, high-voltage lines are, in effect, gigantic antennae
operating at 60 hertz in the ELF band, the largest "radio" trans-
mitters in the world. Switching stations, where the current is
changed from one voltage or type to another, emit radio-frequency
waves as well.
AC magnetic fields vibrating at 100 to 10,000 hertz emanate
from antitheft systems in stores and libraries, and from metal de-
tectors in airports.
Low-frequency radio waves are used for air and sea navigation,
time references, emergency signals, some amateur radio channels,
and military communications.
Medium frequencies between 535 and 1,604 kilohertz are reserved
for AM radio transmitters, which are limited to 50,000 watts in
this country but are sometimes much more powerful abroad.
HF and VHF channels are filled with chatter from the nation's 35
million CB radios, as well as shortwave bands for more ham ra-
dios, air and sea navigation systems, military uses, spy satellites,
and police and taxi radios. VHF television and FM radio also in-
habit this region. There are now over ten thousand commercial
radio and TV stations in the United States alone, and 7 million
other radio transmitters, not counting the millions operated by
the military.
Weather satellites, some kinds of radar, diathermy machines, up-
ward of 10 million microwave ovens, more cop and cab radios,
automatic garage-door openers, highway emergency call boxes,
and UHF television compete for the low microwave frequencies.
Higher microwave bands are crowded with more military talk
channels and radar, navigational beacons, commercial communica-
tions satellites, various kinds of walkie-talkies, and America's two
hundred fifty thousand microwave phone and TV relay towers.
Like the infrared rays above them in the spectrum, radio waves
and microwaves produce heat when directed in high-intensity
beams. Hence they're used for all sorts of industrial chores—
bonding plywood, vulcanizing rubber, manufacturing shoes, ster-
ilizing food, making plastics, and heat sealing the trillions of plas-
tic-wrapped products in our stores, even opening oysters. Modern
electronics would be impossible without the perfect silicon and
germanium crystals grown in microwave furnaces.
The human species has changed its electromagnetic background more
than any other aspect of the environment. For example, the density of
radio waves around us is now 100 million or 200 million times the
natural level reaching us from the sun. Nor is there any end in sight.
When superconducting cables are introduced, they'll increase the field
strength around power lines by a factor of ten or twenty. Electric cars,
magnetically levitated transport vehicles, and microwave-beam satellites
for transmitting solar power to earth would each add strong new sources
of electromagnetic contamination. A proposed electromagnetic catapult
that could shoot satellites into space from mile-long rails built up the
side of a mountain would require the combined output of the country's
thousand generating stations for the few seconds of each launch.
A few years ago most investigators believed that each wavelength in-
teracted mainly with objects comparable to it in size. This was a com-
forting notion that theoretically limited each frequency to one type of
effect and predicted that really troublesome problems for humans would
come from only one portion of the spectrum—the FM band. Now, how-
ever, we know there are primary effects on all life-forms at ELF frequen-
cies, and in other parts of the spectrum there can be consequences for
specific systems at any level, from the subatomic to the entire biosphere
as a unit.
Of course, a change at one level may well trigger secondary changes
throughout an organism, so that the original one is hard to identify.
Moreover, the impact of EMR ar any particular frequency is often related
to its power density, the amount of energy streaming through a certain
area. When discussing biological effects, this is best measured in micro-
watts (millionths of a watt) per square centimeter, a unit we'll simplify
to microwatts. There's often no direct relationship between dose and
effect, however; a low power density sometimes does things that a
higher one does not. Furthermore, we can't tell how much energy from a
given power density is actually absorbed, or what part of the body re-
ceives it. The same holds true for electric and magnetic fields, whose
study is further complicated by the fact that animals of different shapes
distort the fields differently. Likewise, fur, feathers, skin thickness, bone
size, and the general shape of an animal complicate RF and MW absorp-
tion beyond our capacity to gauge it. Therefore, reactions seen in one
species cannot be assumed for another. The only way to test for possible
damage (or beneficial effects) is to actually do the experiment.
In a sense, the entire population of the world is willy-nilly the subject
of a giant experiment. Electropollution has been the subject of heated
public debate for nearly ten years, and unpublicized misgivings for dec-
ades before that. Unfortunately, the question of risk has been asked too
late. Daily exposure of nearly everyone is a fait accompli.
Subliminal Stress
After Howard Friedman, Charlie Bachman, and I had found evidence

that "abnormal natural" fields from solar magnetic storms were affecting
the human mind as reflected in psychiatric hospital admissions, we de-
cided the time had come for direct experiments with people. We ex-
posed volunteers to magnetic fields placed so the lines of force passed
through the brain from ear to ear, cutting across the brainstem-frontal
current. The fields were 5 to 11 gauss, not much compared with the
3,000 gauss needed to put a salamander to sleep, but ten to twenty
times earth's background and well above the level of most magnetic
storms. We measured their influence on a standard test of reaction
time—having subjects press a button as fast as possible in response to a
red light. Steady fields produced no effect, but when we modulated the
field with a slow pulse of a cycle every five seconds (one of the delta-wave
frequencies we'd observed in salamander brains during a change from
one level of consciousness to another), people's reactions slowed down.
We found no changes in the EEG or the front-to-back voltage from
fields up to 100 gauss, but these indicators reflect major alterations in
awareness, so we didn't really expect them to shift.
We were excited, eagerly planning experiments that would tell us
more, when we came upon a frightening Russian report. Yuri Kholodov
had administered steady magnetic fields of 100 and 200 gauss to rabbits
and found areas of cell death in their brains during autopsy. Although
his fields were ten time as strong as ours, we stopped all human experi-
ments immediately.
Friedman decided to duplicate Kholodov's experiment with a more
detailed analysis of the brain tissue. He made the slides and sent them to
an expert on rabbit brain diseases, but coded them so no one knew
which were which until later.
The report showed that all the animals had been infected with a brain
parasite that was peculiar to rabbits and common throughout the world.
However, in half the animals the protozoa had been under control by the
immune system, whereas in the other half they'd routed the defenders
and destroyed parts of the brain. The expert suggested that we must
have done something to undermine resistance of the rabbits in the exper-
imental group. The code confirmed that most of the brain damage had
occurred in animals subjected to the magnetic fields. Later, Friedman
did biochemical tests on another series of rabbits and found that the
fields were causing a generalized stress reaction marked by large amounts
of cortisone in the bloodstream. This is the response called forth by a
prolonged stress, like a disease, that isn't an immediate threat to life, as
opposed to the fight-or-flight response generated by adrenaline.
Soon thereafter, Friedman measured cortisone levels in monkeys ex-
posed to a 200-gauss magnetic field for four hours a day. They showed
the stress response for six days, but it then subsided, suggesting adapta-
tion to the field. Such seeming tolerance of continued stress is illusory,
however. In his pioneering lifework on stress, Dr. Hans Selye has clearly
drawn the invariable pattern: Initially, the stress activates the hormonal
and/or immune systems to a higher-than-normal level, enabling the ani-
mal to escape danger or combat disease. If the stress continues, hormone
levels and immune reactivity gradually decline to normal. If you stop
your experiment at this point, you're apparently justified in saying, "The
animal has adapted; the stress is doing it no harm." Nevertheless, if the
stressful condition persists, hormone and immune levels decline further,
well below normal. In medical terms, stress decompensation has set in, and
the animal is now more susceptible to other stressors, including malig-
nant growth and infectious diseases.
In the mid-1970s, two Russian groups found stress hormones released
in rats exposed to microwaves, even if they were irradiated only briefly
by minute amounts of energy. Other Eastern European work found the
same reaction to 50-hertz electric fields. Several Russian and Polish
groups have since established that after prolonged exposure the activa-
tion of the stress sytem changes to a depression of it in the familiar
pattern, indicating exhaustion of the adrenal cortex. There has even been
one report of hemorrhage and cell damage in the adrenal cortex from a
month's exposure to a 50-hertz, 130-gauss magnetic field.
Soviet biophysicist N. A. Udintsev has systematically studied the
effects of one ELF magnetic field (200 gauss at 50 hertz) on the endo-
crine system. In addition to the "slow" stress response we've been dis-
cussing, he found activation of the "fast" fight-or-flight hormones
centering on adrenaline from the adrenal medulla. This response was
triggered in rats by just one day in Udintsev's field, and hormone levels
didn't return to normal for one or two weeks. Udintsev also documented
an insulin insufficiency and rise in blood sugar from the same field.
One aspect of the syndrome was very puzzling. When undergoing
these hormonal changes, an animal would normally be aware that its
body was under attack, yet, as far as we could tell, the rabbits were not.
They showed no outward signs of fear, agitation, or illness. Most hu-
mans certainly wouldn't be able to detect a 100-gauss magnetic field, at
least not consciously. Only several years after Friedman's work did any-
one find out how this was happening.
In 1976 a group under J. J. Noval at the Naval Aerospace Medical
Research Laboratory at Pensacola, Florida, found the slow stress response
in rats from very weak electric fields, as low as five thousandths of a volt
per centimeter. They discovered that when such fields vibrated in the
ELF range, they increased levels of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in
the brainstem, apparently in a way that activated a distress signal sub-
liminally, without the animal's becoming aware of it. The scariest part
was that the fields Noval used were well within the background levels of
a typical office, with its overhead lighting, typewriters, computers, and
other equipment. Workers in such an environment are exposed to elec-
tric fields between a hundredth and a tenth of a volt per centimeter and
magnetic fields between a hundredth and a tenth of a gauss.
Power Versus People
Because industry and the military demand unrestricted use of elec-

tromagnetic fields and radiation, their intrinsic hazards are often
compounded by secrecy and deceit. I learned this lesson in my first en-
counter with the environmental review process.
As we were investigating the EMF-stress connection in 1969, the
Navy decided to build a giant antenna in northern Wisconsin. The plan,
called Project Sanguine, was to establish a radio link with nuclear sub-
marines at their normal depth of 120 feet or below. Conventional radio
signals couldn't pass through water, so the vessels had to surface or else
cruise very slowly a few feet under and communicate by means of a
floating antenna at prearranged times. Since this made the subs tem-
porarily vulnerable, the Navy wanted a message system using ELF
waves, which penetrate earth and water.
The original design involved 6,000 miles of buried cable arranged in
a grid across the upper two fifths of Wisconsin. A transmitter would
pump current into one side; the electricity would emerge from the other
side and complete the circuit by traveling through the ground. The
device was actually a giant loop antenna using the earth as part of the
loop. ELF waves issuing from it and resonating between the earth's sur-
face and the ionosphere could be picked up anywhere on the globe.
Sanguine was one of the first military projects scrutinized under the
Environmental Protection Act. In 1973 the Navy set up a committee of
scientists to review fifteen years of naval research on ELF effects, as well
as other pertinent work. Captain Paul Tyler of the Office of Naval Re-
search asked me to be one of its seven members.
The only thing sanguine we found was the name. While the research
to date didn't prove there would be grave harm to human health, it
showed several dangers. The antenna would produce an electromagnetic
field 1 million times weaker than that from a 765-kilovolt power line. It
was to broadcast at 45 to 70 hertz, frequencies close enough to the
earth's micropulsations that living things are very sensitive to them.
Similar fields had been shown to raise human blood triglyceride levels
(often a harbinger of stroke, heart attack, or arteriosclerosis), and change
blood pressure and brain wave patterns in experimental animals. The
generalized stress response, desynchronized biocycles, and interference
with cellular metabolism and growth processes—and hence increased
cancer rates—were also distinct possibilities. Hundreds of thousands of
people would be living inside the antenna even in this sparsely populated
area; long-term effects on plants and animals were unknown; and, be-
cause the signals would resonate throughout the world, the biohazards
might be similarly widespread. For these reasons we unanimously rec-
ommended that the project be shelved pending answers to the ominous
questions it raised. We provided a long list of necessary research, em-
phasizing further tests on triglycerides, biorhythms, stress, and psycho-
logical responses to ELF fields. We also warned that the health of a large
part of the U.S. population might already be impaired by 60 hertz
power lines carrying vastly more power than the proposed antenna.
The committee met on December 6 and 7, 1973, generating a report
then and there, with a secretary taking down our conclusions. The Navy
group in charge was apparently displeased with our findings, The
printed proceedings, marked "For official use only,'' went out only to
committee members, and the Navy refused to discuss them with anyone
else.
As soon as I got back from Washington, I found that two power
companies were planning a network of 765-kilovolt power lines linking
nuclear reactors in upstate New York and Canada. One of the lines was
to pass through a rural area near the village of Lowville, where I'd just
bought land for a vacation-retirement home. I immediately wrote the
head of the state's Public Service Commission. Without releasing the
Sanguine report—I felt it wasn't my place to do so, even though its
suppression was wrong—I informed PSC Chairman Alfred Kahn of its
major conclusions. The commission in turn asked the Navy for a copy of
our report but was turned down flat. In mid-1974, however, Andy Ma-
rino and I were asked to testify at PSC hearings on the power lines.
We presented the best evidence then available, some of which seemed
to shock the PSC members. ELF fields at power line intensity or less had
by then been linked to bone tumors in mice, slowed heartbeat in fish,
and various chemical changes in the brain, blood, and liver of rats. Bees
exposed to a strong ELF field for a few days in Russian research had
begun to sting each other to death or leave the area. Some sealed off
their hives and asphyxiated themselves. Attorneys for the power com-
panies hurriedly asked a year's postponement of the hearings, which the
PSC naturally granted.
Andy and I spent that year reading the rapidly accumulating scientific
literature on EMF biological effects, including the enormous amount of
Russian work becoming available in English. Andy also investigated the
stress response further. He ran ten separate experiments with rats, expos-
ing them for one month to 60-hertz electric fields of 100 to 150 volts
per centimeter, simulating ground level underneath a typical high-ten-
sion line. Three generations of rats bred in this field showed severely
stunted growth, especially among males. At lower field strengths (35
volts per centimeter) some of the animals gained more weight than con-
trols, a response we tentatively traced to abnormal water retention,
which, like underweight, could also result from stress. A few years later,
a study commissioned by the Department of Energy to duplicate this
research also produced contradictory but disquieting results. With every
known variable controlled in an expensive, high-tech facility at Battelle
Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, one test showed severe growth retarda-
tion over three generations, while a second run under exactly the same
conditions produced significantly greater weight gain than normal.
Andy's original work also revealed large increases in the infant mor-
tality rate. Between 6 and 16 percent of the pups born in various tests
failed to live to maturity because of the electric field. That is, these
percentages were in excess of the normal death rate for newborn rats.
Various other symptoms consistent with stress were found, including
decreased water intake, enlarged adrenal and pituitary glands, and al-
tered protein and hormone ratios in the blood. There was also a very
high incidence—ten in sixty—of glaucoma in the early experiments.
The disease didn't show up in later runs from which we excluded ani-
mals having observable eye defects, suggesting that the electric field had
worsened a preexisting problem rather than causing it.
We expected the utilities to roll out their heavy artillery when the
PSC hearings resumed, but we were still unprepared for what actually
happened. The companies had hired two microwave researchers, Herman
Schwan and Solomon Michaelson, both of whom did most of their work
for the Department of Defense, and University of Rochester botanist
Mort Miller. Carefully prepared by these three, the company lawyers
cross-examined us for seventeen days in December 1975, attacking not
only our methods and results but our scientific competence and honesty
as well. Michaelson strenuously denied that our rodents had shown signs
of stress, even though the biological markers were clear. Even if they
had, he contended, stress could be healthful, an idea that Hans Selye
later called "farfetched" when applied to a biological challenge that was
continuous and not self-imposed.
As far as I know, our testimony was the first ever openly given by
American scientists stating that electromagnetic energy had health
effects in doses below those needed to heat tissue, and that power lines
might therefore be hazardous to human health. We criticized the White
House Office of Telecommunications Policy for failing to follow up a
tentative 1971 warning by advising the President that some harmful
effects from electropollution were now proven. Moreover, although we
didn't realize it at the time, we greatly embarrassed Captain Tyler and
the Navy by publicly revealing the existence of the Sanguine report,
which had been secret until then.
Among those who heard about it was Wisconsin Senator Gaylord
Nelson, who was understandably furious that his constituents were even
then being used as guinea pigs in ongoing ELF tests at an experimental
station near Clam Lake, while the document gathered dust in some
Navy safe. Quoting Andy and me, he soundly criticized the Navy on the
Senate floor. Due to local opposition, the Navy had already moved the
site of the full-scale antenna to Mulligan's upper peninsula, modifying
the design and giving it a new name—Project Seafarer. Nelson's fury
now induced the Secretary of the Navy to ask the National Academy of
Sciences for further study of the environmental questions. Harvard's bi-
ology chairman, Woodland Hastings, who was picked to head the NAS
committee, wrote Marino a flattering letter asking for his consultation
when the members got down to work. Marino then called Hastings to
tell him of the large body of data we'd assembled for the power line
hearings, and to make sure the NAS body would be willing to consider
it thoroughly. Hastings told him, "Heck, you guys will be on the com-
mittee."
Soon the sixteen members were announced, and we were nowhere in
sight. Hastings later publicly called us quacks, but to us he said the
Navy had specified who was to be on the panel, despite his threats to
quit if Andy and I weren't admitted. We were well acquainted with
three of the men who were on it: Schwan, Michaelson, and Miller. Ob-
viously they weren't about to find hazards in Seafarer after testifying that
a much stronger power line was perfectly safe. They remained on the
committee even though all three neglected to mention their New York
testimony on NAS conflict-of-interest forms. The rest of the committee
was also stacked with people who routinely discounted any evidence of
health effects from low-level EMFs.
The NAS committee took an inordinately long time to issue its re-
port, but we eventually saw a reason for the delay. During the PSC
hearings, all evidence was subject to cross-examination. Besides ques-
tioning the witnesses, each side could look at the other's papers, includ-
ing the actual workbooks of experiments. After the testimony, while the
commission, assisted by a panel of judges, was deliberating, other evi-
dence could be introduced, but it was no longer subject to review by the
opposing side. Oddly enough, the NAS report—which constituted a
defense of the then current dogma and tried to discredit most of the
disturbing evidence—appeared just after the gavel sounded to close the
PSC hearings. It was immediately introduced as evidence, and we
couldn't say a word about it.
Six years later a Navy spokesman explained to me what had "really"
happened. He said the Secretary of the Navy had gone to NAS and
arranged to pay for the work. Then, when the members of the commit-
tee were announced, the Secretary and other Navy brass agreed that the
show was rigged. The Secretary protested to NAS and said the Navy
wouldn't pay for the study. NAS said that since the authorizations had
already been signed, the Navy would have to pay for it. Moreover, the
Navy needed a report in four to six months. Of course, NAS had been
planning to wait till the end of the New York PSC hearings, which
dragged on and on. My informant told me that, in response to Navy
pressure, NAS laid in effect, "Go away. We've got the money, and the
study is out of your hands. We'll run it our way." By the time the
report was issued it was too late for the Navy people to use it, and they
considered it too biased to have any value anyway. However, I don't put
much faith in this bit of blame shifting.
The PSC's panel of judges spent nearly a third of their advisory opin-
ion attacking Marino's work and his "argumentative" demeanor at the
witness table. Via a Freedom of Information Act request, Andy later
found that the technical parts of this opinion had been written by one of
the judges' paid consultants, Asher Sheppard, then a researcher at
UCLA. Sheppard was at that time preparing a monograph, The Biological
Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields of Extremely Low Frequency, under
contract to the American Electric Power Company. He concluded that
there were no significant biological effects from low to moderate-inten-
sity ELF fields such as occurred around power lines and appliances, de-
spite the fact that he'd been working under W. Ross Adey, whose career
has been devoted to studying just such effects.
Nevertheless, we won. The Public Service Commission specifically
contradicted its judicial advisers, commending Marino as a valuable wit-
ness, and adopted most of our recommendations. One line already under
construction was built, largely because New York Governor Hugh Carey
threatened to dissolve the PSC if the commission stopped it, but the
utilities were ordered to buy additional land for a wider safety zone
along the right of way. They were also forced to invest $5 million in a
five-year research program administered by the New York State Depart-
ment of Health, and to stop encouraging multiple use of the land under
power lines, such as leasing it for playgrounds. An additional six or
seven proposed lines have been postponed indefinitely. Most important
was the plain fact that we raised the issue successfully against great odds
and secured a health-conscious verdict from the PSC, gaining time to
gather more facts about the dangers.
The Navy's ELF antenna has also been on hold for many years. Sea-
farer lost momentum when 80-percent opposition in two 1976 referenda
in Michigan's Upper Peninsula forced then candidate Jimmy Carter to
oppose it publicly for a while. Once more renamed and redesigned, Pro-
ject ELF has been heavily funded by the Reagan regime with an eye
toward expansion. The first step now would consist of a 56-mile
aboveground antenna carried on intersecting rows of utility poles in two
corridors cut out of the Escanaba River State Forest. In July 1983, the
Michigan Natural Resources Commission voted to allow construction.
However, six months later a federal district judge upheld the suit of
several local groups, on whose behalf I testified, ruling that the Navy
must prepare a new environmental impact statement. The Navy lost two
appeals of this decision but won a lifting of the injunction in the third
appeal, so construction is, at this writing, going on.
Fatal Locations
Subliminal activation of the stress response is one of the most important

effects that EMFs and nonionizing radiation have upon life, but it's far
from the only one. These unfamiliar energies produce changes in nearly
every bodily function so far studied. Many of these alterations are associ-
ated with stress, but whether they're a result of, or an additional trigger
for, the adrenocortical reaction is an irrelevant chicken-or-egg question
at this stage of our knowledge. The most disturbing data come from
work on the systems that integrate other bodily functions—the central
nervous, cardiovascular, endocrine, and growth control systems. We'll
concentrate upon these in the following overview of the biohazards.
For the most part, no attempt will be made to identify specific effects
from microwaves, radio waves, and electric or magnetic fields, for sim-
ilar changes have been observed from all modalities. The major problems
come from extremely low frequencies, but higher frequencies have the
same effects if pulsed or modulated in the ELF range. This is very often
the case, for, to transmit information, microwaves or radio waves must
be shaped. This is done by interrupting the beam to form pulses or by
modulating the frequency or amplitude (size) of the waves. Furthermore,
today's environment is a latticework of crisscrossing signals in which
there's always the possibility of synergistic effects or the "construction"
of new ELF signals from the patterns of interference between two higher
frequencies. Therefore, experiments in which cells or organisms are ex-
posed to a single unmodulated frequency, though sometimes useful, are
irrelevant outside the lab. They're most often done by researchers whose
only goal is to be able to say, "See, there's no cause for alarm."
The Central Nervous System
Since our work on human reaction time, half a dozen other groups have
also found marked CNS effects from ELF fields. Most experiments have
shown a decrease in reaction speed, although one researcher noted faster-
than-normal reactions in humans exposed to very weak electric fields
vibrating at beta wave frequencies. The sensitivity of some animals has
turned out to be amazing. James R. Hamer of Ross Adey's group at
UCLA reported changes in monkeys' response times from ELF electric
fields as weak as 0.0035 volts per centimeter, roughly equivalent to the
field from a color TV set 60 feet away.
One of the most telling tests was a simple one done at the Navy's
Pensacola lab. R. S. Gibson and W. F. Moroney measured people's
short-term memory and their ability to add sets of five 2-digit numbers
in the presence of a 1-gauss magnetic field—-the strength found near
some high-voltage power lines and many common high-current ap-
pliances, such as portable electric heaters. Test scores declined at both
the 60-hertz power frequency and the 45-hertz frequency of the San-
guine-Seafarer antenna, but remained normal in control sessions.
Several studies on both sides of the Iron Curtain have found that rats
are generally less active and less exploratory of their environment after
being dosed with microwaves, although some frequencies induce rest-
lessness. In contrast, ELF magnetic or electric fields almost always pro-
duce hyperactivity and disturbed sleep patterns in rats.
Obviously the subtle workings of the mind may undergo many shifts
that don't show up in these crude behavioral tests. Most of our knowl-
edge of electropollution's effects on the brain concerns variables that can
be more easily quantified, such as changes in biochemistry, cells, and
EEG patterns. These studies can't be easily related to changes in thought
processes, but most of the results fit in well with the stress response.
In 1966, Yuri Kholodov found effects on rabbits' EEGs from a few
minutes' exposure to fairly strong steady-state magnetic fields (200 to
1,000 gauss). As we'd found in salamanders, there were more delta
waves, as well as bursts of alpha waves. He and another Russian bio-
physicist, R. A. Chizhenkova, also noted a desynchronization, or abrupt
shift in the main EEG rhythm, for a few seconds when any field was
switched on or off. The same effect has since been confirmed in rats with
microwaves. This proved that the brain could sense the field, whether
the animal knew it or not.
The sites of the greatest changes—the brain's hypothalamus and cor-
tex—were cause for concern. The hypothalamus, a nexus of fibers link-
ing the emotional centers, the pituitary gland, the pleasure center, and
the autonomic nervous system, is the single most important part of the
brain for homeostasis and is a crucial link in the stress response. Any
interference with cortical activity, of course, would disrupt logical and
associational thought.
In 1973 Zinaida V. Gordon, a pioneer in microwave research working
with M. S. Tolgskaya at the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences Insti-
tute of Labor Hygiene and Occupational Diseases, reported a possible
cellular feature of EMR stress. Low doses of microwaves, a mere 60 to
320 microwatts for an hour a day, changed nerve cells in the hypo-
thalami of rats. During the first month of exposure, the neurotransmit-
ter-secreting portions of the cells connecting the brain to the pituitary
gland were enlarged. After five months they'd begun to atrophy. When
microwave dosage was stopped at that point, however, the cells re-
covered. J.J. Noval's finding that ELF electric fields changed brainstem
acetylcholine levels has already been mentioned. In similar experiments,
others have noted a rise followed by a drop to below normal in rat brain
levels of norepinephrine, the main neurotransmitter of the hypothalamus
and autonomic nervous system. In Soviet work, microwave densities of
500 microwatts or more, delivered in a work-exposure pattern of seven
hours a day, gradually reduced norepinephrine and dopamine (another
neurotransmitter) to brain levels that indicated exhaustion of the adrenal
cortex and autonomic system.
Two years after the Gordon-Tolgskaya report, Allen Frey, who has
studied bioeffects of microwaves for over two decades at Randomline,
Inc., a consulting firm in Huntingdon Valley, Pennsylvania, found an
effect on the blood-brain barrier, the cellular gateway by which spe-
cialized capillaries strictly limit the molecules admitted to the delicate
nerve cells' environment. Even at power densities as low as 30 micro-
watts, microwaves pulsed at extremely low frequencies loosen this con-
trol, in effect opening up leaks in the barrier. Since some barrier changes
occur in response to stress and mood shifts, this could be either a cause
or a result of the stress response, or an unrelated effect of pulsed micro-
waves. In any case, since the blood-brain barrier is the central nervous
system's last and most crucial defense against toxins, we must consider
this increased permeability a grave hazard until proven otherwise.
Researchers have noted several other potentially dangerous direct
effects of electromagnetic smog on the neurons. In 1980 a group under
R. A. Jaffe at Pacific Northwest Laboratories in Richland, Washington,
found a general increase in neural excitability, especially at the synapses,
in rats exposed to 60-hertz electric fields of only 10 volts per centimeter
for one month. That same year A. P. Sanders and co-workers at the
Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, reported
as follows on biochemical tests of rat brains subjected to microwaves at
two levels, one half and also slightly more than the U.S. safety standard
of 10,000 microwatts: "The results suggest that microwave exposure
inhibits electron transport chain function in brain mitochondria and re-
sults in decreased energy levels in the brain."
In a series of experiments spanning mor than a decade, a group of
scientists headed by Ross Adey, first at UCLA and later at the Loma
Linda VA Hospital, have studied neuron response to ELF fields and
pulses. Proceeding from Harrier's work on reaction time, they first ascer-
tained that an even weaker electric field, roughly the influence of a light
bulb 10 feet away, changed the firing rate of brain cells in monkeys and
humans // the field was pulsing at brain wave frequencies. Then, working
with radio waves beamed at chick brains kept alive in culture dishes,
they found specific pulse rates that decreased or increased the binding of
calcium ions to the nerve cells. The flow of calcium ions in and out of
neurons controlled the firing rate of impulses in a complex feedback
system. Two "windows" of pulsed radio waves (147 megahertz pulsed at
6 to 10 hertz, and 450 megahertz pulsed at 16 hertz) increased the flow
of calcium from the cells, interfering with impulse transmission.
Unfortunately for conceptual simplicity but fortunately for the test
animals and the rest of us, the pulsed frequencies that work on isolated
brains don't work on whole animals. Adey has publicly expressed his
conviction that pulses for changing calcium flow in intact nervous sys-
tems do exist, however, and he expects that a calcium efflux would in-
terfere with concentration on complex tasks, disrupt sleep patterns, and
change brain function in other ways that can't be predicted yet. This
research obviously points toward "confusion beam" weaponry, so effec-
tive windows may already have been found, but they haven't been re-
ported in the open literature. Be that as it may, Adey's work remains an
important clue to the interaction between EMR and the human CNS at
the brain's most sensitive frequencies. Together with the other findings
just mentioned, it shows that electropollution can trigger profound and
dangerous changes, even if we don't yet know exactly how and when.
Just how dangerous these changes may be was indicated by a study
that Maria Reichmanis, Andy Marino, and I did in 1979, collaborating
with F. Stephen Perry, a doctor near the town of Wolverhampton in
western England. Perry had noticed that people living near overhead
high-voltage lines seemed more prone to depression than others in his
practice. Since ELF electric fields changed norepinephrine levels in rat
brains and since depletion of this neurotransmitter in certain brain areas
was a clinical sign of depression, the connection seemed plausible. We
knew from earlier work that, although electromagnetic field strength fell
off quickly in the immediate vicinity of a power line, the rate of decrease
lessened with distame, so that the field was often well above background
levels over a mile away. Reasoning that suicide was the one unequivocal
and measurable sign of extreme depression, we plotted the addresses of
598 suicides on maps showing the location of power lines in Perry's
locality. Then we statistically compared this distribution with a set of
addresses chosen at random.
The suicide addresses were, on the average, closer to the high voltage
wires. We found the same association with underground power lines,
but we couldn't be sure whether more than the statistically expected
number of suicides had occurred in areas where the fields were strongest.
Since the total field strength was a combination of elements from many
sources, we proceeded to measure the actual levels. This confirmed a
link. Magnetic fields averaged 22 percent higher at suicide addresses
than at the controls, and areas with the strongest fields contained 40
percent more fatal locations than randomly selected houses.
The Endocrine, Metabolic, and Cardiovascular Systems
Living things interpret electromagnetic energy for information about

time and place, so they must have a means to filter out useless signals,
although perhaps not those never before encountered. Many studies have
found that the bioeffects of artificial energy stabilize after a few weeks,
suggesting that animals adapt so as to live normally in a changed en-
vironment. Hence there's a large body of work that's often quoted to
"prove" that electropollution isn't dangerous. As already noted, this
simplistic viewpoint doesn't take into account the additive effects of
stress. Moreover, when a stress is too strong or too persistent, compensa-
tion fails, and the effects become obvious and sometimes irreversible.
When evaluating research on hazards, therefore, we must always ask
whether the experiment was continued long enough to be informative.
Otherwise, a short-term study showing harm is likely to be truer than a
reassuring one of medium length.
The primary effect of electromagnetic energy on the endocrine system
appears to be the stress responses already described. The major con-
firmatory study in humans comes from the Soviet Union, where detailed
medical tests of seventy-two technicians exposed daily to 1,000 micro-
watts or less disclosed ominous changes in white and red blood cell
counts and an across-the-board decline in immune response. The workers
and a group of controls were studied for three years. No human study
approaching this in length or completeness has ever been done in the
West.
The only other consistently noted glandular change is in the thyroid.
The work of several Soviet groups and one American team in the 1970s
has clearly shown that radio and microwave frequencies, at power densi-
ties well below the American safety guideline of 10,000 microwatts,
stimulate the thyroid gland and thus increase the basal metabolic rate.
ELF fields at 50 hertz, on the other hand, have depressed thyroid ac-
tivity in several experiments on rats. It isn't yet known whether this is a
direct effect on the thyroid or whether, like the stress response, it's at
least partly caused by alterations in brain function.
One more link in the bioclock-interference-and-stress response has
come from 1980 work at the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory in
Richland, Washington. Working with rats, researchers there found that
a weak 60-hertz electric field (only 3-9 volts per centimeter) canceled the
normal nightly rise in production of the pineal gland hormone
melatonin, the main hormonal mediator of biocycles.
The cardiovascular system responds to electromagnetic energy in at
least two ways. The composition of the blood reflects the stress response
and concomitant activation of the immune system, while many frequen-
cies exert a direct effect on the electrical system of the heart.
Soviet scientists have observed a variety of blood changes in animals
exposed to microwaves, radio waves, and ELF fields. These include de-
clines in red blood cell count and hemoglobin concentration—and hence
oxygen capacity—as well as changes in the relative numbers of various
types of white blood cells and the relative amounts of blood proteins,
and a possible reduction in the blood's ability to clot.
Most of the discomforting studies of electropollution have been done by
the Soviets, and they've been given short shrift by Western scientists.
There are many reasons for this attitude. There's a simple prejudice
against all things Russian and a feeling that their science, technologically
less flashy than ours, is necessarily cruder. Western researchers have
hamstrung themselves with the dogma that there simply can't be bioeffects
from low levels of electromagnetic energy—so why bother looking?
Then, too, Russian publication standards are different; procedural details
are often omitted, making replication difficult. In addition, there are
often troubling contradictions in the data themselves. Results are often
inconsistent from animal to animal. If red blood cell count goes up in one,
it will go down in another, so the experiment shows no statistical change
even though every animal's blood composition is going haywire. In such a
situation, the ultramechanistic Americans tend to believe the statistics,
while the Soviet biologists concentrate on the animals. Russian scientists
have been systematically studying electromagnetic bioeffects since 1933,
and we can hardly afford to dismiss their entire body of work simply
because it comes from a country we fear.
My associates and I therefore proceeded from one of the most detailed
Soviet reports and designed an experiment to measure effects on the
blood of mice as our test fields were turned on and off. We concluded
that these effects weren't a reaction to the fields themselves but rather a
transient compensation that the animals were making in response to any
change in their electromagnetic environment. By themselves, none of the
blood fluctuations were especially hazardous. However, since we all live
amid EMFs that are constantly shifting as we turn appliances on and off
or travel from place to place, the continual blood instability could be
significant.
American attitudes began to alter in 1978-79 when Richard Lovely of
the University of Washington took advantage of a detente-inspired ex-
change of microwave results to visit the Soviet Union for a month and
study Eastern methods closely. His research group then painstakingly re-
created a major Soviet experiment in which rats had been irradiated seven
hours a day for three months with 500 microwatts. The Russian work was
confirmed in every detail, including disruption of the blood's sodium-
potassium balance, other pathological changes in blood chemistry,
damage to the adrenal glands from stress-induced hormonal changes,
diminished sense of touch, a decline in explorativeness, and slower learn-
ing of conditioned responses. Donald I. McRee, director of the EPA
electromagnetic-radiation health research program, termed the results
"very interesting" and called for an end to the American establishment's
contempt for Soviet work.
Electromagnetic energy has other adverse effects on blood composition
and tissue function. Yuri D. Dumansky, one of many Soviet bio-
physicists who have done detailed work on microwave hazards, found
changes in carbohydrate metabolism, including a rise in human blood-
sugar levels, resulting from 100 and 1,000 microwatts. Power-frequency
(50-hertz) fields were also linked to altered sugar and protein metabo-
lism in rats, as well as decreased muscular strength in rabbits. Like
many other Russian results, these were questioned because of American
failure to corroborate them. In this case a research team headed by N. S.
Mathewson of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in
Bethesda, Maryland, reported no such metabolic changes in response to
the Sanguine-Seafarer 45-hertz frequency.
However, the Mathewson group made a fundamental mistake. They
neglected to account for the 60-hertz background field near the test
cages in their lab, even though they'd measured it when setting up the
work station. When we reanalyzed their data in light of this omission,
the experiment showed exactly the same changes in blood levels of
glucose, globulins, lipids, and triglycerides as the Russians had found.
The most frightening data so far on blood composition come from a
preliminary study for Project Sanguine. Dietrich Beischer found that one
day of exposure to a magnetic field such as would be produced by the
ELF antenna caused a 50-percent rise in triglycerides in nine of ten human
subjects. The NAS committee's conclusion that this early result didn't
stand up was based on subsequent Navy work, mainly the faulty
Mathewson study. Adequate follow-up by a disinterested group has
never been funded, even though Beischer's finding agrees completely
with Russian studies and the reinterpreted Mathewson data on animals.
This doesn't exhaust the list of microwave metabolic effects reported
behind the Iron Curtain. Dumansky found widespread changes in the
liver function of rats exposed to low levels of microwaves that were sched-
uled to approximate the pattern of mealtime exposure from microwave
ovens. Others detected vitamin B2 and B6 depletion from blood, brain,
liver, kidneys, and heart, as well as major shifts in trace-metal metabo-
lism in response to low levels of microwaves. The distribution of copper,
manganese, molybdenum, nickel, and iron was affected throughout the
bodies of rats. Similar trace-metal changes were recorded after exposure to
ELF electric fields for four months, even at moderate field strengths for
only half an hour per day. Since B6 is essential to the utilization of
carbohydrates, fat, and protein, and since the trace metals act as catalysts
in a wide variety of biochemical reactions, these observations may explain
some of the other metabolic changes.
There are indications that some types of electropollution directly de-
crease the efficiency of the heart. Several research groups in Poland, the
Soviet Union, Italy, and the United States have studied pulse, elec-
trocardiogram, blood pressure, and reserve capacity (the heart's ability to
handle exertion) in animals. Microwaves and 50-hertz electric fields both
produced similar changes that persisted throughout long-term exposure.
These included bradycardia (decreased pulse), a huge reduction (40 to 50
percent) in the strength of the electrical impulses governing contraction
of the heart muscle, a decline in reserve capacity, and a short-term rise
followed by a long-term fall in blood pressure. In general, these decre-
ments occurred in both "domestic" (0.5 volts per centimeter) and "in-
dustrial" (50 volts per centimeter or more) electric fields and at
microwave power densities of 150 microwatts, well within the amount
received by many people from radar beams and microwave ovens.
In humans, confirmatory evidence for these effects comes from several
Russian studies of workers in high-voltage power station switchyards. In
the first such group examined, forty-one of forty-five had some sign of
nervous or cardiovascular disease, including bradycardia, instability of
pulse and blood pressure, and tremors. The same health problems were
found in four additional studies of nearly seven hundred more workers.
The only comparable American study is much quoted for its failure to
find consistent health damage in a mere eleven power-line maintenance
workers.
Growth Systems and Immune Response
Given the results presented so far and the dynamics of life's connection
to the earth's field, we can now make several predictions about the
effects of ELF pollution. The most important aspects of the natural elec-
tromagnetic field for the biological timing systems are the lunar circa-
dian rhythm and the micropulsations of 0.1 to 35 hertz. It seems logical
that cells will perceive frequencies close to normal more readily than
those further removed from the norm. Therefore we can postulate that
the ELF band from 35 to 100 hertz would be the most damaging, while
higher frequencies might go more or less unnoticed until the energy
injected into cells became intense or prolonged enough to be significant.
The accumulating evidence supports this idea.
Based on this notion, we can predict two major ELF effects that
would encompass many others. We can expect the abnormal signals to
disrupt biocycles. Such disruption would trigger the generalized stress
response even if the EMR-induced changes in brain neurotransmitters
were only an effect and not a cause of the stress reaction. In addition, the
wrong timing signals would likely throw off the mitotic cycle time of
every cell, interfering with growth processes throughout the body.
Although any number of factors can trigger the adrenocortical stress
reaction, the response itself is always the same. It involves the release
from the adrenal glands of specific hormones, mainly the corticosteroids,
which in turn mobilize the body against invading germs or foreign pro-
teins. Thus the stress response always activates the immune system.
Short exposures to stress aren't necessarily harmful and may even be
healthy. In fact, the Soviet work on microwave stress has disclosed a
brief period of increased immune-system competence at very low inten-
sities (under 10 microwatts). However, when an organism must face a
continual or repeated stress, the response system enters the chronic
phase, during which resistance declines below normal and eventually
becomes exhausted. Several well-known diseases, such as peptic ulcer
and hypertension, result directly from this stage, but the most impor-
tant result is a decrease in the body's ability to fight infection and
cancer.
The trouble is that the immune system is geared to fight tangible
invaders—bacteria, viruses, toxins, and misbehaving cells of the body
itself—or such consciously detectable stresses as heat, cold, or injury. It
includes a system of circulating antibodies by which specialized cells
recognize the intruder. The cells controlling this phase, which is called
humoral immunity, then select appropriate defenders from an array of
other types, each programmed for a certain function, such as digesting
bacteria, clearing away cellular debris, or neutralizing poisons. Elec-
tromagnetic energy isn't consciously perceived, however. It tricks the
immune system into fighting a shadow. Thus we can predict that, just
like a fire company answering a false alarm, the body will be less able to
fight a real fire.
Experiments bear out this supposition. Impaired immune response has
been found at many frequencies. Several groups of Soviet researchers
have found a decline in the efficiency of white blood cells in rats and
guinea pigs after the animals had been exposed to radio waves and mi-
crowaves. Most of these experimenters checked for immune system dis-
ruption only up to power densities of about 500 microwatts, one
twentieth of the nominal American safety standard. Multiple dangers
from higher levels are already considered proven in the Soviet Union.
As predicted, however, the most dramatic reported effect on immune
response has been produced by ELF fields. During his systematic study
of 200-gauss, 50-hertz magnetic fields, Yuri N. Udintsev found that the
concentration of bacteria needed to kill mice in such an environment was
only one fifth that needed without the field.
When considering resistance to illness, we must also account for the
effect of electromagnetic energy on the disease itself, a factor that has so
far been all but ignored. Virtually the only evidence to date is a disturb-
ing piece of work by Yu. N. Achkasova and her colleagues at the Cri-
mean Medical Institute in Simferopol. In 1978 they reported the results
of exposing thirteen standard strains of bacteria—including anthrax, ty-
phus, pneumonia, and staphylococcus—to electric and magnetic fields.
After accounting for magnetic storms, ionospheric flux, passage of the
interplanetary magnetic-field boundaries, and other variables, they found
clear evidence that an electric field only slightly stronger than earth's
background stimulated growth of all bacteria and increased their re-
sistance to antibiotics. The magnetic fields inhibited the growth of the
germs but in many cases still enhanced their resistance to antibiotics.
Achkasova concentrated on frequencies between 0.1 and 1 hertz, so the
survey was far from complete, but perhaps the most important finding
was that every field tested had an effect, even after one four-hour ex-
posure. In many cases longer exposure produced permanent changes in
bacterial metabolism.
The admittedly sketchy evidence to date suggests that our elec-
tropollution is presenting us, and perhaps all animals, with a double
challenge: weaker immune systems and stronger diseases. We shouldn't
be surprised, then, at an onslaught of "new" ailments, beginning about
1950 and accelerating toward the future. In several cases, new maladies
have recently been described as coming from pathogens that previously
weren't capable of inducing disease, and this, too, shouldn't surprise us.
Among the newcomers are:
Reye's syndrome. First described in 1963, this condition begins with
severe vomiting as a child is recovering from the flu or chicken
pox. It then progresses to lethargy, personality changes, con-
vulsions, coma, and death. The mortality rate, initially very high,
has now been reduced to about 10 percent, but the incidence has
increased greatly.
Lyme disease. A virus disease carried by certain insects, it produces
severe arthritis in humans. It's one of several similar illnesses that
have appeared only recently.
Legionnaire's disease. This is a pneumonia caused by a common soil
bacterium that has found a second home in air-conditioning sys-
tems. The organism caused us no recognized problems before the
initial outbreak in Philadelphia in 1976.
AIDS. Autoimmune deficiency syndrome is a condition in which
the body's immune system fails completely and its owner often
dies. The patient is unable to resist common, otherwise harmless
bacteria and viruses, and can no longer suppress the seeds of can-
cer that reside in all of us. At present, some sort of virus is sus-
pected as the precipitating cause.
Herpes genitalis. This disease isn't new, but its prevalence and severity
have increased tremendously in one decade. Sexual permissiveness
generally takes the blame, but a decline in immunocompetence may
be more important.
Certainly there are additional factors that may be contributing to the
rise of these and other new illnesses. Chemical pollution and the preva-
lence of junk food are two of the most obvious. However, these diseases,
as well as cancer, birth defects, and the other growth problems described
below, are on the increase throughout the industrialized world. So are
some of the major psychological diseases, such as depression and com-
pulsive use of all types of drugs, from caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol to
prescription tranquilizers and the illegal euphoriants, Although heart-
attack death rates have declined in the last five years (for no known
reason), they're still far higher than before World War II. These diseases
exist at more or less the same rates in countries whose chemical toxicity,
eating habits, and styles of life are widely divergent. However, the mas-
sive use of electromagnetic energy is a common denominator uniting all
of the developed nations. In particular, the entire North American
continent, Western Europe, and Japan generate such strong 50- and 60-
hertz fields that they can be sensed by satellites in space. The popula-
tions of these areas are continuously bombarded by these ELF fields.
Disruption of the biocycle timing cues must inevitably make it harder
for the body to regulate the mitotic rate of its cells. The major exception
to the "no effect" assurances in the NAS Sanguine-Seafarer report was
unignorable evidence that 75-hertz fields lengthened the mitotic cycle
and hindered cell respiration of the slime mold used in standard tests of
cellular growth. The same effects were seen regardless of field strength.
Hence we should expect that ELF pollution would foster diseases in
which growth processes go awry.
Indeed there has been an alarming increase in such problems. Cancer
is hardly a novel illness, but its prevalence is new. In the mid-1960s
roughly a quarter of the U.S. population could expect to develop it. By
the mid-1970s, that figure had risen to one third, and it's now even
higher. The incidence of birth defects has doubled in the past quarter
century. There has been a similarly rapid rise in infertility and other
reproductive problems.
Rarer defects of cell division may be on the increase as well, expecially
among workers exposed by occupation to high levels of electromagnetic
energy. Pathologist Hylar Friedman of the Army Medical Center in El
Paso reported in 1981 that radar technicians were three to twelve times
more likely than the rest of the population to get polycythemia, a rare
blood disorder characterized by production of too many red blood cells.
Such relationships are hard to confirm statistically, however, in diseases
affecting small numbers of people. We need direct experimental evi-
dence and large-scale studies on the widespread disorders. Both are now
available.
Back in 1971, two more Soviet researchers, S. G. Mamontov and L.
N. Ivanova, reported that industrial-strength 50-hertz electric fields tri-
pled the mitotic rate of liver and cornea cells in mice. Soon afterward,
Bassett and Pilla published empirical evidence that pulsed EMFs acceler-
ated the healing of bone fractures. For the most part, however, concrete
evidence that time-varying fields could affect cell division was slow in
coming.
That situation has changed in the last few years. Several experi-
menters, notably Stephen Smith, have now proven that the Electro-
biology bone-healing device, using 15 pulse-bursts per second, speeds
up the division rate of cells that are already proliferating rapidly. Among
normal cells, this includes skin, gut, and liver cells. In 1983, A. R.
Liboff, a biophysicist at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan,
reported on the effects of a more inclusive set of parameters. Magnetic
fields of 0.2 to 4 gauss, vibrating at 10 to 4,000 hertz, all enhanced the
replication of DNA during the S (synthesis) phase of mitosis.
As predicted, the interaction appears to be greatest between 35 and
100 hertz. Jose M. R. Delgado—the flamboyant advocate of a "psycho-
civilized" society through mind control, who has publicized direct elec-
trical stimulation of the brain by such displays as stopping a charging
bull in its tracks with a radio impulse transmitted to an implanted elec-
trode—recently reported results of a genetic study of magnetic fields at
three frequencies. Delgado placed chick embryos in minuscule magnetic
fields pulsed at 10, 100, and 1,000 hertz. He used fields of only 0.001
gauss, or roughly the strength of the earth field's micropulsations.
Chicks exposed to the 10-hertz fields were normal, but those dosed at
100 hertz developed severe defects of the central nervous system. The
highest frequency also yielded abnormalities, but they were much less
severe. Higher intensities are common in homes, in offices, and near
power lines. The Navy has found stronger fields near its 76-H3 ELF
antenna and reradiated at that frequency from a power line a mile away.
It's important to bear in mind that, in stimulating DNA synthesis,
an electromagnetic field doesn't distinguish between desirable and un-
desirable growth. It affects all cells in the same way, but cell systems
that are already rapidly dividing are speeded up the most. As we've seen
in earlier chapters, these susceptible processes include healing, em-
bryonic growth, and cancer.* In fact, a researcher working on the New
York State Department of Health's power line project, Wendell Winters
of the University of Texas Health Sciences Center in San Antonio, re-
cently reported some of the first laboratory evidence that power frequen-
cies can accelerate malignant growth. Winters exposed human cancer
cells to 60-hertz electromagnetic fields for just twenty-four hours, and
found a sixfold increase in their growth rate seven to ten days later.
*Only the magnetic component appears to accelerate healing in any way. Power-
frequency electric fields severely retard fracture healing in rats, as Andy Marino, Jim
Cullen, Maria Reichmanis, and I proved with a series of experiment in 1979. This work
was confirmed the following year by R. D. Phillips in a study done for a Department of
Energy review of transmission line bioeffects.
Moreover, the perturbation of normal cell-cycle time is enhanced if
nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is induced in the atoms of the DNA
molecules. In simplified terms, nuclear magnetic resonance is present
when the magnetic fields around atomic nuclei are induced to vibrate in
unison. The phenomenon requires two external magnetic fields, one
steady and one pulsating. For every chemical element, the oscillating
field at a specific frequency will induce resonance within the steady-state
field at a certain strength.
In 1983 a research team under A. H. Jafary-Asl showed that the
earth's magnetic background could serve as the steady field, while the
harmonics of power line frequencies could produce a time-varying field
that would induce nuclear magnetic resonance in at least two common
atoms of living tissue—potassium and chlorine. Other elements might
also be susceptible to the effect. Bacteria and yeast cells exposed to these
NMR conditions doubled their rate of DNA synthesis and proliferation,
but daughter cells were half size. Liboff, analyzing contradictory studies,
found that the contradictions disappeared when he calculated resonance
conditions for the earth's field where each test was done. Previous work
must now be reinterpreted as one vast experiment in adding new fre-
quencies to the varying background.
Almost all experimenters to date have tested the response of organ-
isms to a single specific frequency and intensity. This approach was
needed in the beginning to provide a basic level of knowledge, but it's
far removed from everyday life, in which we're all exposed to many
frequencies simultaneously. A synergism between electromagnetic en-
ergy and radioactivity has already been suggested by the fact that cancer
rates among nuclear power plant workers are higher than was predicted
solely by the higher levels of ionizing radiation in their environment.
Nuclear power plants abound in multifrequency radio waves and other
electromagnetic radiation. In addition to inducing NMR in the building
blocks of living cells, multiple frequencies may likewise interact syn-
ergistically to yield biohazards greater than the sum of their individual
dangers.
Animal experiments on the risk of cancer and birth defects from elec-
tromagnetic energy arc scarce, even in the USSR. The little work that
has been done was mostly on microwaves. The only well-known Amer-
ican laboratory study of birth defect dangers used pulsed radio waves and
found numerous mutations in fruit fly offspring. In 1976 a Russian
group dosed rats with 50 and 500 microwatts for one to ten days. When
they then studied somatic (nongenital) cellls from the animals, they
found chromosome defects in astounding numbers. At the higher power
density there were five times as many as in the controls, and even at the
lower intensity the number continued to increase (to 150 percent of the
normal value) for two weeks after the beams were turned off.
A 1979 study directed by Przemyslaw Czerski of the National Re-
search Institute of Mother and Child, in Warsaw, documented increased
numbers of damaged chromosomes in the sperm of mice exposed one
hour a day for two weeks to microwave intensities ranging from 100
microwatts up to the American safety standard of 10,000 microwatts.
An even more discomfiting set of data came from a mid-1970s Russian
experiment in which female mice were subjected to small power densi-
ties, 10 to 50 microwatts. Throughout this range there was a decrease in
the number and size of litters and an increase in developmental problems
among the newborn animals. The rate of stillbirths jumped from 1.1
percent at the lowest intensity to 7 percent at the highest.
Alas, human beings are the main experimental animals in this line of
research. Those who contend microwaves pose no danger often quote a
survey of twenty thousand Korean War veterans completed in 1980 by
C. D. Robinette and others for the NAS-National Research Council's
Medical Follow-up Agency. Comparing VA medical records of radar
technicians and others heavily exposed to microwaves with the records of
controls, this group found no increase in the death rate. This finding
can't be relied on, however. Most of the controls were radar operators,
who are exposed to some radiation from radar beams as well as from
their consoles. Thus the presumption that they absorbed negligible
amounts of EMR just doesn't hold water. In the last few years more
reliable epidemiological studies have appeared, showing increased rates
of cancer and birth defects among people exposed to higher-than-average
levels of electromagnetic energy.
Since microwave broadcasts for television and telephone relays must
be in a line of sight to the receivers, there are only a few suitable high
locations for the transmitters near each city. Of necessity there's an
above-normal concentration of ELF fields and microwave spilloff in that
area, possibly leading to a destructive synergism as outlined above.
Moreover, since TV is aimed at an audience and phone relay beams at
the next station, corridors are set up within which people get more than
their share of microwaves.
Sentinel Heights, seven miles from downtown Syracuse, is one such
transmitter hill. Slightly more than a thousand people live there. From
1974 to 1977 I learned of seven cases of cancel in that area. They were
divided into two clusters, in two microwave corridors separated by a
shadow zone. This is 55 percent more than the 4.5 cases statistically
expected for this population, and there may have been more cases I
didn't know about. Obviously, in such a small and unscientific sample
the results could have been due to chance, but the ominous implications
demanded some more extensive surveys.
The first one came in 1979, when Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper
of the University of Colorado Medical Center in Denver published a
study of childhood cancer and power lines. The researchers studied 344
deaths from childhood cancer between 1950 and 1973. The address of
each of the victims was paired with the address of the next baby born in
the area, to provide a matched series of controls. If the family had
moved before the death, both birth and death addresses were used in
the experimental group. The wiring of each house and its distance from
the nearest transformers were studied. It proved possible to divide the
houses into two groups: those with high-current wiring configurations
producing strong magnetic fields, and those wired in a low-current ar-
rangement producing much weaker magnetic fields. After certain other
variables—such as economic class, family risk patterns, traffic, and ur-
banization differences—were factored out, the childhood death rate from
leukemia, lymph node cancer, and nervous system tumors in the high-
current homes was more than double the rate in low-current homes.
Three years later S. Milham, director of occupational health and safety
for the state of Washington, found that adults who worked in strong
electromagnetic fields also had a leukemia incidence significantly higher
than the norm. The link appeared in statistics for generating-station
operators, high-voltage-line maintenance workers, aluminum smelters,
and several other categories of laborers.
Besides the investigation itself, another thing was noteworthy about
Milham's paper: the reaction of the scientific establishment. Another
paper quickly appeared in the same periodical, the New England Journal of
Medicine, citing many other studies to prove Milham wrong. However, all
of them involved controlled exposure to microwaves alone, while the jobs
studied by Milham were in the real world, where microwaves and power-
frequency fields mix. The editors declined to publish my letter pointing
out this obvious flaw in the critique, but still it was momentous that such
a prestigious publication ran Milham's paper at all.
Soon confirmatory reports appeared. Wertheimer's and Leeper's find-
ings were duplicated in Stockholm by a group who correlated childhood
leukemia with actual measurements of magnetic fields. The strongest
statistical link was found with 200-kilovolt power lines running within
200 yards of the stricken child's home. Milham's work was vindicated
by surveys in Los Angeles and Great Britain. Wertheimer herself ex-
tended her observations to adults and found the same highly significant
connection between high-current wiring and various cancers, especially
leukemia.
Radar beams (composed of pulsed microwaves) have the highest power
densities of any EMR source. In the laboratory, both radio frequency and
microwave radiation have been shown to change the gateway-barrier
function of cell membranes, upset hormone balances, and induce chro-
mosome defects, all of which are factors in malignant growth. However,
there have been few attempts to directly assess radar's potential role in
human cancer.
John R. Lester and Dennis F. Moore of the University of Kansas
School of Medicine in Wichita have recently done so. Wichita was an
ideal location for such an inquiry. It had two airports with radar towers,
but few other major sources of electropollution. Its chemical environ-
ment was also quite clean as cities go. Lester and Moore plotted the
cancer incidence for the whole city and found it was highest where the
residents were exposed to both radar beams. It was lower where only one
beam penetrated, but lowest where the population was fully shielded
behind hills. The results held up when other factors, such as age, pov-
erty, sex, and race, were statistically balanced as far as possible. The
authors noted one apartment house whose cancer death rate was twice
that of the area's nursing homes; its upper floors were in direct line with
both radar beams.
Heart attack rates in North Karelia and Kuopio, Finland, became the
highest (and most swiftly increasing) in the world within a few years
after the Soviets installed a gigantic over-the-horizon radar complex that
bounced microwaves off the surface of Lake Ladoga and through these
parts of southeastern Finland. These are rural districts whose way of life
is built on outdoor labor rather than the sedentary indoor stresses gener-
ally associated with heart disease. Noting that cancer rates had also risen
precipitously in the region, Lester and Moore went on to investigate
statistics for American counties having Air Force bases. These counties
had a significantly higher percentage of cancer deaths than other coun-
ties, even though radar towers from commercial airports inevitably must
have smoothed out the data and made the difference less striking.
The study of human genetic defects from electromagnetic energy is
still in a primitive stage. In the case of microwaves, this situation is
largely due to obstruction by military and government agencies. Even in
World War II, rumors of radar-induced sterility were so rampant that
Maxwell's Stiver Hammer 301
sailors often gave themselves "treatments" before shore leave. The first
scientific evidence of reproductive effects didn't come until 1959, when
John H. Heller and his co-workers at the New England Institute for
Medical Research in Ridgefield, Connecticut, found major chromosome
abnormalities in garlic shoots irradiated with low levels of microwaves.
They soon found the same changes in mammalian cells, as well as the
fruit fly mutations mentioned above. Their work in this direction ended
about 1970 due to lack of funds.
In 1964 a group of researchers studying Down's syndrome at the
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, after linking the malady to excess X
rays given to pregnant women, found an unexpected further correlation
with fathers working near radar. It was a full decade before any money
was allocated to follow up this finding, and, while the link between
parental radar exposure and Down's syndrome wasn't substantiated,
higher-than-normal numbers of chromosome defects were found in the
blood cells of radarmen.
By this time an Alabama professor of public health had found an
apparent surge in birth defects among children of radar-exposed Army
helicopter pilots. In 1971 Dr. Peter Peacock noted that there had been
seventeen children born with clubfoot within a sixteen-month period at
the Fort Rucker, Alabama, base hospital. Statistically, there should have
been no more than four.
Working through two federal agencies and two private research foun-
dations, Peacock and others tried for five years to follow up this disturb-
ing news, only to be thwarted by some clever tactical moves by the
Army. Refusing to release work records, medical files, and radar inspec-
tion records on grounds of "privacy" and "national security," officials of
the Army Medical Research and Development Command managed to
prevent all but two reassessments of Peacock's original data for several
years. They stalled separate research proposals sponsored by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration's Bu-
reau of Radiological Health without ever letting on to one agency that
they were dealing with the other. As the coup de grace, the Army
agreed to supply the FDA group with a survey of radar transmitters in
the Fort Rucker area. The officers fobbed off on the unwitting civilians a
deceitfully sketchy map showing only one major radar installation at the
base, whereas an official Army report made at the time of the observed
birth defects showed nineteen such emitters. Throughout the Vietnam
War thousands of helicopter trainees had each spent months flying
through the resultant microwave haze. Much of their training consisted
of homing right down the beams to within a few dozen yards of the
source in TH-13 Bell copters whose Plexiglas bubbles left them naked to
microwaves.
The Fort Rucker affair and many other instances of military-govern-
mental sabotage of health effects research on microwaves have been im-
peccably documented in New Yorker reporter Paul Brodeur's 1977 book,
The Zapping of America. In the early 1970s, for example, follow-up to a
preliminary finding of excess Down's syndrome among children of
Seattle airline pilots was first supported by the local chapter of the
Air Line Pilots Association, then opposed due to pressure from the na-
tional level.
The stonewalling continues. Grants for serious consideration of elec-
tropollution's dangers have been cut to a trickle in the United States,
but some findings continue to emerge, especially from other countries.
A 1976 survey of Hydro-Quebec's generating-station electricians
showed a drastic change in the gender ratio of children born after one of
the parents began work in the high-EMF environment. Before, boys and
girls had been born in equal numbers; afterward, there were six times as
many males as females. A 1979 study of Swedish high-voltage substa-
tion workers showed lower birth rates and an 8-percent incidence of
genetic defects in offspring, as compared with 3 percent among children
of a control group. The finding was confirmed in 1983. Since most of
the exposed electrical workers were men, the damage apparently was
done during sperm formation. Most recently, in May 1984, Nancy
Wertheimer presented evidence of a statistical correlation between use of
electric blankets, which emit powerful EMFs, and the occurrence of
birth defects.
Among the most serious recent data are those concerning video display
terminals (VDTs). There have been alarming numbers of miscarriages,
stillbirths, and birth defects among pregnant women working in newly
computerized offices. In one year at the Dallas office of Sears, Roebuck and
Company, for example, only four of twelve pregnancies ended normally.
Among twelve pregnant VDT workers at the Defense Logistics Agency in
Marietta, Georgia, there were seven miscarriages and three cases of con-
genital defects. Four VDT operators in the Toronto Star's classified-ad
department gave birth to deformed children, while three co-workers who
didn't work with VDTs had normal babies. These anomalies must be
compared with the normal 15-percent incidence of spontaneous abortion
and the 3-percent rate of serious birth defects among the population at
large. Writing in Microwave News, an independent newsletter covering
nonionizing radiation, in 1982 editors Louis Slesin and Martha Zybko
reported on eight such clusters, and workers' groups have documented
several others, but still there has been no attempt at a large-scale statis-
tical study to check the oft repeated claim that these are just coinci-
dences.
Two studies are widely quoted as disproving harmful effects from the
machines. In 1977, when two New York Times copy editors developed
radiation-induced cataracts after less than a year at their new screens, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) tested a
few machines and, finding that X-ray emissions were within the half-
millirem-per-hour standard for work exposure, concluded there was no
link to the health problems. Unfortunately, the agency didn't ade-
quately measure nonionizing radiation, gave contradictory data as to the
sensitivity of its own instruments, and failed to test malfunctioning moni-
tors, which are known to emit larger amounts of X rays. Nor is there
any assurance that the X-ray exposure standard is adequate, since it was
formulated for a much smaller group of workers (mainly nuclear techni-
cians and uranium miners), whose health is continuously monitored in a
way that that of VDT operators is not. Furthermore, the NIOSH in-
vestigators noted an enormous microwave reading of 1,000 microwatts
in one of the Times offices, without even bothering to find out where it
was coming from!
Press releases claimed a mid-1983 National Academy of Sciences re-
view would allay the fears once and for all, proving VDTs to be risk
free. However, a reading of the text showed a different picture. While
the authors played down reports linking birth defects and eye problems
to VDT radiation, they admittedly failed to find any research adequate
to answer the health questions one way or the other.
According to the sketchy data available, all VDTs (which of course
include video games and televisions as well as computer monitors) emit
varying amounts of radiation over a broad spectrum. The transformers
release VLF and ELF waves, while microwaves, X rays, and ultraviolet
emanate from the screen. Poorly adjusted or malfunctioning terminals
can emit enormous amounts; two machines tested in the offices of Long
Island's Newsday, for example, were producing 15,000 microwatts of
radio energy. There's no information whatever on the synergisms that
may operate amid this varied radiation over long periods of time, but I
suspect that the birth defects are primarily due to the ELF component.
Meanwhile, the only American "research" on the problem continues
to be the daily lives of our 10 million or more console operators. Despite
the reassurances, at least a third to a half of the workers continue to
suffer hea daches, nausea, neck and back pain, and vision impairment. In
fact, a 1983 survey of eleven hundren UPI employees conducted by
Arthur Frank, then at New York's Mount Sinai School of Medicine,
suggested that VDT users lose so much time due to eye problems and
neck pain that the effects may become a major drain on the economy by
the end of the decade.
Some of the complaints undoubtedly arise from postural strains and
lighting defects in the notoriously ill-designed work areas where many
VDTs are used. They could be prevented by more frequent breaks and
some sympathetic attention to human engineering. The birth defects
and cataracts probably won't disappear so easily, however. Certainly
pregnant women should be allowed temporary reassignment without loss
of pay, a right already accepted in much of Western Europe and recently
put into law in Ontario. That won't protect sperm cells and unfertilized
eggs, however. Regular maintenance and a lead-impregnated glass or
acrylic screen (such as is used in nuclear power plant windows) can vir-
tually eliminate ionizing radiation, but screen-generated microwaves re-
quire a transparent shield that still conducts electrical energy—a
product that doesn't yet exist. Some frequencies of EMR are easy to
block simply by using metal cabinets instead of the cheaper plastic ones,
but VLF and ELF waves require grounded shielding. All these preven-
tive measures are expenses that most manufacturers and managers have
been loath to accept; until they do, workers will be paying the entire
price.
The dangers of electropollution are real and well documented. It
changes, often pathologically, every biological system. What we don't
know is exactly how serious these changes are, for how many people. The
longer we, as a society, put off a search for that knowledge, the greater
the damage is likely to be and the harder it will be to correct. Mean-
while, one of the few honest statements to emerge from the Nixon
administration, a warning issued by the President's Office of Telecom-
munications Policy in 1971, continues to bleed through the whitewash:
"The population at risk is not really known; it may be special groups; it
may well be the entire population. . . . The consequences of undervalu-
ing or misjudging the biological effects of long-term, low-level exposure
could become a critical problem for the public health, especially if ge-
netic effects are involved."
Conflicting Standards
The establishment Attitude toward EMR's health effects derives largely

from the work of Herman Schwan. An engineer who had been a pro-
fessor at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Biophysics in Germany during
most of the Nazi era, Schwan was admitted to the United States in
1947, soon accepted a post at the University of Pennsylvania, and since
then has done most of his research for the Department of Defense.
Like infrared radiation, radio waves and microwaves produce heat
when they're absorbed in sufficient quantity. Although not a biologist,
Schwan assumed this heating was the only effect EMR would have on
living tissue. In this respect he considered living things no different
from the hot dogs that World War II radarmen used to roast in their
microwave beams, so cooking was the only harm he foresaw. Schwan
then estimated danger levels based on how much energy was needed to
measurably heat metal balls and beakers of salt water, which he used to
represent the size and presumed electrical characteristics of various ani-
mals.
Appreciable heating occurred in these models only at levels of
100,000 microwatts or above, so, incorporating a safety factor of ten,
Schwan in 1953 proposed an exposure limit of 10,000 microwatts for
humans. By showing soon afterward that it took more than this inten-
sity to cause burns in real animals, Sol Michaelson seemed to have con-
firmed the safety of "nonthermal" dosages. No one tested for subtler
effects, and the 10,000-microwatt level was uncritically accepted on an
informal basis by industry and the military. In 1965 the Army and Air
Force formally adopted the Schwan limit, and a year later the industry-
sponsored American National Standards Institute recommended it as a
guideline for worker safety.
There were persuasive economic reasons why the 10,000-microwatt
standard was and still is defended at all costs. Lowering it would have
curtailed the expansion of military EMR use and cut into the profits of
the corporations that supplied the hardware. A reduced standard now
would constitute an admission that the old one was unsafe, leading to
liability for damage claims from ex-GIs and industrial workers. One of
the strongest monetary reasons was given in a 1975 classified summary
of the DOD's Tri-Service Electromagnetic Radiation Bioeffects Research
Plan: "These [lower] standards will significantly restrict the military use
of EMR in a peacetime environment and require the procurement of
substantial real estate around ground-based EMR emitters to provide
buffer zones." The needed real estate was estimated to be 498,000 acres.
The price of this much land would surely run well into the billions of
dollars.
Even before it was adopted, there were indications that the standard
might be inadequate. During the obligatory fight for compensation in
the face of callous official denials of responsibility, an interesting discov-
ery was made by Thomas Montgomery, a former civilian technician
working for the Army Signal Corps, who is now blind, deaf, and crip-
pled because of a massive accidental exposure to a radar beam in 1949.
In one of the files opened by his suit, Montgomery found a document
proving that in the late 1940s the Institute of Radio Engineers had
formulated more conservative safeguards that included methods for pre-
venting accidents like the one that had incapacitated him. (He'd been
repairing a transmitter when a co-worker, not knowing he was standing
in front of the wave guide, turned it on. Since the microwaves were
imperceptible, Montgomery didn't know he was being irradiated until it
was too late.) Leaders of the military-industrial electronics community
chose not to promulgate these proposed regulations.
There were other hints that all was not well. In 1952 Dr. Frederic G.
Hirsch of the Sandia Corporation, a maker of missile guidance systems,
reported the first known case of cataracts in a microwave technician. The
following year Bell Laboratories, alarmed by reports of sterility and bald-
ness among its own workers as well as military radar personnel, sug-
gested a safety level of 100 microwatts, a hundred times less than
Schwan's. Even Schwan has consistently maintained that his dosage limit
probably isn't safe for more than an hour.
In 1954 a study of 226 microwave-exposed employees at Lockheed's
Burbank factory was reported by company doctor Charles Barron. He
said there were no adverse effects, despite "paradoxical and difficult to
interpret" changes in white blood cell counts, which he later ascribed to
laboratory error, as well as a high incidence of eye pathology, which he
determined was "unrelated" to radar.
However, the safety standard had already become a Procrustean bed
against which all research proposals and findings were measured. Grants
weren't given to look for low-level hazards, and scientists who did find
such effects were cut down to size. Funds for their work were quickly
shut off and vicious personal attacks undermined their reputations.
Later, when undeniable biological changes began to be noted from
power densities between 1,000 and 10,000 microwatts,, the idea of "dif-
ferential heating"—hot spots in especially absorptive or poorly cooled
tissues—was advanced, as though this convenient explanation obviated
all danger. Soviet research could easily be discounted because of its "cru-
dity," but when nonthermal dangers were documented in America, mil-
itary and industrial spokespeople simply refused to acknowledge them,
lying to Congress and the public. Many scientists, who naturally wanted
to continue working, went along with the charade.
from nuclear weapons tests. Throughout the 1950s there was "no cause
for alarm," but twenty years later the Wyoming sheep ranchers' suit for
compensation for fallout-damaged herds unearthed documents proving
the responsible officials had known better at the time. Even the symbol
of American military machismo may have fallen victim to the policy.
John Wayne, as well as Susan Hayward and other cast members, died of
cancer about two decades after making a movie called The Conqueror,
which was filmed in the Nevada desert while an unexpected wind shift
sifted radioactive dust down on them from a nearby test.
Today the EMR deceit still proceeds. On August 2, 1983, Sol Mi-
chaelson was quoted as saying some bioeffects had been observed in ani-
mals and a few claimed in humans from intensities under 10,000
microwatts, but "none of these effects, even if substantiated, could be
considered hazardous or relevant to man"—even though three years be-
fore he'd co-authored a paper that reviewed previous evidence and added
some of his own in support of the generalized stress response from mi-
crowaves.
The evidence had begun to come in over twenty years previously.
John Heller's 1959 finding of chromosome changes in irradiated garlic
sprouts and the 1964 Johns Hopkins correlation of Down's syndrome
with parental exposure to radar were mentioned in the previous section.
In 1961 a study was conducted on a strain of mice bred to be especially
susceptible to leukemia and used to evaluate risk factors for that disease.
Two hundred mice, all males, were dosed with 100,000 microwatts at
radar-pulse frequencies for one year. An unusually high proportion of the
animals—35 percent—developed leukemia during that time, and 40
percent suffered degeneration of the testicles. Admittedly, this was a
very high power density, but the mice were exposed for only four min-
utes a day. The most disturbing part, however, is that the sponsor, the
Air Force, cut off all funds for follow-up work, and to this day no Amer-
ican research has adequately addressed this potential danger.
In 1959 Milton Zaret, an ophthalmologist from Scarsdale, New York,
began a study for the Air Force to see if there was any special risk to the
eyes of radar maintenance men. He at first found none, because he'd
geared the examinations to check the lens of the eye. A few years later,
when several private companies referred to him microwave workers
who'd developed cataracts, Zaret saw he'd made a mistake. Because the
microwaves penetrated deeply into tissue, cataracts from them had de-
veloped behind the lens, in the posterior capsule, or rear part of the
elastic membrane surrounding the lens. At this point the Air Force
again suddenly lost interest, but Zaret has doggedly pursued the matter
in his own practice. Although military and industry people still deny
that nonthermal microwave cataracts exist, Zaret's work has proven
beyond good-faith dispute that low doses exert a cumulative effect that
eventually stiffens and clouds the posterior capsule. Surveys by others
here and abroad have confirmed his conclusion. In fact, these behind-
the-lens cataracts constitute a "marker disease" for sustained microwave
exposure. Zaret has personally diagnosed over fifty clear-cut cases, many
in airline pilots and air traffic controllers.
In 1971 Zaret was involved in a projected five-year primate study for
the Navy when he made the mistake of telling his overseers the disturb-
ing news that one of the monkeys had died after a few hours' exposure to
just twice the U.S. safety level. Within days Captain Paul Tyler "hap-
pened to be in the area" of the Hawaii research facility and wanted Zaret
to show him around. He left in about twenty minutes, having seen little
of the equipment, and in a few days more the entire project had been
canceled.
The double-dealing has only made Zaret dig in his heels. Through the
years he has been one of the few doctors willing to take on the govern-
ment by testifying on behalf of plaintiffs filing claims for microwave
health damage. At such proceedings one always runs into the same cast
of characters speaking more or less the same lines. At one trial the ubiq-
uitous Michaelson attacked Zaret's professional abilities, only to have
later testimony reveal the embarrassing fact that Michaelson's mother
owed the vision in one eye to the ophthalmologist's surgical skill.
As we've already seen, there are many indications that EMFs and
EMR weaker than the Schwan guideline have serious effects on growth.
The 10,000-microwatt level was directly tested in 1978 by a group at
the Stanford Research Institute. Pregnant squirrel monkeys and their
offspring were irradiated. Of nine babies zapped in utero and/or after
birth, five died within six months, compared with none in the control
group.
The U.S. safety standard would be grossly inadequate even if it was
law. In actuality, although some businesses and military agencies have
adhered to it, it has never posed any threat to those that have not. A
federal court case decided in 1975 and upheld in 1977 defined it as an
advisory or "should" guideline, which couldn't be enforced. Now, as per
instructions dated March 17, 1982, Occupational Safety and Health Ad-
ministration (OSHA) inspectors can no longer issue even meaningless
citations to companies for exposing workers to more than the limit.
The only actual regulation of public electromagnetic energy dosage
pertains to microwave ovens. In 1970 the FDA's Bureau of Radiological
Health stipulated that no oven should leak more than 1,000 microwatts
at a distance of 2 inches when new, nor more than 5,000 after sale. Even
at that time, research suggested this was an unsafe level, a fact recog-
nized by Consumers Union in 1973 when it recommended against the
purchase of any brand. Leakage surveys have shown that all types put
out an average of 120 microwatts near the door, while many emit much
higher amounts. A worn seal or piece of paper towel stuck in the door
can increase the user's exposure to well over the 5,000-microwatt level,
according to Consumers Union tests.
What amounts of electromagnetic energy do workers and the general
public actually absorb? The levels vary greatly. Some antenna repairers
receive up to 100,000 microwatts for minutes or hours during a job.
Many factory workers are in the same bracket. From 1974 to 1978
NIOSH surveyed eighty-two industrial plastic molders and sealers. Over
60 percent exposed the operator to more than the Schwan limit, some to
over 260,000 microwatts. Because of low wages for such work, nearly
all sealer operators are women of childbearing age. NIOSH has esti-
mated that some 21 million workers are exposed to some level of radio-
frequency waves or microwaves as a direct result of their jobs. No metal
shielding is provided for most workers in this country, although it's sold
to other nations having better safety rules.
At this time there's no way to estimate how much EMR people are
getting away from their jobs, because the few readings that have been
taken have measured only single sources and single frequencies. No one
has yet surveyed our cities and countryside throughout the whole spec-
trum from ELF to microwaves. All we know is that most people's daily
exposure is high. Even the Environmental Protection Agency has esti-
mated that if the Soviet off-the-job safety limit of 1 microwatt in the
radio and microwave bands was adopted here, over 90 percent of our FM
stations would have to be shut down.
Table 1. Power Density at Various Distances from a 50,000 Watt
AM Radio Station
Distance Power Density Distance Power Density

(feet) (microW/cm2) (feet) (microW/cm2)
15 838 482 23
29 284 663 12
69 196 1571 2
152 43 3280 1
308 33 5760 0.3
Note Data from R. Tell et al., "Electric and Magnetic Field Intensities and Associated
Body Currents in Man in Close Proximity to a 50 kW AM Standard Broadcast Station,"
presented at Bioelectromagnetics Symposium, Seattle, 1979.
Table 2. EMF in Typical Tall Buildings
City Location Power Density

(microW/cm2)
New York 102nd Floor, Empire 32.5
State Building
Miami 38th Floor, One 98.6

Biscayne Tower
Chicago 50th Floor, Sears Building 65.9
Houston 47th Floor, 1100 67.4

Milam Building
San Diego Roof, Home Tower 180.3
Note: Data from R. Tell and N. H. Hankin, Measurements of Radio Frequency Field
Intensity in Buildings with Close Proximity to Broadcast Systems, ORP/EAD 78-3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, 1978.
Table 3. Power-Frequency Electric Fields of Household Appliances

Measured at a Distance of One Foot
Appliance Electric Field

(V/m)
Electric blanket 250
Broiler 130
Phonograph 90
Refrigerator 60
Food mixer 50
Hairdryer 40
Color TV 30
Vacuum cleaner 16
Electric range 4
Light bulb 2
Note: Data in tables 3 and 4 from Fact Sheet for the Sanguine System: Final Environmental
Impact Statement, U.S. Navy Electronic Systems Command, 1972.
Table 4. Power-Frequency Magnetic Fields of Household Ap-
pliances
Range Appliance
10-25 gauss Soldering gun
Hairdryer
5-10 gauss Can opener
Electric shaver
Kitchen range
1—5 gauss Food mixer
TV
0.1-1.0 gauss Clothes dryer
Vacuum cleaner
Heating pad
0.01-0.1 gauss Lamp
Electric iron
Dishwasher
0.001 -0.1 gauss Refrigerator
NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN CERTAIN CITIES EXPOSED TO RADIO AND TV

SIGNALS ABOVE USSR SAFETY LEVEL
Most city dwellers continuously get more than a tenth of a microwatt

from television microwaves alone. This may be especially significant,
because of the human body's resonant frequency. This is the wavelength
to which the body responds "as antenna." Next to the ELF range, it's
perhaps the region of the spectrum in which the strongest bioeffects may
be expected. The peak human resonant frequency lies right in the mid-
dle of the VHF television band.
Many people live in zones of higher-than-average risk. Levels rise
steeply from 1 microwatt within half a mile of most radio stations. Near
"antenna farms" like the forest of transmitters on Mount Wilson on the
outskirts of Los Angeles, the densities can reach well into the thousands.
They regularly go up to about 7 microwatts near microwave relay tow-
ers, which are often placed in the center of towns. Exposure to 100
microwatts is not uncommon within half a mile of military or airport
radar towers. Office workers in tall buildings are often in direct line
with microwave beams, whose intensities may reach 30 to 180 micro-
watts, as measured in a recent EPA survey. CB radios and walkie-talkies
bombard users, especially their heads and chests, with thousands of mi-
crowatts. These figures, of course, represent only single sources, not the
MICROWAVE EXPOSURE FROM WALKIE-TALKIE
Although most people's absorption doesn't approach the Schwan

guideline, it should be clear by now that the lower levels are little cause
for comfort. Everywhere in Western nations, except in the most remote
forests or deserts, the ambient energy from ELF power systems is several
thousand times above the earth's background field strength, providing
abundant interference with the biocycle timing cues. Moreover, the ac-
cumulated research has clearly shown that small doses often have the
same effects as larger ones. Ross Adey, who has intensively studied the
"window effect,", in which a certain result is produced at some frequen-
cies and power levels but not at others interspersed between the effective-
ones, believes future research will reveal such windows at much lower
levels, even at fractions of a microwatt. Indeed there has already been
one report of brain wave changes suggesting resonance of neural elec-
trical currents with radio waves and microwaves down to a billionth of a
MICROWAVE EXPOSURE FROM A TYPICAL CB RADIO
There's a chance of somewhat stricter rules in a few years. In 1982 the

American National Standards Institute recommended that the radio-
wave safety level be lowered to 1,000 microwatts and the microwave
level to 5,000. This was the first semiofficial admission that nonthermal
effects do exist. Now several federal agencies have begun discussing a
formal regulation. The most likely source is the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, but at last report the rumored EPA proposal of a 100-
microwatt limit for the general public, which had been anticipated in
late 1984, was abruptly and indefinitely postponed due to dissension
within and pressure from outside the agency.
A health-protecting federal standard with the force of law would have
a major impact on both industry and government. Industry would expe-
rience a decline in revenue and an increase in costs. Government, espe-
cially the military, would be inconvenienced in a multitude of activities.
Both would be subject to lawsuits for exposures and damages prior to
establishment of the standard. In addition, we must understand that no
amount of artificial EMR, no matter how small, has been proven safe for
continuous exposure. Bioeffects have been found at the lowest measur-
able doses. However, we must also understand that the greatest danger
lies in uncontrolled exposure to large amounts of EMR at many overlap-
ping frequencies, and therefore a stringent standard with a definite time-
table for phasing it in is the only way to protect the public health.
Moreover, such action must come from Washington. New Jersey and
Connecticut have recently adopted the ANSI standard, while in 1983
Massachusetts enacted a much stricter one of 200 microwatts, which
large areas of New York City already exceed considerably. Some commu-
nities, recognizing that even a 100-microwatt level is too high, are
beginning to set their own, lower, ones. Without realistic federal regula-
tion we will end up with a totally unworkable patchwork. Suppose, for
example, that the Air Force, from a base outside a town, operates a radar
dome that produces illegal EMR levels inside it. Without federal direc-
tion, that will become one more confused legal issue to be hammered
out for years in already overburdened courts.
All of the industrialized West is locked into a false position on elec-
tropollution's risks. It's these countries that have made the maximum
use of electromagnetism for power, communications, and entertainment.
The Soviet Union and China, partly due to underdevelopment and war-
time destruction, and partly by choice, have severely limited its use and
the exposure of their civilians.
Soviet scientists have consistently assumed that any radiation that
doesn't occur in nature will have some effect on life. We've consistently
made the opposite assumption. Throughout our recent history American
regulators have followed a "dead body policy." They have extended no
protection until there was proof of harm sufficient to overcome all decep-
tion. There's no longer any question that, as far as electromagnetic en-
ergy is concerned, we've been wrong and the Soviets have been right.
In the 1950s, Russian doctors conducted extensive clinical exams of
thousands of workers who had been exposed to microwaves during the
development of radar. Having disclosed serious health problems, these
studies weren't swept under the rug. Instead, the USSR set limits of 10
microwatts for workers and military personnel, and 1 microwatt for oth-
ers. Both levels are strictly enforced. When this first became known in
the West in the early 1960s, instead of checking their assumptions
many American scientists and administrators chose to believe this was
Russian propaganda aimed at embarrassing us.
By 1971, when they presented their work at a momentous conference
in Warsaw, Zinaida V. Gordon and Maria N. Sadchikova of the USSR
Institute of Labor Hygiene and Occupational Diseases had identified a
comprehensive series of symptoms, which they called microwave sick-
ness. Its first signs are low blood pressure and slow pulse. The later and
most common manifestations are chronic excitation of the sympathetic
nervous system (stress syndrome) and high blood pressure. This phase
also often includes headache, dizziness, eye pain, sleeplessness, irri-
tability, anxiety, stomach pain, nervous tension, inability to concen-
trate, hair loss, plus an increased incidence of appendicitis, cataracts,
reproductive problems, and cancer. The chronic symptoms are eventu-
ally succeeded by crises of adrenal exhaustion and ischemic heart disease
(blockage of coronary arteries and heart attack).
The Soviet standards were set long before the dangers were this clear,
however. The comparison is instructive. At a 1969 international sym-
posium on microwaves in Richmond, Virginia, Dr. Karel Marha of
Prague's Institute of Industrial Hygiene defended his findings on birth
defects and recommended that the Eastern European standard be adopted
in the West. Replying to objections that the dire predictions hadn't
been proven beyond doubt, he said: "Our standard is not only to prevent
damage but to avoid discomfort in people."
Apparently this concern doesn't include Americans, for the Soviets
have been bombarding our embassy in Moscow with microwaves for
some thirty years. In 1952, at the height of the Cold War, there was a
secret meeting at the Sandia Corporation in New Mexico between U.S.
and U.S.S.R. scientists, allegedly to exchange information on biological
hazards and safety levels. It seems the exchange wasn't completely re-
ciprocal, or perhaps the Americans didn't take seriously what the Rus-
sians told them; there have been other joint "workshops" since then, and
each time the Soviets have sent people who publicly acknowledged the
risks, while the American delegates have always been "no-effect" men.
At any rate, soon after the Sandia meeting, the Soviets began beaming
microwaves at the U.S. embassy from across Tchaikovsky Street, always
staying well within the Schwan limit. In effect, they've been using em-
bassy employees as test subjects for low-level EMR experiments.
The strange thing is that Washington has gone along with it. The
"Moscow signal" was apparently first discovered about 1962, when the
CIA is known to have sought consultation about it. The agency asked
Milton Zaret for information about microwave dangers in that year, and
then hired him in 1965 for advice and research in a secret evaluation of
the signal, called Project Pandora. Nothing was publicly revealed until
1972, when Jack Anderson broke the story, and the U.S. government
told its citizens nothing until 1976, in response to further news stories
in the Boston Globe. According to various sources, the Russians shut off
their transmitter in in 1978 or 1979, but then resumed the irradiation for
several months in 1983.
According to information given Zaret in the 1960s, the Moscow sig-
nal was a composite of several frequencies, apparently aiming for a syn-
ergistic effect from various wavelengths, and it was beamed directly at
the ambassador's office. Thus it may have been used at least partially to
activate bugging devices, but it wasn't consistent with one of the other
subsequent official American explanations—a jamming signal to disrupt
the U.S. eavesdropping equipment on the embassy roof.
The intensity isn't known for certain. When the State Department
admitted the signal's existence, officials claimed it never amounted to
more than 18 microwatts. However, although released Project Pandora
records don't directly reveal a higher level and the relevant documents
have allegedly been destroyed, research protocols aimed at simulating
the Moscow signal called for levels up to 4,000 microwatts.
In the mid-1960s published Soviet research indicated that such a
beam would produce eyestrain and blurred vision, headaches, and loss of
concentration. Within a few years other research had uncovered the en-
tire microwave syndrome, including the cancer potential.
By all accounts except the official ones, the Moscow bombardment has
been highly effective. In 1976 the Globe reported that Ambassador Wal-
ter Stoessel had developed a rare blood disease similar to leukemia and
was suffering headaches and bleeding from the eyes. Two of his irradi-
ated predecessors, Charles Bohlen and Llewellyn Thompson, died of can-
cer. Monkeys exposed to the signal as part of Project Pandora soon
showed multiple abnormalities of blood composition and chromosome
counts.
In January 1977, the State Department, under duress, announced re-
sults of a series of blood tests on returning embassy personnel: a
"slightly higher than average" white blood cell count in about a third of
the Moscow staff. If 40 percent above the white blood cell counts of
other foreign service employees (levels common to incipient leukemia)
can be considered "slightly higher than average," then this technically
wasn't a lie. The finding has been officially ascribed to some unknown
microbe. Unfortunately, there's no such doubt about the veracity of ex-
planations about some earlier research. As part of Project Pandora in the
late 1960s, the State Department tested its Moscow employees for ge-
netic damage upon their return stateside, telling them the inner cheek
scrapings were to screen for those unusual bacteria. No results were ever
released, and they're reportedly part of the missing files, but one of the
physicians who conducted the tests was quoted by the Associated Press
as saying they'd found "lots of chromosome breaks." The embassy staff
had to learn this when the rest of us did - in the newspapers nearly a
decade later.
The Russians themselves have never admitted the irradiation, and the
Schwan guideline has put the American government in an embarrassing
bind. In 1976 the State Department gave its Moscow employees a 20-
percent hardship allowance for serving in an "unhealthful post" and in-
stalled aluminum window screens to protect the staff from radiation a
hundred times weaker than that near many radar bases. That same year
the government gave Johns Hopkins School of Medicine a quarter of a
million dollars to see if there was a link between the signal and "an
apparently high rate of cancer" in the embassy (which wasn't confirmed).
Nevertheless, although President Johnson asked Premier Kosygin at the
1967 Glassboro talks to stop the bombardment, Washington has never
had any formal basis to demand that it be stopped due to danger to the
staff. That was apparently considered an acceptable risk in the protection
of the lenient U.S. standard.
Invisible Warfare
The Soviets have led the way in learning about the risks of electropollu-
tion, and, as we have seen, they've apparently been the first to harness
those dangers for malicious intent. However, the spectrum of potential
weapons extends far beyond the limits of the Moscow signal, and Amer-
icans have been actively exploring some of them for many years. Most or
all of the following EMR effects can be scaled up or down for use against
individuals or whole crowds and armies:
The crudest of these armaments would be a sort of electromagnetic
flamethrower with a greater range than chemical types. Dogs were
cooked to death in experiments at the Naval Medical Research
Institute as long ago as 1955, and high-power transmitters using
short UHF wavelengths can severely burn exposed skin in seconds.
Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a term designating the im-
mensely powerful, near-instantaneous surge of electromagnetic en-
ergy produced by a nuclear explosion. It was first discovered in the
late 1960s. The EMP from one detonation a few thousand miles
above the earth would destroy all electrical systems throughout an
entire continent. In the early 1970s new types of EMR generators
emitting power levels on or twenty times higher than ever before
were developed in in an effort to simulate EMP and help devise com-
munications systems shielded from it. In 1973 these transmitters
were described in an invitation-only seminar at the Naval Weap-
ons Laboratory in Dahlgren, Virginia, where their use for antiper-
sonnel and anti-ballistic-missile energy beams was discussed. No
information about their subsequent development has since been
made public, and the difficulties of long-range missile tracking
argue that ABM beams haven't yet become feasible, but there are
no such difficulties in the way of EMR beam weapons for use
against unshielded people.
At some UHF power densities there's an insidious moth-to-the-
flame allurement, which would increase such a weapon's effec-
tiveness. As discoverer Sol Michaelson described it in 1958, each
of the dogs used in his experiments "began to struggle for release
from the sling," showing "considerable agitation and muscular
activity," yet "for some reason the animal continues to face the
horn." Perhaps as part of the same effect, UHF beams can also
induce muscular weakness and lethargy. In Soviet experiments
with rats in 1960, five minutes of exposure to 100,000 micro-
watts reduced swimming time in an endurance test from sixty
minutes to six.
Allen Frey's discovery that certain pulsed microwave beams in-
creased the permeability of the blood-brain barrier could be turned
into a supplemental weapon to enhance the effects of drugs, bacte-
ria, or poisons.
The calcium-outflow windows discovered by Ross Adey could be
used to interfere with the functioning of the entire brain.
In the early 1960s Frey found that when microwaves of 300 to
3,000 megahertz were pulsed at specific rates, humans (even deaf
people) could "hear" them. The beam caused a booming, hissing,
clicking, or buzzing, depending on the exact frequency and pulse
rate, and the sound seemed to come from just behind the head.
At first Frey was ridiculed for this announcement, just like
many radar technicians who'd been told they were crazy for hear-
ing certain radar beams. Later work has shown that the micro-
waves are sensed somewhere in the temporal region just above and
slightly in front of the ears. The phenomenon apparently results
from pressure waves set up in brain tissue, some of which activate
the sound receptors of the inner ear via bone conduction, while
others directly stimulate nerve cells in the auditory pathways. Ex-
periments on rats have shown that a strong signal can generate a
sound pressure of 120 decibels, or approximately the level near a
jet engine at takeoff.
Obviously such a beam could cause humans severe pain and
prevent all voice communication. That the same effect can be used
more subtly was demonstrated in 1973 by Dr. Joseph C. Sharp of
the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. Sharp, serving as a
test subject himself, heard and understood spoken words delivered
to him in an echo-free isolation chamber via a pulsed-microwave
audiogram (an analog of the words' sound vibrations) beamed into
his brain. Such a device has obvious applications in covert opera-
tions designed to drive a target crazy with "voices" or deliver
undetectable instructions to a programmed assassin. There are also
indications that other pulse frequencies cause similar pressure
waves in other tissues, which could disrupt various metabolic pro-
cesses. A group under R. G. Olsen and J. D. Grissett at the
Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in Pensacola has al-
ready demonstrated such effects in simulated muscle tissue and has
a continuing contract to find beams effective against human
tissues.
In the 1960s Frey also reported that he could speed up, slow
down, or stop isolated frog hearts by synchronizing the pulse rate
of a microwave beam with the beat of the heart itself. Similar
results have been obtained using live frogs, indicating that it's
technically feasible to produce heart attacks with a ray designed to
penetrate the human chest.
In addition to the methods of damaging or killing people with EMR,
there are several ways of controlling their behavior. Ross Adey and his
colleagues have shown that microwaves modulated in various ways can
force specific electrical patterns upon parts of the brain. Working with
cats they found that brain waves appearing with conditioned responses
could be selectively enhanced by shaping the microwaves with a rhyth-
mic variation in amplitude (height) corresponding to EEG frequencies.
For example, a 3-hertz modulation decreased 10-hertz alpha waves in
one part of the animal's brain and reinforced 14-hertz beta waves in
another location.
Some radar can find a fly a kilometer away or track a human at
twenty-five miles, and several researchers have suggested that focused
EMR beams of such accuracy could bend the mind much like electrical
stimulation of the brain (ESB) through wires. We know of ESB's poten-
tial for mind control largely through the work of Jose Delgado. One
signal provoked a cat to lick its fur, then continue compulsively licking
the floor and bars of its cage. A signal designed to stimulate a portion of
a monkey's thalamus, a major midbrain center for integrating muscle
movements, triggered a complex action: The monkey walked to one side
of the cage, then the other, then climbed to the rear ceiling, then back
down. The animal performed this same activity as many times as it was
stimulated with the signal, up to sixty times an hour, but not blindly—
the creature still was able to avoid obstacles and threats from the domi-
nant male while carrying out the electrical imperative. Another type of
signal has made monkeys turn their heads, or smile, no matter what else
they were doing, up to twenty thousand times in two weeks. As Del-
gado concluded, "The animals looked like electronic toys."
Even instincts and emotions can be changed: In one test a mother
giving continuous care to her baby suddenly pushed the infant away
whenever the signal was given. Approach-avoidance conditioning can be
achieved for any action simply by stimulating the pleasure and pain
centers in an animal's or person's limbic system.
Eventual monitoring of evoked potentials from the EEG, combined
with radio-frequency and microwave broadcasts designed to produce spe-
cific thoughts or moods, such as compliance and complacency, promises
a method of mind control that poses immense danger to all societies—
tyranny without terror. Scientists involved in EEG research all say the
ability is still years away, but for all we could sense of it, it could be
happening right now. Conspiracy theories aside, the hypnotic familiarity
of TV and radio, combined with the biological effects of their broadcast
beams, may already constitute a similar force for mass standardization,
whether by design or not..
The potential dangers of televised lethargy are no yawning matter. It's
well known that relaxed attention to any mildly involving stimulus,
such as a movie or TV program, produces a hypnoid state, in which the
mind becomes especially receptive to suggestion. Other inducers of
hypnoid states include light sleep, daydreams, or short periods of time
spent waiting for some predetermined signal or action, such as a traffic
light.
The Central Intelligence Agency funded research on electromagnetic
mind control at least as early as 1960, when the notorious MKULTRA
program, mostly concerned with hypnosis and psychedelic drugs, in-
cluded money for adapting bioelectric sensing methods (at that time
primarily the EEG) to surveillance and interrogation, as well as for find-
ing "techniques of activation of the human organism by remote elec-
tronic means." In testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Health
and Scientific Research on September 21, 1977, MKULTRA director
Dr. Sidney Gottlieb recalled: "There was a running interest in what
effects people's standing in the field of radio energy have, and it could
easily have been that somewhere in the many projects someone was try-
ing to see if you could hypnotize somebody easier if he was standing in a
radio beam."
Hypnotists often use a strobe light flashing at alpha-wave frequencies
to ease the glide into trance. It seems for over thirty years the Commu-
nist bloc nations have been using an ELF wave form to do the same
thing undetectably and perhaps more effectively. Ross Adey recently lost
most of his government grants and has become a bit more loquacious
about the military and intelligence uses of EMR. In 1983 he organized a
public meeting at the Loma Linda VA hospital and released photos and
information concerning a Russian Lida machine. This was a small trans-
mitter that emitted 10-hertz waves for tranquilization and enhancement
of suggestibility. The most interesting part was that the box had an
ancient vacuum-tube design, and a man who'd been a POW in Korea
reported that similar devices had been used there during interrogation.
American interest in the hypnosis-EMR interaction was still strong as
of 1974, when a research plan was filed to develop useful techniques in
human volunteers. The experimenter, J. F. Schapitz, stated: "In this
investigation it will be shown that the spoken word of the hypnotist
may also be conveyed by modulated electromagnetic energy directly into
the subconscious parts of the human brain—i.e., without employing
any technical devices for receiving or transcoding the messages and with-
out the person exposed to such influence having a chance to control the
information input consciously." As a preliminary test of the general con-
cept, Schapitz proposed recording the brain waves induced by specific
drugs, then modulating them onto a microwave beam and feeding them
back into an undrugged person's brain to see if the same state of con-
sciousness could be produced by the beam alone.
Schapitz's main protocol consisted of four experiments. In the first,
subjects would be given a test of a hundred questions, ranging from easy
to technical, so they all would know some but not all of the answers.
Later, while in hypnoid states and not knowing they were being irradi-
ated, these people would be subjected to information beams suggesting
answers for some of the items they'd left blank, amnesia for some of
their correct answers, and memory falsification for other correct answers.
A new test would check the results two weeks later.
The second experiment was to be the implanting of hypnotic sugges-
tions for simple acts, like leaving the lab to buy some particular item,
which were to be triggered by a suggested time, spoken word, or sight.
Subjects were to be interviewed later. "It may be expected," Schapitz
wrote, "that they rationalize their behavior and consider it to be under-
taken out of their own free will."
In a third test the subjects were to be given two personality tests.
Then different responses to certain questions would be repeatedly sug-
gested, and nonpathological personality changes would also be sug-
gested, both to be evaluated by new testing in a month. In some cases
the subjects were to be prehypnotized into talking in their sleep, so the
microwave programmer could gear the commands to thoughts already in
the brain. Finally, attempts would be made to produce the standard
tests of deep hypnotic trance, such as muscular rigidity, by microwave
beams alone.
Naturally, since this information was voluntarily released via the Free-
dom of Information Act, it must be taken with a pillar of salt. The
results haven't been made public, so the work may have been inconclu-
sive, and the plans may have been released to convince the Soviets and
our own public that American mind-control capabilities are greater than
they actually are. On the other hand, the actualities may be so far ahead
of this research plan that it was tame enough to release in satisfying
FOIA requirements.
How many of the EMR weapons possibilities have actually been de-
veloped and/or used? Those not privy to classified information have no
way of knowing. There are plenty of rumors. Boris Spassky claimed he'd
lost the world chess championship to Bobby Fischer because he was
being bombarded with confusion rays. I recall hearing about one secret
American experiment in which a scientist was supposedly set up with
invitations to three conferences to give the same presentation each time.
The first one went fine, but at the last two he was irradiated with ELF
waves, reportedly to induce Adey's calcium efflux, and he became con-
fused and ineffective.
Another FOIA release from the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1976
may be revealing. Prepared by Ronald L. Adams and E. A. Williams
of Battelle Columbus Laboratories, it's entitled "Biological Effects of
Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves), Eurasian
Communist Countries." The pages released merely recount Allen Frey's
discoveries without mentioning his name, implying instead that only
the Reds would be so dastardly as to investigate such things for use as
weapons. Immediately after mention of the blood-brain barrier leak phe-
nomenon, a paragraph was deleted, followed by the tantalizing sentence,
"The above study is recommended reading material for those consumers
who have an interest in the application of microwave energy to weap-
ons." Even without this document, considering the relentless pace of
arms development, we would have to be very naive to assume that the
United States has no electromagnetic arsenal.
The Soviets may already be using theirs, however, on a scale far
beyond that of the Moscow signal. During the U.S. bicentennial cele-
bration of July 4, 1976, a new radio signal was heard throughout the
world. It has remained on the air more or less continuously ever since.
Varying up and down through the frequencies between 3.26 and 17.54
megahertz, it is pulse-modulated at a rate of several times a second, so it
sounds like a buzz saw or woodpecker. It was soon traced to an enor-
mous transmitter near Kiev in the Soviet Ukraine.
The signal is so strong it drowns out anything else on its wavelength.
When it first appeared, the UN International Telecommunications Union
protested because it interfered with several communications channels,
including the emergency frequencies for aircraft on transoceanic flights.
Now the woodpecker leaves "holes"; it skips the crucial frequencies as it
moves up and down the spectrum. The signal is maintained at enormous
expense from a current total of seven stations, the seven most powerful
radio transmitters in the world.
Within a year or two after the woodpecker began tapping, there were
persistent complaints of unaccountable symptoms from people in several
cities of the United States and Canada, primarily Eugene, Oregon. The
sensations—pressure and pain in the head, anxiety, fatigue, insomnia,
lack of coordination, and numbness, accompanied by a high-pitched
ringing in the ears—were characteristic of strong radio-frequency or mi-
crowave irradiation. In Oregon, between Eugene and Corvallis, a power-
ful radio signal centering on 4.75 megahertz was monitored, at higher
levels in the air than on the ground. Several unsatisfactory theories were
advanced, including emanations from winter-damaged power lines, but
most engineers who studied the signal concluded that it was a manifesta-
tion of the woodpecker. The idea was advanced that it was being di-
rected to Oregon by a Tesla magnifying transmitter. This apparatus,
devised by Nikola Tesla during his turn-of-the-century experiments
on wireless global power transmission at a laboratory near Pikes Peak,
hasn't been much studied in the West. It reportedly enables a transmit-
ter to beam a radio signal through the earth to any desired point on its
surface, while maintaining or even increasing the signal's power as it
emerges. Paul Brodeur has suggested that, since the TRW company
once proposed a Navy ELF communications system using an existing
850-mile power line that ended in Oregon, the Eugene phenomenon
might have been the interaction between a Navy broadcast and Soviet
jamming.
He that as it may, the woodpecker continues in operation, and there
are several unsettling possibilities as to its main purpose. A former chief
of naval research has privately discounted the idea that it's directed
against the U.S. population. However, Robert Beck, a Los Angeles
physicist who regularly serves as a DOD consultant, told me that the
signal has a threefold purpose. He said it acts as a crude over-the-horizon
radar that would pick up a massive first strike of U.S. missiles if Soviet
spy satellites and other detectors were knocked out. Second, the signal's
modulations are an ELF medium for communicating with submarines
underwater. Third, he claimed the signal has a biological by-product
about which he promised further information. Of course, I haven't been
able to contact him since.
Several educated guesses can be made, however. Adey's research sug-
gests that the best way to get an ELF signal into an animal is to make it
a pulse modulation of a high-frequency radio signal. That's exactly what
the woodpecker is. Within its frequency range, it could be beamed to
any part of the world, and it would be picked up and reradiated by the
power supply grid at its destination.
Raymond Damadian has theorized that the woodpecker signal is de-
signed to induce nuclear magnetic resonance in human tissues. Dama-
dian, a radiologist at Brooklyn's Downstate Medical Center, patented
the first NMR scanner, a device that gives an image of internal organs
similar to CAT scanners but using magnetic fields rather than nuclear
radiation. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, NMR could greatly
magnify the metabolic interference of electropollution or EMR weapons.
Maria Reichmanis calculated the pulse frequency that would be required
to do this with a radio signal in the woodpecker's range, and she came
up with a band centered on the same old alpha rhythm of 10 hertz. And
in fact, the signal's pulse is generally about that rate, although it is
often a two-part modulation of 4 + 6, 7 + 3, and so on. The available
evidence, then, suggests that the Russian woodpecker is a multipurpose
radiation that combines a submarine link with an experimental attack on
the American people. It may be intended to increase cancer rates, inter-
fere with decision-making ability, and/or sow confusion and irritation.
It may be succeeding.
I keep hearing persistent rumors of American transmitters set up to
try to nullify the Russians' signal or to affect their people in a similar
way. In 1978, Stefan Rednip, an American reporter living in England,
claimed access to purloined CIA documents proving the existence of a
program called Operation Pique, which included bouncing radio signals
off the ionosphere to affect the mental functions of people in selected
areas, including Eastern European nuclear installations.
The whole business sounds too much like an undeclared electromag-
Maxwell's Stiver Hammer 325
netic war. However, there are persistent complaints that the American
effort is being hampered in a strange way. Shortly after the rigged Na-
tional Academy of Sciences report on Project Seafarer, for example, the
Navy sent a delegation to a meeting at the National Security Agency to
complain about an alleged "zap gap" between the United States and the
USSR, and to ask other delegates to push for more research money for
turning nonthermal EMR effects into weapons. According to one of my
Navy contacts, the NSA sent several "experts" who had never done any
research on EMR and who firmly advised the Navy to abandon its pro-
gram. Later he voiced the same suspicions I'd already heard from others:
Given the allegedly vigorous Soviet electroweapons research program and
the underfunding of ours, he concluded that there is a mole highly
placed in the American military science establishment, perhaps in the
NSA itself, who is preventing us from acquiring any clear competence in
this field.
Unfortunately, my source, having served as a hatchet man for defund-
ing research on the environmental dangers of electropollution, isn't ex-
actly reliable. Complaints of a mole could easily be a blind for a large
and intense U.S. EMR weapons program. That there's more going on
than meets the eye is clear from my last communication with Dietrich
Beischer. In 1977 the Erie Magnetics Company of Buffalo, New York,
sponsored a small private conference, and Beischer and I both planned to
attend. Just before the meeting, I got a call from him. With no pream-
ble or explanation, he blurted out: "I'm at a pay phone. I can't talk
long. They are watching me. I can't come to the meeting or ever com-
municate with you again. I'm sorry. You've been a good friend. Good-
bye." Soon afterward I called his office at Pensacola and was told, "I'm
sorry, there is no one here by that name," just as in the movies. A guy
who had done important research there for decades just disappeared.
The crucial point to me is that both sides may be embarking on
hostilities whose consequences for the whole biosphere no one can yet
foresee. Even if the Soviets have begun an electromagnetic war and we're
totally unprepared to fight back, I doubt that a simple buildup and
retaliation are the best course for our own survival.
The extent of the danger can be dramatized best by considering one
last potential weapon. Around 1900, Nikola Tesla theorized that ELF
and VLF radiation could enter the magnetosphere, the magnetic field in
space around the earth, and change its structure. He has recently been
proven right.
The magnetosphere and its Van Allen belts of trapped particles pro-
duce many kinds of EMR. Since they were initially studied through
audio amplifiers, the first kinds to be discovered, around 1920, were
given fanciful names like whistlers, dawn chorus, and lion roars. Many
of them result from VLF waves produced by lightning, which bounce
back and forth from pole to pole along "magnetic ducts" in the magne-
tosphere. This resonance amplifies the original VLF waves enormously.
Satellite measurements have proven that artificial energies from power
lines are similarly amplified high above the earth, a phenomenon known
as power-line harmonic resonance (PLHR). Radio and microwave energy
also resonates in the magnetosphere. This amplified energy interacts
with the particles in the Van Allen belts, producing heat, light, X rays,
and, most important, a "fallout" of charged particles that serve as nuclei
for raindrops.
Recent work with sounding rockets has matched specific areas of such
ion precipitation with the energy from specific radio stations, and estab-
lished that the sifting down of charged particles generally occurs east of
the EMR source, following the general eastward drift of weather pat-
terns. In 1983, measurements from the Ariel 3 and 4 weather satellites
showed that the enormous amount of PLHR over North America had
created a permanent duct from the magnetosphere down into the upper
air, resulting in a continuous release of ions and energy over the whole
continent. In presenting this data at the March 1983 Symposium on
Electromagnetic Compatibility in Zurich, K. Bullough reminded the
audience that thunderstorms have been 25 percent more frequent over
North America between 1930 and 1975 than they were from 1900 to
1930, and suggested that the increased energy levels in the upper atmo-
sphere were responsible.
Since the mid-1970s there has been a dramatic increase in flooding,
drought, and attendant hardships due to inconsistent, anomalous
weather patterns. It appears likely that these have been caused in part by
electropollution and perhaps enhanced, whether deliberately or not, by
the Soviet woodpecker signal. It now seems feasible to induce cata-
strophic climate change over a target country, and even without such
weather warfare, continued expansion of the electrical power system
threatens the viability of all life on earth.
Critical Connections
It may be hard to convince ourselves that something we can't see, hear,

touch, taste, or smell can still hurt us so dreadfully. Yet the fact must
be faced, just as we've learned a healthy fear of nuclear radiation. Certain
scientists, some perhaps acting in a program of deliberate disinforma-
tion, keep telling the public that we still don't know whether elec-
tropollution is a threat to human health. That's simply not true.
Certainly we need to know more, but a multitude of risks have been
well documented.
Three dangers overshadow all others. The first has been conclusively
proven: ELF electromagnetic fields vibrating at about 30 to 100 hertz, even if
they're weaker than the earth's field, interfere with the cues that keep our biolog-
ical cycles properly timed; chronic stress and impaired disease resistance result.
Second, the available evidence strongly suggests that regulation of cel-
ular growth processes is impaired by electropollution, increasing cancer
rates and producing serious reproductive problems. Electromagnetic
weapons constitute a third class of hazards culminating in climatic ma-
nipulation from a sorcerer's-apprentice level of ignorance.
There may be other dangers, less sharply defined but no less real. All
cities, by their very nature as electrical centers, are jungles of inter-
penetrating fields and radiation that completely drown out the earth's
background throb. Is this an underlying reason why so many of them
have become jungles in another sense as well? Is this a partial explana-
tion for the fact that the rate of suicide between the ages of fifteen and
twenty-four rose from 5.1 per 100,000 in 1961 to 12.8 in 1981? Might
this be an invisible and thus overlooked reason why so many governmen-
tal leaders, working at the centers of the most powerful electromagnetic
networks, consistently make decisions that are against the best interests
of every being on earth? Is the subliminal stress of electronic smog mis-
interpreted as continual threats from outside—from other people and
other governments? In addition, if Teilhard de Chardin's noosphere ex-
ists, our artificial fields must mask it many times over, literally discon-
necting us from life's collective wisdom. This is not to ignore the plain
fact of evil, but it often seems there must be some other reason why
today's power elite are so willing to bring the whole world to the brink
of so many different kinds of destruction. Maybe they literally can't hear
the earth anymore.
Everyone worries about nuclear weapons as the most serious threat to
our survival. Their danger is indeed immediate and overwhelming. In
the long run, however, I believe the ultimate weapon is manipulation of
our electromagnetic environment, because it's imperceptibly subtle and
strikes at the core of life itself. We're dealing here with the most impor-
tant scientific discovery ever - the nature of life. Even if we survive the
chemical and atomic threats to our existence, there's a strong possibility
that increasing electropollution could set in motion irreversible changes
leading to our extinction before we're even aware of them.
All life pulsates in time to the earth, and our artificial fields cause
abnormal reactions in all organisms. Magnetic reversals may have pro-
duced the "great dyings" of the past by disrupting biocycles so as to
cause stress, sterility, birth defects, malignancies, and impaired brain
function. Human activities may well have duplicated in three decades
what otherwise would have taken five thousand years to develop during
the next reversal. What will we do if the incidence of deformed children
rises to 50 percent, if the cancer rate climbs to 75 percent? Will we be
able to pull the plug?
Somehow these dangers must be brought into the open so forcefully
that the entire population of the world is made aware of them. Scientists
must begin to ask and seek answers to the questions raised in this chap-
ter, regardless of the effect on their careers. These energies are too dan-
gerous to be entrusted forever to politicians, military leaders, and their
lapdog researchers.
Since our civilization is irreversibly dependent on electronics, aboli-
tion of EMR is out of the question. However, as a first step toward
averting disaster, we must halt the introduction of new sources of elec-
tromagnetic energy while we investigate the biohazards of those we al-
ready have with a completeness and honesty that have so far been in
short supply. New sources must be allowed only after their risks have
been evaluated on the basis of the knowledge acquired in such a mor-
atorium.
With an adequately funded research program, the moratorium need
last no more than five years, and the ensuing changes could almost cer-
tainly be performed without major economic trauma. It seems possible
that a different power frequency—say 400 hertz instead of 60—might
prove much safer. Burying power lines and providing them with
grounded shields would reduce the electric fields around them, and mag-
netic shielding is also feasible.
A major part of the safety changes would consist of energy-efficiency
reforms that would benefit the economy in the long run. These new
directions would have been taken years ago but for the opposition of
power companies concerned with their short-term profits, and a govern-
ment unwilling to challenge them. It is possible to redesign many ap-
pliances and communications devices so they use far less energy. The
entire power supply could be decentralized by feeding electricity from
renewable sources (wind, flowing water, sunlight, georhermal and ocean
thermal energy conversion, and so forth) into local distribution nets.
This would greatly decrease hazards by reducing the voltages and
amperages required. Ultimately, most EMR hazards could be eliminated
by the development of efficient photoelectric converters to be used as the
primary power source at each point of consumption. The changeover
would even pay for itself, as the loss factors of long-distance power trans-
mission—not to mention the astronomical costs of building and decom-
missioning short-lived nuclear power plants—were eliminated. Safety
need not imply giving up our beneficial machines.
Obviously, given the present technomilitary control of society in most
parts of the world, such sane efficiency will be immensely difficult to
achieve. Nevertheless, we must try. Electromagnetic energy presents us
with the same imperative as nuclear energy: Our survival depends on the
ability of upright scientists and other people of goodwill to break the
military-industrial death grip on our policy-making institutions.
Postscript: Political
Science
An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by

gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it
rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen
is that its opponents gradually die out and that the
growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the
beginning.
—Max Planck
Dispassionate philosopher inquiring into nature from the sheer love of

knowledge, single-minded alchemist puttering about a secluded base-
ment in search of elixirs to benefit all humanity—these ideals no longer
fit most scientists. Even the stereotype of Faust dreaming of demonic
power is outdated, for most scientists today are overspecialized and
anonymous—although science as a whole is somewhat Mephistophelian
in its disregard for the effects of its knowledge. It's a ponderous beast,
making enormous changes in the way we live but agonizingly slow to
change its own habits and viewpoints when they become outmoded.
The public's conception of the scientist remains closest to its image of
the philosopher—cold and logical, making decisions solely on the basis
of the facts, unswayed by emotion. The lay person's most common fear
about scientists is that they lack human feelings. During my twenty-five
years of research I've found this to be untrue yet no cause for comfort.
I've occasionally seen our species' nobler impulses among them, but I've
also found that scientists as a group are at least as subject to human
failings as people in other walks of life.
It has been like this throughout the history of science. Many, perhaps
even most, of its practitioners have been greedy, power-hungry, pres-
tige-seeking, dogmatic, pompous asses, not above political chicanery
and outright lying, cheating, and stealing. Examples abound right from
the start. Sir Francis Bacon, who in 1620 formulated the experimental
method on which all technical progress since then has been founded, not
only forgot to mention his considerable debt to William Gilbert but
apparently plagiarized some of his predecessor's work while publicly be-
littling it. In a similar way Emil Du Bois-Reymond based his own elec-
trical theory of the nerve impulse on Carlo Matteucci's work, then tried
to ridicule his mentor and take full credit.
Many a genius has been destroyed by people of lesser talent defending
the status quo. Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician who practiced
in Vienna during the mid-nineteenth century, demanded that his hospi-
tal colleagues and subordinates wash their hands, especially when mov-
ing from autopsies and sick wards to the charity childbirth ward he
directed. When the incidence of puerperal fever and resultant death de-
clined dramatically to well below that of the rich women's childbirth
ward, proving the importance of cleanliness even before Pasteur, Sem-
melweis was fired and vilified. His livelihood gone, he committed sui-
cide soon afterward.
The principal figure who for decades upheld the creed that dedifferen-
tiation was impossible was Paul Weiss, who dominated biology saying
the things his peers wanted to hear. Weiss was wrong, but along the
way he managed to cut short a number of careers.
For many years the American Medical Association scorned the idea of
vitamin-deficiency diseases and called the EEG electronic quackery. Even
today that august body contends that nutrition is basically irrelevant
to health. As the late-eighteenth-century Italian experimenter Abbe
Alberto Fortis observed in a letter chiding Spallanzani for his closed-
minded stance on dowsing, "... derision will never help in the devel-
opment of true knowledge."
In the past, these character flaws couldn't wholly prevent the recogni-
tion of scientific truths. Both sides of a controversy would fight with
equal vehemence, and the one with better evidence would usually win
sooner or later. In the last four decades, however, changes in the struc-
ture of scientific institutions have produced a situation so heavily
weighted in favor of the establishment that it impedes progress in health
care and prevents truly new ideas from getting a fair hearing in almost
all circumstances. The present system is in effect a dogmatic religion
with a self-perpetuating priesthood dedicated only to preserving the cur-
rent orthodoxies. The system rewards the sycophant and punishes the
visionary to a degree unparalleled in the four-hundred-year history of
modern science.
This situation has come about because research is now so expensive
that only governments and multinational corporations can pay for it.
The funds are dispensed by agencies staffed and run by bureaucrats who
aren't scientists themselves. As this system developed after World War
II, the question naturally arose as to how these scientifically ignorant
officials were to choose among competing grant applications. The logical
solution was to set up panels of scientists to evaluate requests in their
fields and then advise the bureaucrats.
This method is based on the naive assumption that scientists really are
more impartial than other people, so the result could have been pre-
dicted decades ago. In general, projects that propose a search for evi-
dence in support of new ideas aren't funded. Most review committees
approve nothing that would challenge the findings their members made
when they were struggling young researchers who created the current
theories, whereas projects that pander to these elder egos receive lavish
support. Eventually those who play the game become the new members
of the peer group, and thus the system perpetuates itself. As Erwin
Chargaff has remarked, "This continual turning off and on of the finan-
cial faucets produces Pavlovian effects," and most research becomes mere
water treading aimed at getting paid rather than finding anything new.
The intuitive "lunatic twinge," the urge to test a hunch, which is the
source of all scientific breakthroughs, is systematically excluded.
There has even been a scientific study documenting how choices made
by the peer review system depend almost entirely on whether the experts
are sympathetic or hostile to the hypothesis being suggested. True to
form, the National Academy of Sciences, which sponsored the investiga-
tion, suppressed its results for two years.
Membership on even a few peer review boards soon establishes one's
status in the "old boys' club" and leads to other benefits. Manuscripts
submitted to scientific journals are reviewed for validity in the same way
as grant requests. And who is better qualified to judge an article than
those same eminent experts with their laurels to guard? Publication is
accepted as evidence that an experiment has some basic value, and with-
out it the work sinks without a ripple. The circle is thus closed, and the
revolutionary, from whose ideas all new scientific concepts come, is on
the outside. Donald Goodwin, chairman of psychiatry at the University
of Kansas and an innovative researcher on alcoholism, has even put it in
the form of a law of exasperation: "If it's trivial, you can probably study
it. If it's important, you probably can't."
Another unforeseen abuse has arisen, which has lowered the quality of
training in medical schools. As the peer review system developed, aca-
demic institutions saw a golden opportunity. If the government wanted
all this research done, why shouldn't it help the schools with their over-
head, such as housing, utilities, bookkeeping, and ultimately the sal-
aries of the researchers, who were part of the faculty? The influx of
money corroded academic values. The idea arose that the best teacher
was the best researcher, and the best researcher was the one who pulled
down the biggest grants. A medical school became primarily a kennel of
researchers and only secondarily a place to teach future physicians. To
survive in academia, you have to get funded and then get published.
The epidemic of fraudulent reports—and I believe only a small percent-
age of the actual fakery has been discovered—is eloquent testimony of
the pressure to make a name in the lab.
There remain today few places for those whose talents lie in teaching
and clinical work. Many people who don't care about research are forced
to do it anyway. As a result, medical journals and teaching staffs are
both drowning in mediocrity.
Finally, we must add to these factors the buying of science by the
military. To call it a form of prostitution is an insult to the oldest
profession. Nearly two thirds of the $47-billion 1984 federal research
budget went for military work, and in the field of bioelectricity the
proportion was even higher. While military sponsors often allow more
technical innovation than others, their employees must keep their
mouths shut about environmental hazards and other moral issues that
link science to the broader concerns of civilization. In the long run, even
the growth of pure knowledge (if there is such a thing) can't flourish
behind this chain link fence.
If someone does start a heretical project, there are several ways of
dealing with the threat. Grants are limited, usually for a period of one
or two years. The experimenter then must reapply. Every application is a
voluminous document filled with fine-print forms and meaningless bu-
reaucratic jargon, requiring many days of data compilation and "creative
writing." Some researchers may simply get tired of them and quit. In
any case, they must run the same gauntlet of peers each time. The sim-
plest way to nip a challenge in the bud is to turn off the money or keep
the reports out of major journals by means of anonymous value judg-
ments from the review committees. You can always find something
wrong with a proposal or manuscript, no matter how well written or
scientifically impeccable it may be.
Determined rebels use guerrilla tactics. There are so many funding
agencies that the left hand often knoweth not what the right hand
doeth. A proposal may get by an obscure panel whose members aren't
yet aware of the danger. The snowstorms of paper churned out by the
research establishment have required the founding of many new journals
in each subspecialty. Some of these will accept papers that would auto-
matically be rejected by the big ones. In addition, there's an art to
writing a grant proposal that falls within accepted guidelines without
specifying exactly what the researchers intend to do.
If these methods succeed in prolonging the apostasy, the establish-
ment generally exerts pressure through the schools. Successful academics
are almost always true believers who are happy to curry favor by helping
to deny tenure to "questionable" investigators or by harassing them in a
number of ways. For example, in 1950 Gordon A. Atwater was fired as
chairman of the American Museum of Natural History astronomy de-
partment and curator of the Hayden Planetarium for publicly suggesting
that Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas should receive a fair hearing. That
same year Velikovsky's first book, Worlds in Collision, was renounced by
his publisher (Macmillan) even though it was a best seller, because a
group of influential astronomers led by Harvard's Harlow Shapley threat-
ened to boycott the textbook department that accounted for two thirds
of the company's sales. No matter what one may think of Velikovsky's
conclusions, that kind of backstairs persuasion is not science.
As the conflict escalates, the muzzled freethinker often goes directly
to the public to spread the pernicious doctrines. At this point the gloves
come off. Already a lightning rod for the wrath of the Olympian peers,
the would-be Prometheus writhes under attacks on his or her honesty,
scientific competence, and personal habits. The pigeons of Zeus cover
the new ideas with their droppings and conduct rigged experiments to
disprove them. In extreme cases, government agencies staffed and ad-
vised by the establishment begin legal harassment, such as the trial and
imprisonment that ended the career and life of Wilhelm Reich.
Sometime during or after the battle, it generally becomes obvious that
the iconoclast was right. The counterattack then shifts toward historical
revision. Establishment members publish papers claiming the new ideas
for themselves and omitting all references to the true originator. The
heretic's name is remembered only in connection with a condescending
catchphrase, while his or her own research programs, if any remain, are
defunded and the staff dispersed. The facts of the case eventually
emerge, but only at an immense toll on the innovator's time and energy.
To those who haven't tried to run a lab, these may seem like harsh
words, unbelievable, even paranoid. Nevertheless, these tactics are com-
monplace, and I've had personal experience with each and every one of
them.
I got a taste of the real world in my very first foray into research.
After World War II, I continued my education on the GI Bill, but those
benefits expired in 1947. I'd just married a fellow student named
Lillian, who had caught my eye during our first orientation lecture, and
I needed a summer job to help pay expenses and set up housekeeping. I
was lucky enough to get work as a lab assistant in the NYU School of
Medicine's surgical research department.
I worked with Co Tui, who was evaluating a recently published
method for separating individual amino acids from proteins as a step
toward concentrating foods for shipment to the starving. Dr. Co, a tiny
man whose black, spiky hair seemed to broadcast enthusiasm, inspired
me enormously. He was a brilliant researcher and a good friend. With
him I helped develop the assay technique and began to use it to study
changes in body proteins after surgery.
I was writing my first scientific paper when I walked to work one
morning and found our laboratory on the sidewalk—all our equipment,
notes, and materials junked in a big pile. I was told neither of us
worked there anymore; we were welcome to salvage anything we wanted
from the heap.
The head secretary told me what had happened. This was during a big
fund drive to build the present NYU Medical Center. One of the "so-
ciety surgeons" had lined up a million-dollar donation from one of his
patients and would see that it got into the fund, if he could choose a
new professor of experimental surgery—now. As fast as that, Co Tui and
his people were out. I vowed to Lillian: "Whatever I do in medicine,
I'm going to stay out of research."
I'm happy that I wasn't able to keep my promise. The research itself
was worth it all. Moreover, I don't want to give the impression that I
and my associates were alone against the world. Just when hope seemed
lost, there was always a crucial person, like Carlyle Jacobsen or the re-
search director's secretary, to help us out. However, right from my first
proposal to measure the current of injury in salamanders, I found that
research would mean a constant battle, and not only with admin-
istrators.
Before I began, I had to solve a technical problem with the electrodes.
Even two wires of the same metal had little chemical differences, which
gave rise to small electrical currents that could be misinterpreted as
coming from the animal. Also, the slightest pressure on the animal's
skin produced currents. No one understood why, but there they were. I
found descriptions in the older literature of silver electrodes with a layer
of silver chloride applied to them, which were reported to obviate the
false interelectrode currents. I made some, tested them, and then fitted
them with a short length of soft cotton wick, which got rid of the
pressure artifact. When I wrote up my results, I briefly described the
electrodes. Afterward I received a call from a prominent neu-
rophysiologist who wanted to visit the lab. "Very nice," I thought.
"Here's some recognition already." He was particularly interested in
how the electrodes were made and used. Some months later, damned if I
didn't find a paper by my visitor in one of the high-class journals, de-
scribing this new and excellent electrode he'd devised for measuring di-
rect-current potentials!
A couple of years later, while Charlie Bachman and I were looking for
the PN junction diode in bone, I was asked to give a talk on bone
electronics at a meeting in New York City. The audience included engi-
neers, physicists, physicians, and biologists. It was hard to talk to such a
diverse group. The engineers and physicists knew all about electronics
but nothing about bone, the biologists knew all about bone but nothing
about electronics, and the physicians were only interested in therapeutic
applications. At any rate, I reviewed some bone structure for the phys-
icists and some electronics for the biologists, and then went on to de-
scribe my experiments with Andy Bassett on bone piezoelectricity.
I probably should have sat down at that point, but I thought it would
be nice to talk about our present work. The rectifier concept was tre-
mendously exciting to me, and I thought we might get some useful
suggestions from the audience, so I described the experiments showing
that collagen and apatite were semiconductors, and discussed the im-
plications. After each talk a short time was set aside for questions and
comments, generally polite and dignified. However, as soon as I fin-
ished, a well-known orthopedic researcher literally ran up to the
audience microphone and blurted out, "I have never heard such a collec-
tion of inadequate data and misconceptions. It is an insult to this au-
dience. Dr. Becker has not presented satisfactory evidence for any
semiconducting property in bone. The best that can be said is that this
material may be a semi-insulator."
Semiconductors are so named because then properties place them be-
tween conductors and insulators, so you could very well call them semi-
insulators; the meaning would be the same. My opponent was playing a
crude game. While saying these derogatory things about me, he was
actually agreeing with my conclusion, merely u»ing a different term.
This man's antagonism had begun a couple of years before. When
Andy Bassett and I had finished our work on the piezoelectric effect in
bone, we wrote it up, submitted it to a scientific journal, and got it
accepted. Unbeknownst to us, this fellow had been working on the same
thing, but hadn't gotten as far in his experiments as we. Somehow he
learned of our work and its impending publication. He called Andy,
asking us to delay our report until he was ready to publish his own data.
Andy called me to talk it over. What counts in the scientific literature is
priority; he was asking us to surrender it. There was no ethical basis for
his request, and I would never have thought of asking him to delay had
the situation been reversed. I said, "Not on your life." Our paper was
published, and we'd acquired a "friend" for life.
Now there he was at the microphone trying to scuttle my presentation
with a little ambiguous double-talk. I thought, "He must be doing the
same work as we are again. If he wins this encounter, I'll have trouble
getting my data published, and he'll have a clear field for his." Instead
of defending the data, I explained that semi-insulator and semiconductor
were one and the same. I said I was surprised he didn't know that, but I
appreciated his approval of my data! Someone else in the audience stood
up in support of my position, and the crisis was past. The lab isn't the
only place a scientist has to stay alert.
In 1964, soon after the National Institutes of Health approved the
grant for our continuing work on bone, I received the VA's William S.
Middleton Award for outstanding research. That's a funny little story in
itself. The award is given by the VA's Central Office (VACO), whose
members had already decided on me, but candidates must be nominated
by regional officers, and the local powers were determined I shouldn't
get it. Eventually VACO had to order them to nominate me.
The award put me on salary from Washington instead of Syracuse,
and due to pressure from VACO I was soon designated the local chief of
research, replacing the man who signed all the papers at once. I was
determined to put the research house in order, and I instituted a number
of reforms, such as public disclosure of the funding allocations, and pro-
ductivity requirements, no matter how prominent an investigator might
be. Many of the reforms have been adopted throughout the VA system.
They didn't make me more popular, however. Over the next several
years there was continuous pressure from the medical school to allocate
VA research funds for people I felt were of little value to the VA pro-
gram itself; thus the money would have constituted a grant to the
school. I knew that if I didn't deliver I would eventually be removed
from the position of chief of research. In that case, I would go back on a
local clinical salary and my research program would again be in
jeopardy. Therefore, at the beginning of 1972 I applied for the position
of medical investigator in the VA research system, a post in which I
would be able to devote up to three fourths of my time to research. I was
accepted. The job was to begin a few months later; in the meantime I
continued as chief of research.
Apparently my new appointment escaped the notice of my local oppo-
nents. I'd accepted several invitations to speak at universities in the
South and combined them all into a week's trip. I left the office a day
early to prepare my material and pack. While I was still home, my
secretary called. She was crying, and said she'd just gotten a memo
firing me as chief of research and putting me to work as a general-duty
medical officer in the admitting office. This not only would have closed
our lab, but also would have kept me from practicing orthopedic sur-
gery.
It was a nice maneuver but, fortunately for me, it wasn't legal. As
medical investigator, I could be fired only by Washington, and the local
chief of staff soon got a letter from VACO ordering him to reinstate me.
Soon I began to get on some "enemies lists" at the national level, too.
In December 1974 I got word that our basic NIH grant (the one on
bone) hadn't been renewed. No reasons were given. This was highly
irregular, since applicants normally got the "pink sheets" with at least
the primary reviewer's comments, so they could find out what they'd
done wrong. Instead I was told I could write to the executive secretary
for a "summary" of the deliberations.
The summary was half a page of double-spaced typing. It said my
proposal had been lacking in clarity and direction, and that the experi-
mental procedures hadn't been spelled out in enough detail. The main
problem seemed to be that I was planning to do more than the reviewer
thought I could do with the money I was requesting. In addition, my
report on the perineural cell research with Bruce Baker was criticized as
"data poor." The statement concluded: "On the other hand, there are
some areas which appear to be worthy of support and are reasonably well
described, e.g., bone growth studies, regenerative growth, and electrical
field effects."
I was, to say the least, puzzled. The subjects "worthy of support"
were precisely the main ones we were working on. It didn't make any
sense until I reflected that this was just after I'd helped write the first
Sanguine report and had begun to testify about power line dangers be-
fore the New York Public Service Commission. Perhaps the Navy was
pressuring the NIH to shut me up.
If somebody at the federal level was trying to lock me out as early as
1974, he forgot to watch all the entrances, for my proposal of that year
on acupuncture was approved. I'd originally tacked this on to the main
NIH application, where it was criticized as inappropriate. I merely sent
it off to a different study section, which funded it. After a year we had
the positive results described in Chapter 13, and I presented them at an
NIH acupuncture conference in Bethesda, Maryland. Ours was the only
study going at the problem from a strictly scientific point of view, that
is, proceeding from a testable hypothesis, as opposed to the empirical
approach of actually putting the needles in and trying to decide if they
worked. To the NIH's basic question—is the system of points and lines
real?—our program was the only one giving an unequivocal answer: yes.
Nevertheless, when this grant came up for renewal in 1976, it, too,
was cut off. The stated reasons were that we hadn't published enough
and that the electrical system we found didn't have any relation to acu-
puncture. The first was obviously untrue—we'd published three papers,
had two more in press, and had submitted six others—and the second
was obvious pettifogging. How could anyone know what was related to
acupuncture before the research had been done? I happened to know the
chairman of the NIH acupuncture study section, so I wrote him a letter.
He said he was surprised, because the group itself had been pleased with
our report. By then it was obvious that something was up.
As of October 1976 we would have no more NIH support. As the
money dwindled, we juggled budgets and shaved expenses to cover our
costs, and with the help of Dave Murray, who was now chairman of the
orthopedic surgery department at the medical school, we kept the labo-
ratory intact and enormously productive. We actually published more
research than when we hadn't been under fire.
Early in that same year, however, my appointment as medical in-
vestigator had expired, and I had to reapply. Word came back that my
application was being "deferred," that is, it had been rejected, but I had
the option of reapplying immediately. In her accompanying letter, the
director of the VA's Medical Research Service wrote, "While your past
record and the strong letters of support [the peer reviews of my applica-
tion] were considered extremely favorable, the broad research proposal
with sketchy detail of technique and methodology was not considered
approvable." Now, the instructions for medical investigator applications
clearly stated that I was to spell out past accomplishments and indicate
future directions only in broad outline. Instead, the director was apply-
ing the criteria for first-time grant applicants just entering research. She
invited me to resubmit the proposal in the other format. But that would
not have helped. Even if the second application was approved, the
money would arrive six months after the lab had been closed and we had
gone our separate ways.
There was another strange thing about the rejection. By that time all
federal granting agencies had to provide the actual reports (with names
deleted) of the peers who had done the reviewing. Three out of the four
were long, detailed, well-thought-out documents in the standard cri-
tique format; they'd been neatly retyped, single spaced, on "reviewer's
report" forms with an elite typewriter. One was absolutely lavish in its
praise, saying that the VA was fortunate to have me and that the pro-
posed work would undoubtedly make great contributions to medicine.
Another was almost as laudatory.
One name had inadvertently been left on one page of the third review.
It was the name of a prominent orthopedic researcher with whom I'd
disagreed for years about commercialization of bone-healing devices.
Since our mutual disregard was well known in the orthopedic service, I
feel it was indefensible for the director to ask him to review my applica-
tion in the first place. Perhaps she expected a more damaging critique
from him. He did complain that the proposal was insufficiently detailed.
However, his appraisal was quite fair and even said my proposed work
was of "fundamental importance to the field of growth and healing." It
obviously led up to a recommendation for approval, but the last sentence
of that paragraph had been deleted.
The last review was half a page of vague objections, typed double
spaced on a pica machine with no semblance of the standard format.
There was a revealing mistake ("corrective" tissue instead of connective
tissue) that showed the writer had glanced at my proposal for cues but
really didn't know what it was about. Strangest of all was the phrasing
of this pseudoreview: "[Becker's proposal] is broad and sweeping in
scope and contains little documentation for technique and methodology.
However, in view of his past record and strong letters of support, a
decision should be deferred. ..." The director had used it almost word
for word in her letter.
She certainly had no motive for such conduct herself. I'd met her
briefly a few years before. In 1966 she'd been appointed chief of research
at the Buffalo VA Medical Center and had visited Syracuse to see how
I'd organised the program there. Our conversation was pleasant but
quite innocuious.
The incentive came from elsewhere. In 1982 a former chief of naval
research, with whom I'd made friends because of our common interest in
spinal cord regeneration, told me the Navy had protested the closing of
the lab. He said it had been a deliberate action coming from some level
higher than the VA, NIH, or NAS. Somewhere the decision was made
to "shut this guy up," he said, but he wanted me to know that he and
the Navy had had no part in it. At one point during the struggle, Andy
Marino got a call from a minor official in the VA. He said, "Listen,
we're under an awful lot of pressure here to shut you fellows off. Can't
you just back off a little bit, stop saying all these things, just sort of
downgrade that public hearing you're involved with?" This was the rea-
sonable approach—"We're only trying to help you"—so Andy spent
some time sympathizing with this guy's position. Then when he finally
asked him, "Where are you getting the pressure from?" Andy got an
answer: "Mostly from DOD."
At about the same time I received a clear message about what was
going on from one of the scientists from the "other side," one of those
who were doing a lot of well-funded work for the military but publish-
ing little. During a recess in a scientific meeting, I encountered him in
an empty lobby. Glancing over his shoulder, he drew me aside to the
windows and told me my only trouble was that I was going public. He
said he and all the rest of us knew there were nonthermal effects and
hazards, but we had to keep it quiet. I replied that if no one "went
public," the situation could never be corrected and a lot of people would
suffer needlessly. He told me that was no concern of mine and predicted
my attitude would ruin my career. Well, I could only agree with him on
the last point. I agreed that it probably already had, but at least I had a
clear conscience.
Rather than sit and wait for the executioner, I tried the back door. I
sent a detailed merit-review proposal, the kind filed by beginning re-
searchers, to a newly established section on rehabilitation research. In-
stead of applying through VACO, however, I routed it through the VA
regional office in Boston.
While I was waiting for a reply, I had to fend off another attack.
Before testifying at the PSC hearings, I'd notified my supervisor. With a
VA lawyer present, he'd told me in person that this was just the kind of
thing the VA wanted to fulfill its public obligations, and he even sent
me a letter to that effect. Then, just after I appeared on 60 Minutes and
talked about Sanguine, power lines, and the rigging of the NAS com-
mittee, I heard the va Personnel Office was investigating me for engag-
ing in nonapproved work - the testimony - on government time. I'd
gone to the hearings at my own expense to attack a public health prob-
lem, but never mind; they were still accusing me of stealing from the
taxpayers. If the charge was upheld, I would have to pay back part of my
salary and grants based on all the time I'd spent researching, preparing,
and giving the evidence.
Soon a company spy showed up in my office. I knew anything I said
would be carried straight to the top, so I mentioned, "just between you
and me," that I was in a position to reveal infractions committed by the
local administration that were more serious than their charge against
me. The next day I got a call from the director: There was no audit
being planned; that was just a rumor; it was all a big mistake.
Soon I got word that my funding ploy had worked. The rehabilitation
proposal was approved in routine fashion, and we were in business
through 1979. I'm sure there was hell to pay at VACO when the phan-
tom leader of the posse found that one of the director's underlings had
let us slip the noose. However, I knew there was no way we'd ever
finagle another grant, and I told everybody to start lining up another job
well in advance. As for me, I'd decided to retire as soon as I became
eligible in 1978. I was tired and discouraged. There was almost no
interest in the evidence I'd accumulated for the DC perineural system,
and I was pretty sure I'd never be able to do any research after this latest
grant ran out.
Then a magazine article provided some support that induced me to
continue for a while. In 1976, Smithsonian ran a piece called "If a Newt
Can Grow a New Limb, Maybe We Can." The author, Robert Bahr,
had written a popularized but accurate account after looking through the
scientific literature and finding, among others, our papers on rat limb
regeneration. Shortly afterward, I received a call from Don Yarborough,
a congressional lobbyist for the American Paralysis Association, a group
of people who were dissatisfied with the then-prevalent idea that nothing
could be done for paraplegics. Obviously, spinal cord regeneration was
the ultimate answer if it was possible. Yarborough asked if what Bahr
had written was true.
When I said it was, he enthusiastically asked for more details. I told
him the problems we'd encountered, both scientific and political, and
the fact that I was soon to retire and disband the lab. He asked me to
make no final decisions until he brought this situation to the attention
of his contacts in Congress.
Shortly thereafter, I was asked to see Senator Alan Cranston, then
chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairrs. Steve Smith was
also invited. Also present were representatives from NIH and other
agencies, who soon established their position. If the senator wanted to
support crackpot stuff like this, they fumed, he would have to see to it
that additional money was given to NIH, since they wouldn't fund this
work at the expense of "good, solid research projects."
However, Cranston obviously was interested, and he must have leaned
on the VA a little, for its policy changed briefly. The administrators
expanded rehabilitation research, appointing a well-known orthopedic
surgeon named Vernon Nickel to head it. As soon as he hit Washing-
ton, he called and asked what he could do for me. I told him that for
years I'd been wanting to organize an international symposium on mech-
anisms of growth control and their clinical promise. Before I'd even
finished describing the idea he asked how much I needed. I said
$25,000, and he said it was on its way. Predictably, Vernon didn't last
long in the capital; he was gone right alter I organized the conference,
but by then it was too late to cancel the funds.
The meeting was held in September 1979, and it exceeded all expec-
tations. Every important researcher in the field was there, except for
Meryl Rose, who can't stand crowds, and Marc Singer, who was ill. It
brought together in one set of proceedings irrefutable evidence that a
knowledge of the bioelectricity of growth would lead to incredible
breakthroughs in medicine. Since then, a few more grants for regenera-
tion work have opened up, and articles on bioelectromagnetism have
begun to appear more often in the journals.
At a June 1978 meeting in Washington, requested by Senator
Cranston to plan more regeneration research, my colleagues and I gave
(we thought) an exciting and scientifically successful preview of the work
that would be presented at the full-scale symposium a year later. At the
end, however, the director stood up and said our work was largely er-
roneous and wholly without significance. "We see absolutely no reason
to change the direction of VA research," she pontificated. "We see no
reason to expand any programs in the area of regeneration." That was
that for Cranston's initiative. The meeting appeared to be just a setup so
the VA bigwigs could write him a letter saying they'd duly considered
the work of all the experts, weighed it in the balance, and found it
wanting.
However, my co-workers and I decided to give it the old college try
for more funds. Our grant expired December 31, 1979, and we had to
submit our new proposal by the preceding January. By now our nemesis
was assistant chief medical director, so it was impossible to sneak one
around her. The VA seems to change its application instructions every
year, and this year we were specifically told our program was a "type
III." Therefore we weren't to submit a detailed write-up of each pro-
posed experiment. By this time we were obviously competent to do
them, and we would be judged on the basis of past productivity. On
that score we had no worries. We'd led the way in bioelectricity research
and we were arranging the first conference ever in our specialty of
growth control. Moreover, after our application was filed, during the
symposium, I arranged for the chiefs of the various VA research sections
to visit our lab, inspect the facilities, meet my replacement (Dave Mur-
ray), and discuss our future course. They said they wanted me to con-
tinue part time. Suddenly I felt we might survive after all.
Then, around Thanksgiving, came word that our application had been
disapproved. The director had pulled the same switch. She'd changed
procedures after receiving the proposal, instructing the reviewers to con-
sider it as a "type I" application from a new investigator, with emphasis
on future plans. As might be expected, one of the peers said, "This is a
poorly written, overly ambitious, incompletely detailed proposal." An-
other wrote, "Dr. Becker is one of the pioneers in the field of electrically
induced osteogenesis and regeneration. His work is visionary and excit-
ing, yet at the same time it is controversial and lacks quantitation." The
same old gobbledygook! Overly ambitious? By whose standards? Vision-
ary and exciting? Exactly what do you want in a research project? Quan-
titation? If you can start to grow a leg back on a rat, what statistics do
you want besides the procedures, photos, and the number of experi-
mental animals and controls?
Soon after the rejection, I heard hints through intermediaries that the
director might be willing to let us keep the laboratory together if I
severed all my connections with it and if the remaining members agreed
not to do any research on regeneration or electropollution. With such an
agreement, it might be possible to get interim funds pending action on
new proposals from my co-workers. The restrictions didn't leave much
room to work, but at least my people's livelihood would be spared for a
while, so we got back on the peer review treadmill.
Andy Marino, Joe Spadaro, and Dave Murray all submitted proposals
of their own late in 1979. Approval of any would have kept the lab
open, but the VA director went outside normal procedures to ensure
rejection of each one. She chose an ad hoc committee instead of the usual
peers to evaluate Spadaro's application. One of the critiques objected to a
lack of guidance for him due to the fact that "we understand Becker is
retiring." To judge Marino's plan for testing the three methods of elec-
trical osteogenesis for long-term side effects, she bypassed the reviewers
who would have been chosen routinely, picking instead someone who
had no trainning in orthopedics but who could be counted on to reject
anything remotely associated with me.
This man, a well-connected Purdue University embryologist, had for
several years been making it a habit to ridicule my work in some of his
own papers, while using it without credit as the basis of his own in
other publications. In 1978, in response to a Saturday Review article
describing regeneration work by me and others, a member of his lab had
written a long, vituperative letter to the editor accusing me of "bad
science" that had "made life difficult" for real researchers like him and
his partners. He accused me of falsifying data on the rat limb experi-
ment. He said the results I'd reported in three days were impossible,
even though he'd never bothered to repeat the experiment himself. He
ridiculed a claim that blastemas arose from white blood cells, an assertion
that neither I nor anyone else had ever made. He accused me of misquot-
ing other scientists' work to support my own ends. He charged me and
Stephen Smith with trying to pass off a photo of an intact frog as one
that had regrown a complete leg in one of Smith's experiments. Finally,
he castigated me for avoiding scientific journals in favor of publishing
my results in the popular press, even though I'd had well over a hundred
papers printed in the peer-reviewed literature.
Steve Smith was moved to answer the letter point by point, closing
with a denunciation of establishment scientists who responded to new
ideas with ridicule and slander. Furthermore, he concluded, "I do not
understand the rationale of those who feel that research is some obscure
process whose results should be made known to the public only as a
series of miraculous revelations. The decision as to what kind of research
to support is essentially a political one in this day and age, and I firmly
believe that an informed public opinion is a much better basis for that
decision than general obfuscation."
Normally even the most scurrilous charges are thrashed out in the
technical journals, however inadequate that process may be. The letter
writer, however, took it upon himself to send a copy to one of the
overseers of NIH funding. I suppose I could consider myself lucky that
by then there was no more damage anyone could do me in that quarter.
The eminent embryologist's vendetta continued into 1980. In Febru-
ary of that year, the Purdue Office of Public Information issued a press
release lauding the great man's own research and presenting him as a
white knight doing single combat against "myths." In it he accused me
of "plain ordinary fraud," repeating the accusations from his assistant's
letter. As a result, I sent the president of Purdue a long, detailed letter
itemizing his employee's actions during the past several years, and
threatening to sue both him and the university. Immediately I got a call
from the embryologist, in which he claimed he never meant anything
like that, and asking what I planned to do. I asked to see some apologies
in writing, and soon I received a nice letter expressing "deep regrets" for
the "rather garbled" press release and belatedly acknowledging that he
would never have done any regeneration work without the stimulus of
Smith's experiments, which in turn had descended from mine.
The point of summarizing this embarrassing behavior is that, at about
the same time he was talking with the Purdue press office, this gen-
tleman was also writing the "impartial" review of Andy's proposal. We
know who did the job because, in the small family of regeneration work-
ers, the fellow's contentious style and his practice of quoting mainly his
own research are immediately recognizable. His critique repeated some
of the same old charges against my own work, even though the proposal
wasn't mine. At one point he objected that one of Andy's experimental
controls was to use the devices on healthy bone. He sniffed, "I am not
aware that physicians are electrically stimulating uninjured bone in hu-
mans." Of course they weren't, but that part of the procedure was the
perfect way to test for side effects in normal bone—the whole point of
the experiment. The reviewer also wondered why some of the animals
were to be sacrificed after one or two months while looking for long-
term effects, knowing as well as any researcher that this was the normal
way of following changes in tissue. After all this, he complained that
there were no controls, when in reality the controls were to consist of
animals allowed to live out their normal life-spans (which he conve-
niently overlooked), as well as the very procedures he objected to.
Several paragraphs of the pink sheets were deleted. Perhaps they con-
tained more vitriol than even the VA thought was suitable for me. An-
other revealing criticism was left in, however. Since Andy had been part
of my lab, the reviewer felt that I "would exert considerable influence on
the character of the research proposed here," and for him that was an
unacceptable contamination.
The denouement was completely predictable. All the proposals were
rejected. We continued to work through 1980, supported at a low level
of productivity by the interim funds. I kept a small part of the tissue
culture lab going with a little money from the company that had made
the black boxes for our bone-healing stimulators. In it we did a scaled-
down version of Andy's proposed experiment to test for stimulation of
malignant cells from electrical osteogenesis—and found it.
From January through June of that year, most of our energy went into
drafting one last proposal and trying to get a fair hearing from someone
else in the VA. This time we stipulated right in the proposal that I
would officially retire and that Dave Murray would become the lab's
principal investigator. Of course, the research director knew that I
would still talk to these people, and on December 19 we were informed
by phone of the final repudiation. As a last-ditch effort, I wrote a letter
of appeal to the chief VA administrator, who'd shown favorable interest
in our work a couple of years before. I asked him for a hearing and
investigation, but to no avail.
The lab ceased to exist on New Year's Day 1981. The local VA chief
had the gall to offer Andy and Joe jobs as night administrative officers.
Instead, Marino went to work at Louisiana State University Medical
School in Shreveport, where he still investigates the positive silver tech-
nique on a small scale. Spadaro also remained in orthopedic surgery, at
the SUNY Upstate Medical Center right there in Syracuse. Maria
Reichmanis decided she'd had enough of professional science, quit re-
search entirely, and got married. This was the end of the foremost group
working toward limb and spinal cord regeneration and one of the few
bioelectromagnetism labs outside the DOD-industry orbit.
I've taken the trouble to recount my experience in detail for two rea-
sons. Obviously, I want to tell people about it because it makes me
furious. More important, I want the general public to know that science
isn't run the way they read about it in the newspapers and magazines. I
want lay people to understand that they cannot automatically accept
scientists' pronouncements at face value, for too often they're self-serving
and misleading. I want our citizens, nonscientists as well as in-
vestigators, to work to change the way research is administered. The
way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning more and more
about less and less, and science is becoming our enemy instead of our
friend.
Glossary
Apatite: The mineral fraction of bone, microscopic calcium phosphate crystals
deposited on the preexisting collagen structure of the bone, making it
hard. See also Collagen.
Axon: The prolongation of a nerve cell that carries a message, or stimulus,
away from the cell body. For example, a motor nerve cell axon carries a
contraction stimulus to a muscle. See also Dendrite, Neuron.
Base pair: An association between two of the four fundamental chemical
groups that make up all DNA and RNA molecules. Base pairs are the
smallest structures that form units of meaning in the genetic code. The
more base pairs, the larger the molecule.
Biological cycles: Changes in the activities of living things in an ebb-and-flow
pattern. Such changes occur in almost all physical aspects, including sleep-
wakefulness, hormone levels, and numbers of white cells in the blood. The
predominant pattern is approximately twenty-four hours and usually fol-
lows the lunar day closely. See also Orcadian rhythm.
Blastema: The mass of primitive, unspecialized cells that appears at the site of
an injury in animals that regenerate. Blastema cells specialize and form the
replacement part.
Circadian rhythm: The predominant biological cycle of all living things, from
Latin circa ("approximately") and dies ("a day"). See also Biological cy-
cles.
Collagen: A protein that makes up most of the fibrous connective tissue that
holds the body's parts together. Tendons, ligaments, and scar tissue are
Glossary 349
composed almost entirely of collagen. It also forms the basic structure of
bone. See also Apatite.
Crystal lattice: The precise, orderly arrangement of atoms in a crystal, forming
a netlike structure.
Dedifferentiation: The process in which a mature, specialized cell returns to
its original, embryonic, unspecialized state. During dedifferentiation the
genes that code for all other cell types are made available for use by de-
repressing them. See also DIFFERENTATION, Gene, Redifferentiation.
Dendrite: The prolongation of a nerve cell that carries a message, or stimulus,
toward the cell body. For example, sensory nerve cell bodies receive stimuli
from receptors in the skin via their dendrites. See also Axon, Neuron.
Differentiation: The process in which a cell matures from a simple embryonic
type to a mature, specialized type in the adult. Differentiation involves
restricting, or repressing, all genes for other cell types. See also De-
differentiation, Gene, Redifferentiation.
DNA: The molecule in cells that contains genetic information.
Ectoderm: One of three primary tissues in the embryo, formed as differentia-
tion (cell specialization) is just beginning. The ectoderm gives rise to the
skin and nervous system. See also Endoderm, Mesoderm.
Electrode: A device, usually metal, that connects electronic equipment to a
living organism for the purpose of measuring electrical currents or vol-
tages in the organism, or delivering a measured electrical stimulus to the
organism.
Electrolyte: Any chemical compound that, when dissolved in water, separates
into charged atoms that permit the passage of electrical current through
the solution.
Embryogenesis: The growth of a new individual from a fertilized egg to the
moment of hatching or birth.
Endoderm: One of three primary tissues in the embryo, formed as differentia-
tion (cell specialization) is beginning. It forms the digestive organs. See
also Ectoderm, Mesoderm.
Epidermis: The outer layer of skin, having no blood vessels.
Epigenesis: The development of a complex organism from a simple, un-
differentiated unit, such as the egg cell. It is the opposite of preformation,
in which a complex organism was thought to develop from a smaller, but
similarly complex, antecedent, such as the homunculus that some early
biologists thought resided in the sperm or egg cell.
Epithelium: A general term for skin and for the lining of the digestive tract.
Exudate: Liquid, sometimes containing cells, that diffuses out from a wound or
surface structure of a living organism. Examples are a wound exudate and
the slime exudate from the skin of fish.
Galvanotaxis: The movement of a living organism toward or away from a
source of electric current.
Gene: A portion of a DNA molecule structured so as to produce a specific effect
in the cell.
Gene expression: Specific structure and activity of a cell in response to a group
of genes coded for such activity. For example, genes coded for muscle
cause a primitive cell to assume the structure and function of a muscle
cell.
Glia: A tissue composed of a variety of cells, mostly glial cells, that makes up
most of the nervous system. These cells have been considered nonneural in
the sense that they cannot produce nerve impulses. Therefore they have
been thought unable to transmit information, rather having protective and
nutritive roles for the nerve cells proper. This concept is changing. It is
now known that glial cells have electrical properties that, while not the
same as nerve impulse transmission, enable them to play a role in com-
munication in the body.
Hertz: Cycles per second, the unit for measuring the vibratory rate of elec-
tromagnetic radiation. Named for Heinrich Hertz, German physicist who
made the first experimental discovery of radio waves in 1888.
Homeostasis: The ability of living organisms to maintain a constant "internal
environment." For example, the human body maintains a constant amount
of dissolved oxygen in the blood at all times by means of various mecha-
nisms that sense the oxygen level and increase or decrease the breathing
rate.
In vitro: An experiment done in a glass dish on part of a living organism.
In vivo: An experiment done on an intact, whole organism.
Magnetosphere: The area around the earth in which the planet's magnetic field
exerts a stronger influence than the solar or interplanetary magnetic field.
It extends some 30,000 to 50,000 miles from the earth's surface. A prom-
inent feature of the magnetosphere is the Van Allen belts, areas of charged
particles trapped by the earth's magnetic field.
Magnetotactic: Active movement toward a magnetic pole.
Mesoderm: One of three primary tissue layers in the embryo, which develop as
differentiation (cell specialization) begins. It becomes the muscular and
circulatory system in the adult.
Mitosis: Cell division. Actual division takes only a few minutes but must be
preceded by a much longer period during which preparatory events, such
as duplication of DNA, take place. The entire process generally takes
about one clay.
Neoblast: An unspecialized embryonic cell retained in the adult bodies of cer-
tain primitive animals and called to the site of an injury to take part in
regenerative healing.
Glossary 351
Neuroepidermal junction: A structure formed from the union of skin and
nerve fibers at the site of tissue loss in animals capable of regeneration. It
produces the specific electrical currents that bring about the subsequent
regeneration.
Neurohormone: A chemical produced by nerve cells that has effects on other
nerve cells or other parts of the body.
Neuron, or neurone: A nerve cell.
Neurotransmitter: A chemical used to carry the nerve impulse across the syn-
apse.
Osteoblast: A cell that forms bone by producing the specific type of collagen
that forms bone's underlying structure.
Osteogenesis: The formation of new bone, whether in embryogenesis,
postnatal development, or fracture healing.
PEMF: Pulsed electromagnetic field.
Periosteum: A layer of tough, fibrous collagen that surrounds each bone. It
contains cells that turn into osteoblasts during fracture healing.
Photoelectric material: A substance that changes light into electrical energy,
producing an electric current when light shines on it.
Piezoelectric material: A substance that changes mechanical stress into elec-
trical energy, producing an electrical current when deformed by pressure
or bending.
Potential: Another term for voltage, which may at times be limited to a volt-
age that exists without a current but is potentially able to cause a current
to flow if a circuit is completed.
Preformation: See Epigenesis.
Pyroelectric material: A substance that changes thermal energy into electrical
energy, producing an electric current when heated.
Redifferentiation: The process in which a previously mature cell that has de-
differentiated becomes a mature, specialized cell again. See also De-
differentiation , Differentiation .
Salamander: Any of a group of amphibians related to frogs but retaining a tail
throughout their lives. Salamanders live in water or moist environments.
Most are 2 to 3 inches long, but some grow to more than a foot in length.
Since salamanders are vertebrates, with an anatomy similar to ours, and
since they regenerate many parts of their bodies very well, they are the
animals most commonly used in regeneration research.
Schwann cells: The cells that surround all of the nerves outside of the brain
and spinal cord. See also Glia.
Sciatic nerve: The main nerve in the leg. It includes both motor nerve fibers
carrying impulses to the leg muscles and sensory nerve fibers carrying
impulses to the brain.
Semiconduction: The conduction of electrical current by the movement of
electrons or "holes" (the absence of electrons) through a crystal lattice. It is
the third and most recently discovered method of electrical conduction.
The others are metallic conduction, which works by means of electrons
traveling along a wire, and ionic conduction, which works by movement
of charged atoms (ions) in an electrolyte. Semiconductors conduct less cur-
rent than metals but are far more versatile than either of the other types of
conduction. Thus they are the basic materials of the transistors and inte-
grated circuits used in most electronic devices today.
Superconduction: The conduction of an electrical current by a specific material
that under certain circumstances (generally very low temperatures) offers
no resistance to the flow. Such a current will continue undiminished as
long as the necessary circumstances are maintained.
Synapse: The junction between one nerve cell and another, or between a nerve
cell and some other cell. See also Neurotransmitter.
Undifferentiated: Unspecialized, a term applied to cells that are in a primitive
or embryonic state. See also Dedifferentiation, Differentiation, Re-
differentiation .
Vertebrate: Any of the animals that have backbones, including all fish, am-
phibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. All vertebrates share the same
basic anatomical arrangement, with a backbone, four extremities, and sim-
ilar construction of the muscular, nervous, and circulatory systems.

The Body Electric - DR Becker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Body Electric - DR Becker

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Body Electric - DR Becker

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the structure of Bellevue Hospital described in the passage?

What is the structure of Bellevue Hospital described in the passage?

What types of patients were commonly admitted to Bellevue Hospital during wartime?

What types of patients were commonly admitted to Bellevue Hospital during wartime?

Contents

I remember how it was before penicillin. I was a medical student at the

Salamander: energy's seed sleeping interred in the

Failed Healing in Bone

As an orthopedic surgeon, I often pondered one particular breakdown of

STAGES OF FRACTURE HEALING

A Fable Made Fact

TREMBLEY'S DISCOVERY: ANIMAL OR PLANT?

REGENERATION BY A HYDRA CUT IN HALF LENGTHWISE

A PARTIALLY SPLIT HYDRA'S BODY GROWS TWO "HEADS"

THE SALAMANDER'S SKELETON - AS COMPLEX AS OURS

THE SALAMANDER'S NERVOUS SYSTEM—FORERUNNER OF OURS

Reneration was largely forgotten for a century. Spallanzani had been

As the nineteenth century drew to a close and the embryologists con-

MEIOSIS—FORMATION OF SEX CELLS

At first this idea wasn't well received. It was strenuously opposed by

There's a superficial similarity between this genetic mechanism and

DIFFERENTIATION—FROM EGG TO SPECIALIZED CELLS

DEDIFFERENTIATE—FROM SPECIALIZED CELLS BACK TO NEO-

After Morgan's work on salamander limb regrowth early in this century,

THE LATE BLASTEMA ALREADY HAS ITS INSTRUCTIONS

THE EARLY BLASTEMA GETS INSTRUCTIONS FROM NEARBY

FORMING A TWO-HEADED PLANARIAN

DEDIFFERENTIATE: PARTIAL OR COMPLETE?

THE NEUROEPIDERMAL JUNCTION

possibility was the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, one of several com-

These, then, were the shoulders on which I stood in 1958 as I began to

Bernstein's hypothesis has been confirmed in all important respects,

Real science is creative, as much so as painting, sculpture, or writing.

"Dr. Becker, could you please come to a special research committee

First I found a good supplier of salamanders and frogs, a Tennessee game

THE CURRENT OF INJURY: SALAMANDER VERSUS FROG

Here was confirmation better than my wildest dreams! Already, in my

THE CURRENT OF INJURY IS MORE THAN A SIDE EFFECT

Dr. Yntema agreed and urged me to write up a report for publication,

The basic texture of research consists of dreams into which

None of these things had the slightest relevance to life, according to

MARSH AND BEAMS'S EXPERIMENT

POLARIZED NERVE CELLS LINED UP IN CEREBRAL CORTEX

In another series of experiments, on brains removed from frogs and

Conducting in a New Mode

THREE WAYS OF CONDUCTING ELECTRICAL CURRENT

Szent-Gyorgyi pointed out that the molecular structure of many parts

Testing the Concept

The first order of business was to repeat Burr's measurements on sala-

ELECTRICAL MEASUREMENTS ON THE SALAMANDER

A DC FIELD PATTERN APPEARS IN ALL ANIMALS

THE HUMAN DC FIELD PATTERN

THE DC FIELD NEAR A FRACTURE

In my reading on solid-state electronics I found another way I could

THE HALL EFFECT

Charlie and I talked all afternoon, beginning fifteen years of fruitful

Closing the Circle

The Artifact Man and a Friend in Deed