BioSeTI
FAQ
February,
2010
When
was the BioSeTI project started?
Originally,
the project was started in 2000, but shortly thereafter was placed on
hold while I spent time pursuing mainstream research. Active effort
on the BioSeTI project resumed in January of 2010.
Why
did you start the BioSeTI project?
A
coincidental set of circumstances captured my interest, spuring a new
direction of thinking. For more information, see: How the
BioSeTI Project got Started
What
are you trying to accomplish with the project?
Find
answers to questions and examine alternate models that appear to fit better
than currently accepted models of life and the universe.
What type of success do you expect?
We've
already been successful by identifying a mathematical progression in
the genetic code. The genetic code has been around for more than
three decades, so why hasn't someone seen this progression before?
That aside, success should not be measured in it's contribution to
technology or practical problem solving. First and foremost, the
BioSeTI project is a scholarly pursuit. And it is difficult to fail
at scholarly pursuits except by not undertaking them. Outcomes of
such pursuits have a high chance of altering our perspective, even
when nothing is found that might be considered useful in a practical
sense.
Is
the BioSeTI project a form of research on Intelligent Design?
No. However, some of the ideas proposed by BioSeTI might be shared with those
espousing Intelligent Design (ID). BioSeTI remains separate from ID
for a variety of reasons, one being that ID tends to elicit an
incendiary response in the halls of established science. ID tends to
be viewed by mainstream scientists as an attempt by religion to
reopen a dialog about miraculous creationism as a preeminent model
over Darwinian evolution, an argument that mainstream science
considers to have won. Our position is that the BioSeTI project is
not well served by associating itself with either side of a debate
about ID. With that said, BioSeTI also does not take a stand
against proposals of ID scientists without first hearing what
proposal is being considered, nor does it have a goal of refuting
Darwinism.
Does
BioSeTI agree with Darwin?
BioSeTI
does not disagree with Darwin. However, what arises out of NeoDarwinism
as it is currently constituted might be something that needs refining
so that it isn't so closely wed to the proposition that the universe
is preexistent to consciousness rather than concurrent with it or
that concurrence is a non-existent phenomenon. Again, the BioSeTI
project did not originate with a purpose of reexamining Darwinism nor
does it have that as one of its goals.
Do
you expect to receive funding for this research and do you expect to
publish any results in peer-reviewed journals?
Based
on knowledge and experience of biases in the system of mainstream
funding and publishing, it is not reasonable to expect to receive
funding through mainstream mechanisms or to be successful in
publishing all of our results in mainstream peer-reviewed journals at this time.
However, we hope that many of these barriers will break down as a
dialog on the subject starts and continues.
Why
do you distance BioSeTI from peer review and mainstream funding?
Generally speaking, mainstream
funding and publishing mechanisms are
geared towards mainstream research that has identifiable goals and
applications that are of a specific color. BioSeTI is simply not
a
mainstream project. BioSeTI will accept funding and may seek
outside resources when we are confident of success and funding is
required. For the time being, our needs are small and we are able
to
disseminate results via other mechanisms. In regard to peer
reviewed research, we have projects planned that might yield results
for publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, but we do not
limit research to only those projects that meet requirements demanded
by the mainstream. We agree that such a peer-review system is
essential to maintain quality in mainstream science, but that
peer-review can also have a dampening effect on research operating
outside of approved boundaries. In some of our planned projects,
we
do not feel that peer review will assist us to achieve a higher
standard at this time (because of deficiencies in the system, eg: lack
of qualified peers; bias; culture of criticism), but agree
that peer review will ultimately have to be brought to bear. We
feel
that subjecting this work to peer review immediately would stop some
of our projects before they are started, breed frustration on all
sides, and waste time.
Isn't
carrying out this project a waste of resources?
Few
resources are needed above those provided by infrastructures already
in place. Moreover, these infrastructures would not be benefited by
elimination of the BioSeTI project. It is asserted that costs for
the carrying out the project are minimal and the potential benefits
are high.
Where
are you intending to publish results of this project?
For
now, our intention is to make results available via the present
BioSeTI website as well as in book form (in preparation).
What
advantages do you see in pursuing BioSeTI over a mainstream science
project?
The
mainstream science projects I have been involved in over the past
twenty five years have all required large amounts of resources in terms of
grant funds, physical infrastructures, and specialized technical
assistance. Increasingly, these are more difficult to acquire and
newer impedances to carrying out mainstream research have emerged.
Over the past several years, for example, we have expended large
amounts of effort and resources to bring existing research
laboratories into compliance with environmental safety regulations.
BioSeTI is attractive because it needs few dollars, little space, no
special lab equipment, no specialized technical help, and does not
threaten safety. Moreover, the theoretical nature of the project
means that we can carry it out without having to be tied to a
physical place or working environment.
What benefits might come to student assistants working on the BioSeTI
project?
It
might be difficult for the successful work of students to be
recognized by the culture now in place, but we are hopeful that will
change. Students can benefit immediately from experiencing
scholarship at its most fundamental level of practice.
What
do you mean by stating that the scientific method might have
misdirected us and could be self-validating?
It is
clear that the scientific method, as it is now constituted, has
proven successful in technology development. However, the following question needs to be addressed: have these
technological advances really improved the human condition? It
might
be argued that while technology has released us from many of the
maladies in the physical world, it may have resulted in evolving a
poorer human being. With that said, it might be important to take
a
better look at the process itself, rather than overlook its weaknesses
because it successfully delivers in techonolgy development. Since
proper perspective is a
significant aspect of scholarship, it might be worth asking if
widely-held views of the scientific method are worth reexamining.
For one thing, it is widely held in science that
objectivity is a core component of the scientific method. That
is, the
observer (the scientist), under ideal conditions, does not affect
what is being observed and does not affect experimental outcomes.
But research results in quantum physics suggest that this presumption
might be naive. It may even be that the very reason that the
scientific method is
successful is because the observer is part of the equation rather than
an objective witness to it. It may be that our perspective of
the scientific method is skewed and we need to be more objective
about objectivity.
Presuming
that the scientific method is self-validating, wouldn't that be a
good thing?
Yes
in terms of technological advances, but no in terms of comprehending
what is going on. Since the first purpose of science is to
understand the universe rather than to develop technology, it might
be more important to understand before we rush to judgment. In
our
rush to exploit science into technology, we may have missed
important concepts that would lead us to something better. Pehaps
our perception is skewed in such a way that we miss important
developments that we have not yet imagined because our minds are
predisposed to a certain direction.
Is
BioSeTI using the scientific method?
Yes,
mostly. However, we don't practice it as a law and will freely depart
from it when a greater purpose is served. It might be worth
noticing
that what is considered to be one of the greatest achievements of
biology
within the past few decades, sequencing the human genome, did not
operate by the scientific method, that is, hypothesis making and
testing. Currently, there are a lot of resources and efforts
directed at determining sequences of additional genomes (including
mapping
of genome differences among individuals) for comparative studies.
Since these important projects operate outside of
the scientific method, we should not consider
the method itself sarcosanct.
How
does the BioSeTI project depart from the scientific method and what
do you anticipate in terms of outcomes?
Many
of our projects utilize the scientific method, though some operate
similarly to genome projects populating mainstream science. If
our hypothesis is true (that success in the scientific method includes a
sort of placebo effect) then we might expect BioSeTI to have some success.
But at the same time, a wider and larger view is sought rather
than one
that is defined by the narrow constraints of pure reductionist goals
and exploitation for technology development. In particular,
success
in identifying non-coincidental patterns in the genome (per stated
aims of BioSeTI) should not be taken to be our highest goal. Our
goal is to uncover new information that will help us to develop
better working models and test them. At the very least, we hope
to
open a dialog among scientists who are too busy and too focused on
the minutia of their tasks at hand to think about flaws in our
classical models of life and the universe.