Eugenics is a concept which asserts that societies should promote good genes while discouraging bad ones; this seems sensible.
P Gariaev’s research into fractal representation of DNA “texts” and human speech has been highly esteemed within Russia but was discredited due to interference by influential scientific skeptics in Western countries.
1. Pseudoscience
Pseudoscience refers to beliefs or practices that resemble science but lack its core elements: observation, gathering data and information gathering, creating working and null hypotheses for experimentation and conducting them and then drawing conclusions that either support the working hypothesis or disprove the null one; these conclusions must also have statistically significant p-values (p=0.05 or below) which distinguish scientific results from non-scientific ones.
Many pseudoscientific claims are demonstrably incorrect or at best, unproven; but others can have serious repercussions, for instance pseudoscientific anti-vaccine activism can lead people away from medical treatments proven to help, increasing the risk of contracting infectious diseases and spreading them further. Furthermore, pseudoscientific nonsense regarding alternative medicine efficacy could prompt people to abandon legitimate medical treatments only available through qualified health practitioners resulting in death or serious health conditions for them and others.
Pseudoscientific ideas can also contribute to division and conflict within societies, for example through pseudoscientific theories regarding race and ethnic classifications that lead to racism or even genocide.
Unfortunately, pseudoscience can be pervasive, taking the form of political ideology, religion, media bias and many other influences. Therefore, it’s critical that individuals understand the principles of science so as to recognize and reject pseudoscience when encountered.
Mario Bunge, the late physicist and philosopher who passed away in February 2020, wrote that science should serve humanity by uncovering Truth – not mere popular opinion. If humanity is to survive as a species, we must uncover this Truth about Nature and use it wisely for our own benefit as well as that of all humanity.
Krugliakov and his Group to Combat Pseudoscience in Russia’s suppression of empirically verified physical results in genetics research that meet Popp’s Criteria and are known as Wave Genetics is certainly not in the interests of Science or Life; indeed these actions should be considered pseudoscience!
2. False claims
Gariaev and his team’s research is founded on the idea that genetic information is stored in a holographic quantum computer (DNA-WAVE). With this technology, artificial genes could potentially be created that allow plants or animals to grow more quickly while increasing resistance against diseases or other factors – providing a cost-cutting alternative to costly and outdated genetic engineering techniques currently used today.
Unfortunately, Gariaev and his colleagues’ work has been compromised by the interference of certain’skeptics’ within the Russian Academy of Sciences. It’s regrettable that such suppressive behavior should exist within an institution dedicated to science – rather than personal preferences and political movements.
Due to this suppression, much of its immense potential research has been lost. One should recall how relativity and quantum mechanics seemed strange when first proposed; their proponents faced harsh criticism because their theory did not fit within existing paradigms that were considered correct.
Shamefully, Gariaev and his team’s work have been discredited by those opposed to genetic engineering regulation. Critics have accused European Court of Justice judges and those supporting regulation as espousing “pseudoscience”, thus rendering any scientific integrity or rational discourse regarding new genetic engineering techniques compromised.
These attacks echo the politics of genetic pseudoscience which have historically been part of eugenics movement. Eugenicists believed certain traits such as blue eyes or blonde hair should be encouraged through selective breeding; this, however, was never proven using scientific method; similarly with phrenology; which claims that skull shape correlates to mental ability based on cultural bias and an egocentric view of humanity.
3. Suppression of science
Science’s central principle is the pursuit of truth about nature and human behavior. That’s why it is disheartening when researchers compromise their integrity by opening themselves up to political interpretations of their research, particularly during times of divisive identity politics, where popularization of scientific findings may invite sensationalising journalists or polemicists to come up with potentially hazardous interpretations of them.
The “junk DNA” interpretation is an example of this. This theory holds that most genes do not code for proteins but instead control non-cellular functions, such as cell division and metabolism – an interpretation that not only renders genetics obsolete but is both illogical and unsubstantiated.
Keep in mind that scientific ideas often seem strange when first proposed; Relativity was initially perceived to be just another theory until tested experimentally; quantum mechanics and germ theory of disease became accepted scientific facts after repeated experiments confirmed them – just as wave genetics will soon do.
Es is shocking to observe how the Russian Academy of Sciences has recently returned to an agenda of suppressing or attacking any scientific results or theories which don’t fit their ideological vision of what science should be. This form of Neolysenkoism cannot serve either science nor life well.
Recent actions taken by Krugliakov and his “Group to Combat Pseudoscience in Russia” to suppress highly promising genetic research results that met Popp’s criteria is especially disheartening. These results demonstrate that genetic traits can be controlled at a DNA level and used to regenerate vital internal organs in vivo – something no recombinant genetic modification technique could ever do before now. This technology renders current techniques for genetic modification obsolete; an insulting insult against all humanity, but especially so against an institution like Russia’s Academy of Sciences which should stand above politics or personal preferences to bring the greatest possible benefit for humanity at large.
4. Falsehoods
Wave genetics pseudoscience relies on several falsehoods. First, its claims assert that most human DNA consists of “junk,” when this is simply not true – junk DNA actually codes for proteins essential in gene regulation. Second, wave genetics promoters assert that DNA can be programmed into certain behaviors by beamed waves to activate or deactivate genes – this claim has proven false several times over. Finally, wave genetics claims resonant waves can activate or deactivate genes as claimed but often do the opposite effect than promised by waves which claims – instead.
Wave genetics‘ fundamental concept is that the genomes of higher organisms operate like computers on a quantum level. This belief leads to the hypothesis that DNA-wave programs, isomorphic materially, perform nonlocally in organisms. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven that genomes act this way;
Suppressing this work by the scientific community is shameful, particularly in Russia where original research was carried out under an atmosphere of scientific inquiry, given its immense potential benefits for all life on Earth. Krugliakov and other “skeptics” at the Russian Academy of Science should take no pleasure in looking down upon such work, and doing nothing to validate it as a legitimate scientific paradigm as an alternative to today’s outdated, dangerous and ineffective genetic engineering techniques.
