When I was in graduate school studying molecular biology, the phenomenon that fascinated me the most was gene regulation, or epigenetics. With only a handful of exceptions, each cell in a person’s or organism’s body contains all the same genes (which are composed of DNA). What makes each cell in the body different is how that DNA is read—that is, which genes are turned off or on and how frequently they are activated. What decides which of the genome’s tens of thousands of genes to express in any given cell to create a muscle cell, for example, as opposed to a neuron or white blood cell?

 

Some of the research I undertook led me to conclude that our genome assumes a highly ordered and conserved three-dimensional structure during interphase (the stage of a cell’s life when the genes of cells are being read). In this stage, the chromosomes unravel into what looks under a microscope like a random tangle of DNA. Because of the size and complexity of a cell’s DNA, the order might not be visually apparent, but I thought that it might be possible to tag certain stretches of DNA and look into the validity of my hypothesis. It seemed to me that over time, a relationship could be established through natural selection between the location of a gene and the regulator molecules that routinely encounter that portion of the genome. I thought that this three-dimensional structure might also account for the position that portions of genes occupy along the chromosomes. Some genes have components that appear to be widely separated during cell division when chromosomes are coiled and recognizable; sometimes they’re not even located on the same chromosome. But in interphase, they may, in fact, be closely and optimally positioned.

 

But the more I studied the phenomenon of gene regulation, the more I thought that something else had to be in play. My ideas wouldn’t have found much acceptance in academic circles then—and would be controversial even now—but I was on my way out of academia by then anyway. Still, I retained my fascination for the ways in which life operates on the molecular level. And I continued to read material that helped to further develop my ideas about gene regulation.

 

In my studies, I came across the work of orthopedic surgeon Robert Becker, who conducted a series of elegant experiments yielding a wealth of data concerning regeneration in amphibians and humans. In plants and many animals, such as hydra, starfish, and salamanders, true regeneration of damaged or lost parts occurs routinely. Cells previously differentiated into a particular type will dedifferentiate into embryonic-like cells (activating slumbering genes and switching off others) and then redifferentiate into the cells necessary to replace the injured or missing part.

 

Salamanders can regenerate entire limbs, and chopped-up starfish can often regenerate entire new bodies from pieces of their arms. In humans, however, the only true regeneration that normally takes place is in the repair of bone fractures, where marrow cells dedifferentiate into neo-embryonic cells, then into a primitive type of cartilage cell, then into cartilage cells, and then into new bone cells. Having detected a change in electric potential that preceded regeneration in salamanders, Becker and his co-workers discovered that in cases where human bone fractures were not healing on their own, application of a trillionth of an ampere of negative current to the area would stimulate the regenerative process and the fracture would heal. Clearly, the electromagnetic stimulus has an effect on the expression of the DNA of the cell. Less positive effects of electromagnetic fields on DNA are reflected in the recent findings linking increased rates of cancer to overexposure to fields created by power lines.

 

That electromagnetic fields could have an effect on molecules such as DNA and its regulatory enzymes is no surprise to anyone who is familiar with biochemistry. Atoms and molecules react and combine with one another based upon the charges of molecules and/or their parts. Water works as an effective solvent for hydrophilic molecules because the arrangement of oxygen and hydrogen produces a negative end to the molecule and a positive one. The oxygen molecule “hugs” electrons to it by virtue of its larger nucleus so that the oxygen atom is negative, while the smaller hydrogen atoms “lose” their electrons to the oxygen and are more positive. The molecular structure of hydrophilic substances tends to be polarized electrically, so that they are attracted to water molecules. Enzymatic reactions are usually determined by the way in which amino acids fold and display their various negatively and positively charged (or neutral/hydrophobic) projections and pockets, which then fit as a charged lock and key to another protein or molecule.

 

The regulatory “transcription factors” that attach or detach from the regulatory portion of a gene (thus promoting or inhibiting the RNA polymerase to start reading the gene, for those of you who might have some background in genetics) are structured in the same polarized (or nonpolarized), folded arrangements as most enzymes.

 

Electromagnetic energy imparted to the electron orbitals of the regulatory transcription factors can alter the way that the molecule folds, in just the same way that proteins respond to other forms of energy, such as heat, light, and sound. Molecules and atoms lose or gain electrons, or their electrons are boosted into different orbitals, when exposed to the appropriate quanta of energy; this process affects which molecular subunits are attracted to one another and how. The coagulation of a protein from heat is a common example of a different folding arrangement of a string of amino acids in response to energy input. In such a way, energy imparted to regulatory transcription factors would alter their shape and therefore, their reactivity.

 

The information about the levels of energy needed to encourage bone healing got me to thinking about how much energy is produced by our brain waves. Studies in electroencephalography have shown that the brain emits electrical signals of one-millionth of a volt or so. The “current of injury” produced by the nerves and bone matrix, which stimulates the differentiation of marrow cells to heal a bone fracture, falls within the millivolt range (peaking around 6 to 7 millivolts). As you may recall from the discussion above, only a trillionth of an ampere is needed to promote cell differentiation in healing bone fractures.

 

In addition, Becker and colleagues discovered a second nervous system that operates in humans, one which involves a DC analog type of data transmission (as opposed to the digitally based system of our nervous systems) that involves the perineural cells and information contained in electromagnetic fields. Information in this system is transmitted by means of a flow of semi-conducting DC current. Experiments conducted by Becker showed that this DC analog system was a causative agent in stimulating the healing of bone fractures in rats (where all nerve cells to the areas were severed).

 

Then I read a study that showed that when a human subject was requested to make a certain movement after being given a signal, an increase in negative DC current was detected after the signal, but almost a half-second before the muscular action was performed. Becker feels that the DC current is somehow involved in preparing the neurons to fire the command to move the muscles. Could this DC current, as well as our brainwaves and other bioelectric potentials, represent the manipulations of consciousness? I’ll assume, for the purposes of this particular discussion, that they might.

 

Of course, those who believe that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of neurological complexity can no doubt come up with a model in which this electromagnetic/molecular mechanism operates but is not regulated by consciousness. To me, trying to make sense of gene regulation without figuring in consciousness is the equivalent of assuming that a television set makes up and schedules its own programs. But rather than try to prove that consciousness is the entity making the decisions in reading our genes (for those opposed, nothing will suffice; for those who are on the same page, it’s not necessary; for those undecided, you’ll just have to keep researching to make up your mind one way or another), I want to focus on discussing on a possible mechanism.  For this discussion, we’ll accept as a premise that humans are conscious beings and, as many consciousness researchers propose, that consciousness creates matter (and energy), rather than the other way around.

 

Using this as a starting point, it seems quite reasonable to suggest that consciousness could use electromagnetic fields in order to act upon matter. Drs. D. L. Lantz and M. Barry Sterman, professors at UCLA’s school of medicine, used biofeedback to treat epilepsy, which is caused by either a physical lesion or a chemical abnormality in the brain. Dr. Sterman reported in an interview that more than 60 percent of his patients had experienced 60 percent seizure reduction by learning how to reduce, mentally, the electrical excitability that triggers seizures along the brain’s motor pathway. These subjects are voluntarily and deliberately altering their brain wave activity, producing a measurable physical/electrical effect. Experiments by Dr. Jonathan Wolpaw at the Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research demonstrated that subjects can even use their amplified brain waves to move a cursor around on a computer screen.

 

In addition, studies have shown that certain patterns of activities in different portions of the brain are correlated with certain personality types or emotional states. Experiments conducted by Andrew Tomarken, Richard Davidson and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin in Madison have shown that people with hyperactivation in the left frontal lobe may exhibit more optimistic personality traits, whereas less activity in the left frontal lobe compared to the right frontal lobe was found to be linked to negative thinking and depression. Depression has been shown in several studies to lower immune function; studies have demonstrated that differences in brain wave activity can also affect such immune functions as the activity of natural killer cells and levels of M class immunoglobulins.

 

Regulation of the genome through consciousness could be the explanation for observations of physiological changes between personalities of those persons who suffer from multiple personality disorder, such as differences in allergies. Significantly, EEG patterns for each personality of a multiple personality have been found to differ from one another. And as is becoming increasingly clear, our thoughts and emotions actually stimulate the production of chemicals known as neuropeptides, for which there are receptors on the membranes of cells throughout our entire bodies. Our thoughts and emotions possess a tangible, even measurable electromagnetic component, and this electromagnetic component could direct the interpretation of our DNA.

 

Our conscious minds could then have several different modes of biological/genetic action available to them: 1) They could affect gene regulation by directing the appropriate amount of energy to the appropriate regulatory transcription factors or related molecules (such as those residing in the cell membrane), affecting which genes are read and how often. 2) They could indirectly affect gene regulation by means of a cascade affect; regulatory enzymes produced by a direct electromagnetic action could then have further biochemical regulatory action on the genome. 3) The DC analog current could establish an electromagnetic blueprint or template which furnishes information to the regulatory transcription factors by means of their position within the field.

 

 

 

Obviously, the advantages to such methods would be that they are the least invasive, with the fewest possible side-effects. Our bodies regulate our metabolic activities by producing extraordinarily minute amounts of molecules at just the right time in just the right tissue. Current pharmaceutical methods flood the body with chemicals in all kinds of tissues. Side-effects occur, in part, because the same chemicals that perform one task in one tissue will do something else in another. For example, cyclic AMP can stimulate the synthesis and release of steroid hormones by the adrenal glands and gonads, whereas in the liver, it is responsible for breaking glycogen (the energy storage molecule for animals) into the sugar glucose. I believe that consciousness possesses the intelligence and omniscience necessary to make regulatory decisions that have the optimum, most balanced effect on all systems in the body.

 

In a world increasingly enamored with genetically engineered solutions to a wide variety of medical and social ills, an awareness of how our consciousness manipulates our genetic information is critical to our health and progress. Rather than embracing the overly simplistic concept of good genes vs. bad genes, we should be attempting to understand how our genomes work as a whole and in context, and how a different reading of an individual’s genome might give us the results that we hope for. It is now well-known that one copy of the gene for sickle cell anemia confers resistance to malaria and evidence also suggests that one allele for Tay Sachs may confer resistance to tuberculosis. Despite its impressive breakthroughs, genetic engineering is expensive, risky, and the long term outcome uncertain. The successes that have been obtained by these methods have been costly, and the potential abuses and unintended consequences are disturbing.

 

Up until now, science has primarily turned its attention to one gene at a time; but perhaps it is as useful to envision our genome is as massive pool of available information. Depending upon both internal and external conditions, different portions of this pool, or database, can be called upon. Rather than conceptualizing the sum total of our genes as some sort of final script that cannot be deviated from, I think of it as an artist’s paint box, or the palette in a computer paint program. All sorts of colors and shades exist to be used, but not all of them will necessarily be used for any particular painting. Some will be used more than others. But that doesn’t mean that the artist couldn’t create a different painting with the same paint box or palette. He or she could select different colors and paint a different but just as successful painting. Or colors could be selected that weren’t so successful.

 

Say, for example, you possessed a particular gene that might predispose you towards breast cancer. A genetic predeterminist would tell you that you had an 85% chance of contracting breast cancer, depending, probably, upon what kinds of carcinogens you’d been exposed to during your lifetime. However, this gene is part of an entire complex of synergistically interacting genes and gene products. Under current ecological, psychological, and sociological conditions, this gene could, in fact, lead to an 85% rate of breast cancer. But genes don’t exist or act independently. They act in concert with other genes and their products interact with other enzymes and proteins. In addition, as mentioned above, genes often are not arranged linearly on a chromosome; transcribing enzymes often skip around in order to compose a complete gene. Moreover, once the gene is transcribed, further editing of the mRNA strand takes place inside the nucleus. Gene sequences might be recombined in different combinations to form different gene products. In order for breast cancer to occur, an entire cascade sequence of metabolic events has to take place. You could, perhaps, trace the beginning of the cascade to the product of the cancer gene. But this gene could as easily remain silent and not express itself. Or it could be expressed in a different genetic and metabolic environment than a cancer-inducing one, where it would plug into an alternate biochemical pathway and have a completely different effect. It might produce an enzyme, for example, that helps build a necessary receptor molecule in the cell membrane.

  

 

 

Note: This is an edited version of an article that I wrote in 1994. A reference list for the studies cited is available on request.