A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Kary Mullis – 2

Redirecting the Immune System:
An Interview with Dr. Kary Mullis

By David Jay Brown

Kary Mullis, Ph.D., won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which revolutionized the study of genetics. The journal Science listed Dr. Mullis’ invention of PCR as one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in human history.

PCR is a technique that allows chemists to easily, and inexpensively, replicate as much precise DNA as they need. This solved a core problem in genetics. Before PCR, the existing methods for making copies of those particular strands of DNA that one was interested in were slow, expensive and imprecise. The brilliance behind this invention, as well as it utter simplicity, lies in PCR’s ability to turn the job over to the very biomolecules that nature uses for copying DNA. PCR multiplies a single, microscopic strand of genetic material billions of times within hours. The process has many applications in medicine, genetics, biotechnology and forensics.

When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded Dr. Mullis the Nobel Prize, they said it had “hastened the rapid development of genetic engineering” and “greatly stimulated biochemical research and opened the way for new applications in medicine and biology.” Just flipping through any current issue of the journals Science or Nature one will encounter advertisements for PCR systems every few pages. In addition to revolutionizing the study of genetics, it’s also influenced popular culture and science fiction. Because PCR has the ability to extract DNA from fossils, it was the theoretical basis for the motion picture Jurassic Park. In reality, PCR is the basis of an entirely new scientific discipline, paleobiology.

Dr. Mullis earned his Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley in 1972. He has authored several major patents, and has received numerous, highly prestigious awards–including the Japan Prize in 1993, the Thomas A. Edison Award (1993), and the California Scientist of the Year Award (1992). He was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1998.

Dr. Mullis is the author of the book Dancing Naked In the Mind Field, an autobiographical account of his fascinating, and sometimes mind-bending adventures, which makes a compelling case for the existence of greater mystery in the world around us.

Dr. Mullis is currently a Distinguished Researcher at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute. He also serves on the board of scientific advisors of several companies, provides expert advice in legal matters involving DNA, and is a frequent lecturer at college campuses, corporations and academic meetings around the world. He is the inventor and founder of Altermune LLC. To find out more about Dr. Mullis’ work, visit his Web site:

In the following interview Kary and I discussed his current research, which offers tremendous hope as a medical treatment for dealing with virtually any type of pathogen by engaging the immune system in a novel way. 

David: Can you tell me about your latest research project?

Kary: I’m in the process of starting a project which involves a way to redirect the immune system from one target to another, by using a chemical linker that will link an immune response that you have made for one thing to a new target, a target to which you would now like to be immune.

David: How far along are you with this project?

Kary: We already know how to do it, and the experiments that we’ve tried to do it in with baby rats have worked. In the experiments we were able to take an immune response in baby rats that was made for this irrelevant organic chemical called phenylarsonic acid, and redirect that to this bacterium that would normally kill rats in a couple of days. By using this method we made it so that the bacterium wasn’t able to grow in them at all. The bacterium that we injected in them, Haemophilus influenzae, would have killed them within two days. We gave them the organism first. Then, right after that, we gave them the thing that was going to protect them, and it worked in a really big way. The untreated rats that got the Haemophilus influenzae had something like a million microorganisms per milliliter of their blood in 24 hours. It grows really fast in a baby rat. The ones that got our treatment had none that were detectable which in our protocol is less than 20 per milliliter. So it was a big deal.

That experiment was a contrived experiment. We didn’t start with a human that had been accidentally exposed to some pathogen. We started with some rats that had been intentionally exposed, and we knew exactly when and how much. We think that we can take that same system and adapt it, not only to humans, but to just about any human pathogen that we can define beforehand.

For instance, people have defined the pathogen that causes anthrax. We can isolate and grow it in the lab. We can make something that will bind to it. In fact, there are lots of people who have already made things that combine with anthrax. What this invention does is take the thing that combines with anthrax, and uses it as one end of a linker, the other end of which binds to the immune response that we already have. The invention is called Altermune, and it defines a class of drugs. In the case of the rats, we injected it in them. Hopefully, we’re going to be able to produce Altermune type drugs that you could ingest, so you won’t even have to have them injected. But if you’ve just been infected with smallpox, you won’t mind an injection.

David: What are some of the other potential applications that you see for it?

Kary: Most of the possibilities that immediately come to mind have to do with infectious disease. The way we’ve dealt with modifying our immune system since 1794–when Jenner discovered vaccination–hasn’t changed. We vaccinate ourselves for all kinds of things, and we do it in that way–by giving ourselves a damaged or dead copy of what we would like to be immune to. We inject it into your body, and you make an immune response to it over a period of a few weeks or months. Sometimes we have to give it to you on several occasions during that time. You make a whole bunch of antibodies, some of which will bind directly to that thing that we stuck in you or anything like it, and it permanently affects your immune system.

You can make someone immune to anthrax by vaccination, but if it has negative side-effects, they’re permanent. The Altermune method takes an immune response that you already have, and, temporarily redirects it to some target to which you now want to be immune. For the method to work, you have to be prepared for it by having the pathogen in hand, in a fairly purified form. For most of the organisms that we’re worried about in terms of bioterrorism, we do.

That’s what causes the worry about them–people have been working on them, and they’re around. Things like cholera or smallpox, all kinds of terrible things that people have been plagued by, and most of the people in the civilized world are no longer immune to them.

David: The implications sound staggering. What about diseases like cancer and AIDS?

Kary: Everybody asks, what about cancer?  Cancer is not at all like an infectious disease, in the sense that every cancer cell is not like every other cancer cell, even in the same tumor. Cancer is a tough one. First I’m going to deal with diseases that we know the exact nature of, where an organism is responsible for it, and the absence of that organism will cure it. That’s most infectious diseases.

AIDS doesn’t fall into that category. Nor does it affect many people despite the press that it gets.  Plus, the AIDS scientists say you can cure HIV if you want to, but you still don’t cure AIDS, because the disease has already done something to you. In terms of an infectious disease it’s kind of an oddball thing. I don’t think most of the research is reliable and I am not willing to spend a lot of effort on it. I’m one of the few outspoken people who say that there’s no good scientific evidence that the diseases that are called AIDS are really caused by the retrovirus called HIV–in spite of its name. I’ve had a lot of trouble from people over that issue, because many are convinced that it does. But my assessment is that it is an unsupported and unsubstantiated belief.

There are all kinds of possibilities for the first Altermune targets, but we’re going to concentrate on potential bioweapons. There’s a list of about twenty different pathogens that people have associated with various biological warfare programs. Most of them came from the Soviet Union, but some of them were developed in the US before 1969, when we stopped making them.

There’s fear that some of the pathogens have been produced intentionally and are still out there. How long is it going to be before somebody gives himself smallpox, flies to New York, and walks around for a couple of weeks until he dies? How many people would he infect? How many people would they infect? We have vaccines that may or may not be protective–nobody knows for sure. They might not work fast enough. They’re slow in terms of producing their results. With Altermune drugs, you don’t have to grow a new immune

Pages: 1 2

Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D.

Pushing the Limit:
An Interview with Dr. Leonard Hayflick

By David Jay Brown
Leonard Hayflick, Ph.D., is a microbiologist whose research revolutionized cell biology, and helped to provide a scientific foundation for the field of cellular gerontology (or cytogerontology)–the study of aging at the cellular level. Dr. Hayflick discovered that cultured normal human cells can only divide a finite number of times, after which they become senescent. This limited capacity for cell division is now known as the ‘Hayflick limit’, and this discovery has enabled other researchers to make significant progress towards understanding the molecular mechanisms of aging and cancer. 

Following this groundbreaking discovery, Dr. Hayflick developed the first normal human diploid fibroblast cell strains. One of these–called WI-38–is still the most widely used normal human cell strain in the world. Dr. Hayflick was also the first to produce a vaccine (the oral polio vaccine) from these cells. WI-38 cells, or similar human-cell strains, are used today for the manufacture of most human virus vaccines throughout the world–including poliomyelitis, rubella, rubeola, adenoviruses, measles, mumps, and rabies vaccines.

Approximately a billion people have received virus vaccine doses produced on WI-38 or similar diploid cell strains, yet Dr. Hayflick makes no profit from this. In fact, he was accused by the government of stealing its’ property when he asked for packaging and mailing costs from pharmaceutical manufacturers and viral research labs. Dr. Hayflick’s inability to patent and profit from his development–because at the time in 1962, one could not patent living matter–became the foundation for his lawsuit against the Federal government, which, after six years of litigation he won with an out-of-court settlement. This lawsuit helped to establish the discoverers or inventors intellectual property rights that researchers in the biotech industry take for granted today.

Dr. Hayflick also discovered the cause of primary atypical pneumonia (“walking pneumonia”). Dr. Hayflick demonstrated that this illness is caused by a member of the smallest free-living class of microorganisms–which he named Mycoplasma pneumoniae–and not by a virus, as was previously believed. Dr. Hayflick demonstrated this by growing these microorganisms in a medium that he developed.

Dr. Hayflick earned his Ph.D. at the University of Pennsylvania in 1956. He served ten years as an associate member of the Wistar Institute and two years as Assistant Professor of Research Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. In 1968 he was appointed Professor of Medical Microbiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, and he is currently a professor of anatomy on the faculty of the University of California, San Francisco. 

Dr. Hayflick was the Editor-in-Chief of Experimental Gerontology for thirteen years, president of the Gerontological Society of America, chairman of the Scientific Review Board of the American Federation for Aging Research, and a founding member and chairman of the executive committee of the Council of the National Institute on Aging. He has received more than 25 major awards–including the 1991 Sandoz Prize for Gerontological research and the Presidential Award from the International Organization of Mycoplasmology. Dr. Hayflick is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and is one of the principal advisors for the Ageless Animals Project–which is directed by John Guerin, who was also interviewed for this collection.

Dr Hayflick is the author of over 225 scientific papers and reviews–some of which are the among the most cited scientific papers in human history. He is also the author of the popular book How and Why We Age (Ballantine Books, 1994), which has been translated into ten languages. The story of Dr. Hayflick’s distinguished and controversial career is chronicled in a book by Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher called The Virus and the Vaccine (St. Martin’s Press, 2004), and in Stephen Hall’sMerchants of Immortality (Houghton Mifflin, 2003). Dr. Hayflick is currently working on a book about his experiences as scientist for Cambridge University Press.

I interviewed Dr. Hayflick on April 27, 2005. Dr. Hayflick is an elegant speaker. I was excited to hear firsthand about his discoveries, and greatly appreciated his patience in answering questions that I’m sure he’s answered a thousand times before, making sure that I understood every detail. We spoke about how the fetal cells that he cultured were used for viral research, vaccine production, cancer research and the causes of aging, and why he thinks that researching the causes of aging is more important than directing biomedical research efforts to the study of disease.

David: What inspired your interest in the biology of aging?

Dr. Hayflick: My interest in the biology of aging was a pure accident; it evolved from a discovery that I made in the early 1960s. The discovery that I made flew in the face of existing dogma at the time–dogma that was entrenched for more than sixty years–and because I was convinced that I had overthrown that dogma, the experiments that I did required some explanation, or at least some speculation as to what they meant. After conducting a number of experiments that excluded many possibilities that seemed reasonable, I was left with one possibility that I could not exclude, and that was that the observation that I had made was telling me something about longevity determination and/or aging. So I speculated on that possibility in the paper that I published with my colleague Paul Moorhead in 1962.

Then I began to realize that the field of aging at that time was, to put it mildly, an impoverished field. There were perhaps a dozen people in this country, at the most, who were working in this field–or, at least, who would admit in public that they were working in this field, because at that time the climate was such that to admit in public that you were working in the field of aging was tantamount to committing professional suicide. So people that worked in the field of aging often did so in the closet. Then because of my speculation, and because of the popularity that this paper began to assume, I was contacted by one or two of the dozen people working in the field of aging to speak at some of their congresses.

One person in particular was Dr. Nathan Shock, who is generally regarded as the father of modern gerontology in the United States. We became very good friends, and it was through him that I became introduced to other people in the field, in particular members of the Gerontological Society of America. This is the professional organization that people in the field of biology of aging and geriatric medicine, as well as the social and psychological aspects of aging–indeed, every aspect of aging–are members. So I went to their meetings, initially when I was invited to speak, and I began to realize that I was becoming a biogerontologist. This was not by intention, as I mentioned at the outset, by accident, and I became very interested in the subject. The rest is history.

David: Can you talk a little about how the fetal cells that you cultured were used for viral research and vaccine production?

Dr. Hayflick: At the time I was working at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia, which was directed by a man named Hilary Koprowski, who was a pioneer in polio vaccine research. (In fact, contrary to popular belief, Koprowski was the first person to develop, and actually test in humans, a live virus vaccine. It was not Albert Sabin as is popularly believed.) A fair proportion of the research activities at the Wistar Institute–by no means all of them–were conducted around virus vaccine research because of Koprowski’s interest, so I couldn’t help but learn more and more about human vaccine development and the problems therein.

And as luck would have it, my work with the normal human fetal cells directly impacted on the problems with human virus vaccines that emerged at that time. I suppose one could argue that was just a lucky break that I made the discovery that I did in the right place at the right time, because of what was emerging in the late ‘50s and early ‘60s with the polio vaccine. To give you some idea of the atmosphere at the time, poliovirus research was, I suppose, equivalent in the minds of scientists and the general public then as stem cell research is today. In other words, every other hour you read something about it or heard something about it.

So, first let me say what the problems were in vaccines at the time so that you’ll understand how my work fitted into it. The problem that was emerging at the time was centered on the fact that monkey kidney cells were used for the preparation of the virus vaccine. As I’m sure you know, viruses can only replicate on living cells; they cannot replicate on dead material as can bacteria. So, because you need lots of viruses in order to make vaccines, you need lots of cells to make lots of viruses. The cells that were chosen by Jonas Salk and others at the time for vaccine production were primary monkey kidney cells. There were other vaccines that used other types of cells. For example, the flu vaccine was made using embryonated eggs, and it still is today.

But the polio vaccine was made in monkey kidney cells. The

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Michael West

The Technology of Immortality:
An Interview with Dr. Michael West


By David Jay Brown

Michael D. West, Ph.D., is a geneticist, stem cell pioneer, and entrepreneur. He has extensive academic and business experience in age-related degenerative diseases, telomerase molecular biology, and human embryonic stem (ES) cell research. Dr. West founded the first biotechnology company focused on controlling the aging process in human cells, and he has spent the last twenty years researching the cellular and molecular mechanisms of human aging. He is the founder of Geron Corporation, a biotechnology firm in Menlo Park, California, and is currently the president and Chief Scientific Officer of Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) in Alameda, California. Geron funded the research that isolated human embryonic stem (ES) cells, and ACT is at the forefront of therapeutic cloning. ACT cloned the first human embryos for the purpose of advancing therapeutic research.

Human embryonic stem (ES) cells–the primal cells that give rise to essentially all cell types in the body–are now routinely grown in culture. This breakthrough technology is opening the door to an astonishing array of potential medical applications. ES cells can differentiate into all types of tissue and can be used to grow new organs. With ES cells scientists can literally grow new heart or new kidney cells, or perhaps soon, whole organs. Since ES cells can be made using one’s own DNA, the body will accept the new tissue as its own. Although ES cell therapy is still in it’s infancy, our understanding about ES cells is advancing rapidly and their therapeutic potential looks more promising every day.

Dr. West received his M.S. in Biology from Andrews University in 1982, and he earned his Ph.D. from the Baylor College of Medicine in 1989, concentrating on the biology of cellular aging. Dr. West’s research into the cellular and molecular mechanisms of human aging during the early 1990s led to his founding Geron. From 1990 to 1998, Dr. West was a Director and Vice President at Geron, where he initiated and managed research programs in telomerase therapy. Telomerase is an enzyme which allows cells to divide indefinitely. Inhibiting the production of telomerase in cancer cells kills them, and turning on telomerase production in healthy cells makes them essentially immortal. Dr. West also organized and managed the program at Geron from 1995 to 1998 which, in collaboration with Dr. James Thomson and Dr. John Gearhart, led to the first isolation of human embryonic stem and human embryonic germ cells.

Dr. West’s current biotechnology company, ACT, is applying human ES cell technology in the emerging field of regenerative medicine. ACT’s research is focused on the use of stem cell therapy in treating age-related disease and nuclear transfer technology, which allows for the production of stem cells to be genetically matched to the patient. They own or license over three hundred patents and patent applications related to the field of stem cell therapy, and a library of stem cells for acute clinical applications. In November 2001, researchers at ACT announced that they had cloned the first human embryos for the purpose of advancing therapeutic research. The results were limited in success. Although this process was carried out with eight eggs, only three began dividing, and only one was able to divide into six cells before stopping. Nonetheless, this was a dramatic demonstration that human cloning is indeed possible.

Dr. West currently serves as Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Scientific Officer of ACT, and is Adjunct Professor of Bioengineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also the author of the book The Immortal Cell, and the story of Dr. West’s quest to solve the mystery of human aging is chronicled Stephen Hall’s book Merchants of Immortality.

When I spoke with Dr. West I got a strong sense that he is truly excited by his research. We spoke about the potential therapeutic uses of ES cells, telomerase therapy, and the future of biotechnology.

David: What do you think are some of the biggest problems with modern medicine and what do you think needs to be done to help correct the situation?

Dr. West: I’m a gerontologist, and speaking from the standpoint of gerontology, the biggest mistake that I see medicine making today is in not adequately planning for the future, in what’s called the “age wave” or the “graying of America.” The aging of America and other industrialized countries is the greatest, or let’s say the most profound demographic trend of our time, and it’s going to greatly strain our resources to adequately care for the elderly. The risk we face is that, for the first time in the history of the United States, we will discriminate against a group of our citizens based on a biological characteristic–being their age–and simply say, “You’ve reached a certain age and we’re no longer going to provide medical services to you, because we won’t be able to afford it.” That’s not the kind of country I want to live in, or, I don’t think, for those of us who are entering that age bracket. I don’t think it’s the kind of future that we want to see, so it’s not an exaggeration to say that we have a crisis of epidemic proportions here with the aging population and its associated healthcare costs.

David: How did you get involved in embryonic stem cell research?

Dr. West: It goes back to the fundamental interest that I’ve had in the cellular basis of what’s called the “immortality of species.” As you know, life continues generation after generation, in an apparently immortal fashion. This is because germ-line cells (our sex cells) come from the previous generation of germ-line cells, and there’s an immortal lineage of these cells that connects the generations of all living beings on the planet. That lineage of cells is immortal in the sense that they have no dead ancestors and have survived all of the insults of life–free radical damage, cosmic rays, and everything else that can injure living things.

These cells have survived all those sources of injury and, according to some estimates, have been evolving for over four billion years as a continuous life form. Of course, this immortal lineage of cells that connects the generations, and causes babies to be born young, is of great interest to gerontologists. This is because the cells that make up the rest of our body–what’s called the somatic lineages of cells–clearly do not share in the immortality of the germ line. Our goal has been to learn from the immortality of the germ line and transfer these characteristics to somatic cells.

Telomerase was the first attempt to do that. Telomerase is an enzyme, a critical piece of which is a protein made by a gene commonly called the “telomerase gene.” The actual name for it is human telomerase reverse transcriptase, or hTERT for short. But that particular gene is turned “off” (it’s inactivated) in mortal cells that age, and it’s turned “on” (activated) in cells that are immortal. The gene is turned “on” in our germ-line cells and is turned “off” in most somatic cells.

David: And, unfortunately, our bodies are basically composed of somatic cells.

Dr. West: Yes. You probably know that back around 1992, we began trying to track down the telomerase gene, and we eventually managed to clone it. Having done that, we found that telomerase is useful for preventing somatic cells from aging. There are clearly cells in our body that don’t age, simply because they don’t divide. Heart muscle cells and neurons in the brain are two examples. It could be that they age as a consequence of other cells that are aging.

For instance, heart muscle cells do not divide and therefore do not age. But damage to heart muscle can occur due to a heart attack, arrhythmias, or other heart disease. Damage to the heart muscle could also be the result of the aging of cells of other biological structures, such as the cells that make up the vessels to the heart, or some other cells that have a finite life span and upon which the heart muscle is dependent for healthy functioning. When that tissue becomes diseased and the blood vessel can no longer feed the heart muscle, the heart muscle is damaged secondarily. But however you think about it, the point is that there are aging or damaged cells and tissues in our body that need to be replaced.

The ES cell research is an attempt to find a novel way of treating age-related disease. It’s essentially a transplant therapy, replacing damaged cells and tissues, by going back to this immortal germ line. These ES cells are so primitive that they are still in the immortal germ line. So when you make a somatic cell from an ES cell, the cells that result are born young, as a baby is born young. We are creating a technology to replace damaged cells and tissues with young cells as a therapy for aging.

David: Are ES cells currently being used to help repair damaged tissue?

Dr. West: No. It’s a brand-new technology. It’s so new that the first report of isolated ES cells is only a few years old.

David: What are some of the future applications that you foresee?

Dr. West: The ES cell is, as we say, “totipotent,” which literally means “total power.” These cells have the ability of becoming any cell or tissue type in the body, so the applications are endless. The Director of the

Pages: 1 2 3

Noam Chomsky

David Jay Brown

Noam Chomsky

Although Noam Chomsky revolutionized the study of linguistics, he is best known as one of the leading critics of U.S. foreign policy. The book Chomsky for Beginners begins with David Cogswell’s statement “Noam Chomsky is one of the ten most-quoted writers of all time,” and one encounters this assertion in many essays about Chomsky’s work. However, when Chomsky read the draft for this introduction, he told me that, “this is probably nonsense invented by some PR office. It can’t possibly be true…inconceivable.” 

Yet, according to The Chicago Tribune, “a  survey of standard reference work, the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, found that over the past dozen years Chomsky was the most-often-cited living author. Among intellectual luminaries of all eras, Chomsky placed eighth, just behind Plato and Sigmund Freud.” The New York Times called Chomsky “arguably the most important intellectual alive.”

The son of a Hebrew language scholar, Chomsky’s independent scholarship earned him entry into the Society of Fellows at Harvard University in 1951. He received his Ph.D. in linguistics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1955, although most of the research leading to this degree was done at Harvard between 1951 and 1955. After receiving his Ph.D., Chomsky taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for 19 years. In 1976, he was appointed Institute Professor, and he held the Ferrari P. Ward Chair of Modern Language and Linguistics. In addition to authoring more than eighty books on language and politics, Chomsky also lectures widely, and is one of America’s most popular speakers, drawing standing-room-only audiences all over the country.

In his book The End of Science, John Horgan states that, “in spite of his denials, Chomsky is the most important linguist who has ever lived.” The Encyclopedia Britannica declares that “it is hardly an exaggeration to say that there is no major theoretical issue in linguistics today that is debated in terms other than those in which he has chosen to define it.” Yet when Chomsky read over the draft for this introduction, and he read my phrase “Chomsky is generally regarded as the most important linguist who has ever lived,” he wrote me back saying, “that’s a huge exaggeration.” 

Among his many accomplishments as a linguist, Chomsky is most famous for his work on what is called generative grammar. He revolutionized the discipline of linguistics by arguing that the acquisition of language is part of the natural or innate structure of the human brain, and that there is a “universal grammar”, genetically hard-wired into us from birth, that defines the rules, range, and limits of all possible human languages. Some of his books on this subject include Knowledge of Language and Language and Mind.

Although the Arts and Humanities Citation Index declares Chomsky to be the most-often-cited living author, it’s rare that you’ll hear about him in the mainstream media. This is because since 1965 Chomsky has been very outspoken about his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, and the corporate influence on the media. His book of essays American Power and the New Mandarins is considered to be one of the most substantial arguments ever against the American involvement in Vietnam. Some of his many other political books include Towards a New Cold War, The Manufacture of Consent, Rogue States, The Chomsky Reader, 9-11: Understanding Power and Middle East Illusions.

Many of Chomsky’s political books recount in disturbing detail how the U.S. government has supported violent dictators and totalitarian regimes throughout the world, and how it has repeatedly inflicted horrific atrocities on Third World countries that fail to support American corporate interests. He goes into painstaking detail describing how these atrocities have been covered up by the mainstream, corporate-owned media, and how they have created a strong negative sentiment toward America around the world. 

I spoke with Professor Chomsky on May 30, 2003. Despite his staggering accomplishments, Chomsky comes across as unusually humble. He has a very gentle, yet highly persuasive manner about him, and he choses his words with great care when he speaks. Chomsky exudes conviction and calmness, and expresses himself with great clarity, serenity and eloquence, as well as the utmost patience; I was acutely aware that he had answered some of the questions that I was asking him at least a thousand times before, yet he replied with such thoughtfulness that it seemed as if he was answering these questions for the first time.

There is a great generosity to Chomsky’s spirit, and he has an incredibly vast, truly encyclopedic knowledge-base of scientific and political facts stored in his head. I spoke with Chomsky about propaganda and the media, the political potential of the internet, how to improve democracy, medical marijuana and the Drug War, the relationship between language and consciousness, and what he thinks are the greatest threats to the human species–a subject he spoke about with great urgency.

David: Why do you think it’s so important to question authority?

Noam: Just out of the commitment to freedom. I think people have every right to be free, independent creatures, and that means to question any kind of hierarchy or domination, or authority. It’s almost true by definition if you believe in freedom.

David: All previous forms of media–television, radio, newspapers, etc.–have been monopolized by corporations. It seems that they can’t monopolize the internet. Do you think that this will make a difference sociologically?

Noam: First of all, historically, that’s not really true. I don’t know about other countries, but the history of media in the modern period–the last two centuries–has been studied pretty closely in England and the United States, and the period when the press was most free was probably the Nineteenth Century. There was a very substantial press in the Nineteenth Century, and it was very diverse. There was a working class press, an ethnic press, and so on–with a lot of participation and involvement. It reached a great many people, and it presented a variety opinions and point of views. 

Over time this changed. Actually there was an effort, first in England, to try to censor the independent press by various government means, such as taxation and others. Now that didn’t work, there were too many ways around it. It was finally recognized that through the forces of capital concentration and advertiser reliance, the independent press would simply be eroded since it would not be able to gain business support, either capital investment or advertising. And over time the press has narrowed, very sharply in fact. It’s been going on for the last few years, and the mass-based independent press has largely disappeared. 

In the United States, for example, as recently as the 1950’s, there were about 800 labor-based newspapers which reached, maybe, thirty million people a week. Of course that’s completely disappeared. If you go back to the early part of the century, about a century ago, popular-based, what we would call left-oriented journals, were on the scale of commercial press, and the same has been true in England. So it’s not entirely true that it’s always been monopolized, that’s a process that takes place through capital accumulation and reliance on advertising. 

The internet is a very important case. Like most of the modern economy, it was developed in the state system, and for about thirty years it was either within the Pentagon, or later the National Science Foundation. It was only privatized in the mid-90’s, and since then it has changed. So far it’s been impossible to really control, so if people want to use it for their own purposes they can. 

But there are major efforts being made by the corporate owners and advertisers to shape the internet, so that it will be mostly used for advertising, commerce, diversion and so on. Then those who wish to use it for information, political organizing, and other such activities will have a harder time. Now that hasn’t happened yet, and it’s really a terrain of struggle. But what’s going on with the internet is, in some respects, similar to the early days of print press, later radio, to some extent television.

David: What sort of difference do you think the internet has made politically? Do you see it as a tool for improving human rights and democracy?

Noam: The appearance of the internet has had a big effect. So a good deal of the organizing and activism of the past say ten years has been internet based. Now that’s true inside particular countries. So, for example, the overthrow of the dictatorship in Indonesia was very much facilitated by internet contact among people, many of them students, who were able to organize, and overthrow the dictatorship. Now we’ve just seen it in South Korea very dramatically. 

Like just about every major element of

Pages: 1 2 3

Rick Strassman

An Interview with Dr. Rick Strassman
By David Jay Brown

Rick Strassman, M.D. is a medical researcher who conducted the first U.S.-government-approved-and-funded clinical research with psychedelic drugs in over twenty years. These studies, which took place between 1990 and 1995, investigated the effects of DMT (N,N-dimethyltryptamine), a powerful naturally-occurring hallucinogen. During the project’s five years, Dr. Strassman administered approximately four hundred doses of DMT to 60 human volunteers. This research took place at the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine in Albuquerque, where he was tenured Associate Professor of Psychiatry.

Dr. Strassman holds degrees from Stanford University, where he received Department Honors in Biology and Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, where he was a member of the Davidoff Honor Society. He took his internship and general psychiatry residency at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center in Sacramento, and received the Sandoz Award for outstanding graduating resident in 1981. He spent ten years as a tenured professor at the University of New Mexico, performing clinical research investigating the function of the pineal hormone melatonin, in which his research group documented the first known role of melatonin in humans.

Dr. Strassman has published thirty peer-reviewed scientific papers and serves as a reviewer for several medical and psychiatric research journals. He has been a consultant to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Veterans’ Administration Hospitals, Social Security Administration, and other state and local agencies.

In 1984 Dr. Strassman received lay ordination in a Western Buddhist order. He co-founded, and for several years administered, a lay Buddhist meditation group associated with the same order. Dr. Strassman currently practices psychiatry in Gallup, New Mexico and is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry in the University of New Mexico School of Medicine.

Dr. Strassman is also the author of the book DMT: The Spirit Molecule, which is a compelling and fascinating account of his research with psychedelics. In the book he discusses how DMT may be involved in near-death experiences, alien abduction encounters, and mystical experiences. As the book unfolds, what begins as a study to explore the pharmacology and phenomenology of DMT, becomes a science fiction-like journey into an hyper-dimensional reality inhabited by intelligent alien creatures. To find out more about Dr. Strassman’s work visit his Web site:

I interviewed Dr. Strassman on September 28, 2004. We discussed how Buddhism helped to guide his medical research, the potential therapeutic value of psychedelic drugs, and models for understanding the DMT experience.

*       *       *

David: How did you become interested in medicine, and what lead you to study psychiatry?

Rick: In college, I actually didn’t quite know what I wanted to do. I began as a chemistry major, because of my keen interest in fireworks, which I indulged more or less safely in high school. I had hoped to start my own fireworks business. Funny, in retrospect, how I switched from an interest in “outside world” fireworks, to ones more internal.

Nobody I knew really was that encouraging about the fireworks idea, so I switched to a zoology/biology major, but didn’t think much about medical school at the time. During the summer between my 3rd and 4th year of college at Stanford, I read much of the material for the upcoming year’s classes: Early Buddhism, Sleep and Dreams, The Psychology of Consciousness, Physiological Psychology. I had an epiphany of sorts that summer, deciding I’d like to combine my interest in psychedelics with Eastern religions, psychoanalytic theory and practice–all in a sort of unified theory of consciousness, that related to integrating what I saw as a biological basis for spiritual experience (the pineal, endogenous DMT, etc), with what I believed was the most comprehensive system of psychological defenses (psychoanalysis), with what I thought was the most sophisticated view of human mental “mechanics” (Buddhism).

This was a little ambitious for my medical school applications, and I had a hard time toning it down enough to fit into the format required for those applications. And, my mentor at Stanford thought I had lost my mind, telling me to keep my mouth shut. Most medical school interviews ended badly when they asked why I wanted to go to medical school. The only ones I got into were those where the interviews were short, and I didn’t have a chance to launch into my reasons. Right before starting medical school, I was offered a research position in an outstanding physiological psychology laboratory at Stanford with Karl Pribram; and arranged to delay entrance into medical school for a year. However, when it turned out there was no funding for the research position, I decided to start medical school on schedule.

I maintained this idealistic (somewhat manic) view during my first year of medical school, and was sorely disappointed. I got depressed, dropped out, ended up at the Zen monastery with which I was ultimately to have a 20+ year relationship. There, at the monastery, I learned to get back to basics, and returned to medical school, got into my own psychoanalytic psychotherapy, and put the whole psychedelic research idea on the back burner.

When it came time to decide what specialty to pursue, I chose psychiatry for several reasons: the hours were good, I liked the patients, I liked the reading material, I liked other psychiatrists, I admired my psychiatrist who had helped me a lot. Last but not least, I thought if ever I were to do psychedelic research, psychiatry would be the field in which to do it.

David: What inspired your interest in altered states of consciousness in general, and what lead you to study the effects of DMT and psilocybin?

Rick: I was very curious about how similar were states of consciousness brought on by psychedelics, and those described by mystics and seasoned meditators throughout the ages, across all cultures, as well as descriptions by those having the recently “discovered” near-death experiences. Later, I saw some of the overlap between psychedelic consciousness and psychosis. And, against my better judgment, I began seeing some overlap between the “abduction” experience and the psychedelic one, at least with respect to those of our DMT volunteers.

Once I was finally positioned to begin psychedelic research, almost 20 years after the original epiphany, DMT was a natural choice to begin such research anew. It had been used in humans in previously published research, was endogenous (that is, naturally produced) which made it a great candidate for eliciting “spontaneous psychedelic experience,” it was short-acting (which I knew would be helpful on an aversive research unit), and was relatively obscure (thus less likely to draw the sort of attention that an LSD study might).

Psilocybin is chemically very similar to DMT, but is orally active, and longer-acting. I thought it might produce a more easily studied and managed state, both for phenomenological research, as well as for therapeutic work, than did DMT, which was so mind-shatteringly short-acting.

David: How has your interest in Buddhism helped to guide your medical research?

Rick: I was first drawn to Buddhism because of its unabashed manner of describing rather exotic and lofty states of consciousness in a relatively objective manner. The techniques and concepts of the mind, as defined and affected by meditation, appealed to me-it seemed that even the most outrageous states of consciousness could be held, described, even “objectified.” Particularly, the Buddhist Abhidharma (the canon of psychology in Buddhism) approach to mind as a composite of a small number of mental functions, appealed to me as a facile means of developing a rating scale, a tool, for measuring the states of consciousness I anticipated finding in our psychedelic research.

This rating scale has been a legacy of the DMT research, and has been translated into several languages, used to measure effects of several different drugs, and has held up well in comparison to some of the other more traditional ways of measuring drug effects.

Later on, when I actually started practicing Zen meditation, I found it very grounding and powerful, and the state of active passivity, so to speak, or alert quietness, was useful as a means of holding the DMT sessions themselves, on my end. I also saw that some of the principles I had learned about meditation, and from teaching it, were useful in coaching the volunteers on how to deal with the things they encountered, or might encounter, during their sessions.

David: One of the most fascinating things about DMT is that it is found naturally in the brain. What function do you think endogenous DMT plays in the human brain?

Rick: I think it plays several roles. It may help mediate some of the more profound mental experiences people undergo: near-death, mystical states, psychosis. This was one of my hypotheses beginning the research: that endogenous DMT mediated these states of consciousness. Thus, if by giving exogenous DMT, we saw features found in those states, that would support our theory that elevated levels of endogenous DMT were involved.

Also, the brain brings endogenous DMT into its confines, across the blood brain barrier, using energy; something that it does for very few compounds, such as glucose, certain amino acids. Thus, it seems as if endogenous

Pages: 1 2 3

Peter Duesberg

Challenging the Viral Theory of AIDS:
An Interview with Dr. Peter Duesberg

By David Jay Brown

Peter Duesberg, Ph.D. is a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California at Berkeley. He is a pioneer in retrovirus research, and he was the first scientist to isolate a cancer gene. More recently, Dr. Duesberg has gained recognition for his theory that abnormal chromosome numbers are the causes of cancer, which challenges the conventional mutation theory. However, he is probably best known for challenging the widely-held theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. 
Dr. Duesberg earned his Ph.D. in chemistry at the University of Frankfurt in Germany in 1963. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and he mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He was also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health, before he called the HIV-AIDS hypothesis into question.

Dr. Duesberg is the author of Inventing the AIDS Virus, and his articles challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis have appeared in scientific journals worldwide including The New England Journal of MedicineScienceCancer Researchthe Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Nature. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Dr. Duesberg concludes that it is impossible for HIV to be the cause of AIDS, and that AIDS is, in fact, a nonviral disease. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American and European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of amyl nitrites or “poppers” and other recreational drugs, and/or by the use of the extremely toxic drug AZT, which is a chain-terminator of DNA synthesis that was originally developed for chemotherapy of cancer and is now prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.  

Despite Dr. Duesberg’s impressive track record, and the fact that his ideas about about AIDS are truly compelling if one studies them carefully, he has found himself at direct odds with the medical establishment since he began talking about his controversial AIDS hypothesis. Many AIDS researchers and drug companies have reacted hostilely to Dr. Duesberg’s hypothesis. For example, when I interviewed neuroscientist and AIDS researcher Candace Pert from Georgetown University, and I asked her what she thought about the scientists that don’t think that the HIV virus is responsible for causing AIDS, she replied, “These people are nuts.” 

However, some other scientists think differently and strongly respect Dr. Duesberg’s ideas–including Nobel laureates in chemistry Kary Mullis and Walter Gilbert. Duesberg, Mullis, and Gilbert all point out that there is no direct experimental evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and that there are numerous problems with the HIV-AIDS theory. For example, not everyone infected with HIV gets AIDS, and not everyone with AIDS symptoms is infected with HIV. In fact, the symptoms of AIDS vary from continent to continent, and a medical diagnosis of AIDS is often made simply by testing positive for HIV antibodies in the presence of a disease such as tuberculoses or cancer. However, instead of engaging in scientific debate, according to Dr. Duesberg, the only response from the scientific establishment has been to cut off funding to further test his hypothesis. 

To find out more about Dr. Duesberg’s work, see Harvey Bialy’s biography Oncogenes Aneuploidy and AIDS: The Scientific Life & Times of Peter H. Duesberg (North Atlantic books, Berkeley CA, 2004), or visit Dr. Duesberg’s Web site

I interviewed Dr. Duesberg in December of 2005. We spoke about why he thinks that it’s a mistake to assume that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS, why so many researchers are resistant to examining the idea that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS, and what he thinks the real cause of AIDS might be.

David: What originally inspired your interest in molecular biology?

Peter: The idea that there are cancer viruses, and thus ways to understand cancer and perhaps prevent or cure it by vaccines, inspired me forty years ago. I was young enough to ignore or better not even know objections.

David: If you could just briefly summarize–what are some of the primary reasons why you think that it’s a mistake to assume that the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS?

Peter: Here are four out of many more “primary reasons”:

First, AIDS is not infectious. For example, between 1981 and 2004, 930,000 American AIDS patients had been treated by doctors or health care workers. But, despite the absence of an anti-AIDS vaccine, there is not a single case report in the peer-reviewed literature of a doctor or health care worker, who has ever contracted AIDS (rather than just HIV) from any one of these 930,000 patients in now twenty-five years.  Likewise, not one of the thousands of HIV-AIDS researchers has ever contracted AIDS from HIV, nor is there an AIDS epidemic among prostitutes anywhere in the world.

Second, like all other viruses, HIV induces anti-viral immunity, which is the basis of the HIV/AIDS test.  But, unlike any conventional viral epidemic or individual disease, AIDS is not self-limiting by anti-viral immunity and thus not likely to be caused by a virus.

Third, unlike all other viral epidemics, AIDS in the U.S. and Europe is highly nonrandom: A third of all patients are intravenous drug users and about two-thirds are male homosexuals, who have used nitrite inhalants, amphetamines, cocaine and other aphrodisiac and psychoactive drugs for years before they develop any one or more of the twenty-six different AIDS-defining diseases. In addition, most HIV-antibody-positive people are now prescribed inevitably toxic DNA chain-terminators as anti-HIV drugs.  But these terminators are AIDS by prescription, because they were designed to kill cells (for chemotherapy) and are thus also immunotoxic. Thus the AIDS epidemic does not spread randomly like a conventional viral epidemic and coincides with toxic drug use.

Fourth, there is no HIV in AIDS patients.  Instead, only antibody against HIV or traces of HIV nucleic acid can be found in typical AIDS patients.  But, conventional pathogenic viruses are abundant and not (yet) neutralized by antibodies when they cause diseases.

David: Can you talk a little about why you think that recreational drug use is the primary cause of AIDS among gay men?

Peter: There is both correlative and functional evidence in the AIDS literature that nitrite inhalants coincide with Kaposi sarcoma and other AIDS diseases among homosexual users, and that nitrites are cytotoxic, immunotoxic and Kaposi-sarcomagenic.  It is also known for decades that the long-term use of amphetamines and cocaine cause weight loss, immunodeficiency, dementia and other AIDS-defining diseases. It is the long-term use of such recreational drugs alone or in combination with anti-HIV drugs that American and European AIDS patients have in common.

By contrast, millions of HIV-antibody-positive people from without these risk groups are AIDS-free. For example, one million HIV-positives live in the US since 1985, but only about 30,000 of those (three percent) have any one of the twenty-six AIDS-diseases per year–namely exactly the minority of them that uses recreational and anti-HIV drugs.

David: Why do you think that there is such a high correlation between HIV and AIDS?

Peter: The correlation is a hundred percent because AIDS is defined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control, and thus for the world (!), as one or more of twenty-six previously known diseases, if they occur in the presence of antibody against HIV.  For example, all tuberculosis patients, who have antibodies against HIV are called AIDS patients. By contrast, HIV-free tuberculosis patients are still tuberculosis patients. Thus the hundred percent correlation is an artifact of the AIDS definition, rather than a natural coincidence.

David: When I interviewed neuroscience and AIDS researcher Candace Pert I said to her that, “A few scientists that I’ve spoken with told me that they don’t think that the HIV virus is responsible for causing AIDS.”

When I asked her what she thought about this idea she said, “…These people are nuts. The evidence is clear, and it’s the most elegant scientific story. There was a movement against HIV research, and the main champion was Peter Duesberg. There was some personal animosities against the power and the money that the early AIDS researchers got, and there’s a lot of political aspects to this. But beyond a shadow of a doubt–and I’m speaking as somebody who studies data in the lab–there is just no doubt about the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There’s just so much elegant science behind it. Just let me site one little tidbit that tells you how clean the whole thing is. There’s two primary receptors that the AIDS virus uses to enter and infect cells. One of them…is called CCR-5. It turns out that a small percentage Caucasian Europeans don’t have that receptor. They have a genetic mutation where the receptor should be, and it’s missing a major

Pages: 1 2

Stanislav Grof. M.D., Ph.D.

Exploring the Nonordinary Mind:
An Interview with Stanislav Grof. M.D., Ph.D.

By David Jay Brown
Few people on this planet know more about nonordinary states of consciousness than Czech-American psychiatric researcher Stanislav Grof, M.D., Ph.D. Grof is one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology, the co-developer with his wife Christina of Holotropic Breathwork therapy, and has been a pioneering researcher into the use of non-ordinary states of consciousness for purposes of healing, personal growth, and spiritual transformation for over fifty years. He is also one of the world’s experts on LSD psychotherapy, and has supervised more legal LSD sessions that anyone else on the planet. Grof’s near-legendary work at the Spring Grove Hospital in Maryland–treating alcoholics and terminally ill cancer patients with LSD–is some of the most important psychedelic drug research of all time.

Although initially interested in film making, Grof received his M.D. from Charles University in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1956, and he completed his Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy in Medicine) from the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences in 1965; he also completed a 7-year  training as a Freudian psychoanalyst. Grof became the Principal Investigator of a program exploring the therapeutic and heuristic potential of psychedelic substances at the Psychiatric Research Institute in Prague. In 1967, he came to the United States as Clinical and Research Fellow at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center (MPRC) in Baltimore, Maryland. He went on to become Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins and Chief of Psychiatric Research at MPRC. It was during this time that Grof, Walter Pahnke, Sanford Unger, and others ran the studies at the Spring Grove Hospital in Maryland, treating alcoholics and terminally ill cancer patients with LSD. The results from these studies, which ran from 1967 to 1972, were extremely encouraging.

From 1973 through 1987, Grof was Scholar-in-Residence at the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California. During this time, he and his wife Christina developed Holotropic Breathwork therapy, as a non-pharmaceutical means to induce an LSD-like non-ordinary states of consciousness for self-exploration, personal growth, and therapy. They also founded the Spiritual Emergency Network (SEN), an affiliation of psychologists and psychiatrists who offer psychological help to people undergoing a psycho-spiritual crises. In fact, the Grofs coined the term “spiritual emergency to distinguish certain psychologically transformative episodes from schizophrenia and other forms of psychosis. This concept inspired the creation of a new category – Religious and Spiritual Problems – in the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV). In 1987, the Grofs founded the Grof Transpersonal Training (GTT) for the training and certification of practitioners in Holotropic Breathwork, and together they have presented workshops and lectures throughout the world.

Grof was the founding president of the International Transpersonal Association (ITA), which was founded in 1977, and he is the originator of some very compelling psychological theories. Grof developed a theoretical framework for understanding LSD experiences and spiritually transformative states of consciousness that is based upon a memory of one’s experience in the womb or a trauma with the birth process. This theory postulates four “basic perinatal matrices” (BPMs), that correspond to different stages in the birth process. He also described and mapped another new large domain in the unconscious that he calls transpersonal. These concepts are discussed at length in a number of Grof’s books. Grof is the author or coauthor of over twenty books, including Realms of The Human UnconsciousLSD PsychotherapyBeyond the BrainThe Cosmic GameWhen The Impossible HappensThe Ultimate JourneyThe Stormy Search for the Self, and  Spiritual Emergency (the last two co-authored with Christina Grof).

Grof is currently a distinguished adjunct faculty member at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) in San Francisco, where he teaches, and he continues to lecture throughout the world. Grof has had over 140 articles published in different scientific journals, and he served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, the Journal of Humanistic Psychology, the Re-VISION Journal, and others. Grof received the prestigious VISION 97 award, which was granted by the Foundation of Dagmar and Vaclav Havel in Prague on October 5, 2007. For more information about Grof’s work and

I interviewed Grof on March 23, 2007. I found Stan to be unusually elegant with words his ideas were simply mesmerizing. We spoke about psychedelics and creativity, the reality of encounters with otherworldly beings, what happens to consciousness after death, and the difference between a spiritual emergency and a psychotic episode.

David: What originally inspired your interest in psychiatric medicine?

Stan: When I was eighteen years old, I was finishing what we call “gymnasium” in Europe — the equivalent of high school in America. I love to draw and paint and my original plan was to work in animated movies. I had already had an introductory  interview with the brilliant Czech artist and film-producer Jirí Trnka, and I was supposed to start working in the Barrandov film studios in Prague. But that situation change radically when a friend of mine lent me Freud’s introductory Lectures to Psychoanalysis. I started reading the book that very evening and I couldn’t put it down. I read through the night and into the next day. Then, within a few days, I decided that I wanted to be a psychoanalyst and I let the animated movies go. I enrolled in the medical school and got in touch with a small group of people in Prague interested in psychoanalysis; it was led by Dr. Theodor Dosu?kov, the only psychoanalyst who had survived the Second World War in Czechoslovakia. Most of the psychoanalysts were Jewish, and those who did not leave ended up in gas chambers.

David: How did you become interested in psychedelics and non-ordinary states of consciousness?

Stan: When I began my career as a psychiatrist, I was initially very excited about psychoanalysis, but then – when I tried to apply psychoanalysis in my clinical practice – I started seeing its great limitations. I was still very excited about the theory of psychoanalysis, but was increasingly disappointed with what you can do with it as a clinical tool. I was realizing that there was a very narrow indication range. You had to meet very special criteria to be considered a good candidate for psychoanalysis, and even if you met those criteria, you had to be prepared not for months, but for years. And I realized that, even after years, the results were not exactly breathtaking. I found it very difficult to understand why a system that seemed to explain everything would not offer some more effective solutions for emotional and psychosomatic disorders.

In order to become a psychoanalyst one had to first study medicine. In medicine, if you really understand a problem, you are usually able to do something quite effective about it–or if you can not, then you can at least understand the reasons for your failure. We know exactly what  would have to change in relation to cancer or AIDS for us to be able to more successful in the treatment of these diseases. But in psychoanalysis I was asked to believe that we have full understanding of what’s happening in the psyche, and yet we can do so little over such a long period of time. So I found myself in a crisis, where I started to regret that I had chosen psychiatry as my profession. I was thinking back nostalgically about the animated movies, wondering if that would have been a better career choice.

At that time, I worked at the Psychiatric Department of the School of Medicine in Prague and we had just finished a large study of Mellaril, one of the early tranquilizers. This was the beginning of the “golden era of psychopharmacology.” The first tranquilizers and antidepressants were being developed and it was believed that most of the problems in psychiatry would be solved by chemistry. So we conducted a large study with Mellaril, which came from the pharmaceutical company in Switzerland called Sandoz. We had a very good working relationship with Sandoz, which meant the usual fringe benefits that psychiatrists get  from pharmaceutical companies: compensation for the trips to conferences where one reports about their preparations, supply of relevant literature, and free samples of various new preparations that they produce.

As part of this exchange, the psychiatric department where I worked received a large box full of ampoules of LSD. It came with a letter which said this was a new investigational substance that had been discovered in the laboratories of Sandoz by Dr. Albert Hofmann, who happened to intoxicate himself accidentally when he was synthesizing it. The letter described how the son of Albert Hofmann’s boss, Zurich psychiatrist Werner Stoll, conducted an early pilot study with a group of psychiatric patients and group of “normal” volunteers. He came to the conclusion that LSD could have some very interesting uses in psychiatry or psychology. So Sandoz was now sending samples of LSD to different universities, research institutes, and individual therapists asking for feedback if there was a legitimate use for these substance in these disciplines. In this letter they suggested two possible uses.

One suggestion was that LSD might be used to induce an experimental psychosis. It could be administered to “ normal” volunteers and conduct all kinds of tests — psychological, biochemical, physiological, electro-physiological — before, during, and after the session. This would provide insights as to what is happening, biologically and biochemically, in the organism at the time when the mental functioning is so profoundly influenced by the substance. This could be a way of discovering what is happening in naturally occurring psychoses. The basic idea behind it was that it is possible that – under certain circumstances – the human body could produce a substance like LSD and that psychoses, particularly schizophrenia, would actually be chemical aberrations, not mental diseases. And if we could identify the chemical culprit, then we could also find another substance which would neutralize it. Such a test-tube solution for schizophrenia would, of course, be the Holy Grail of psychiatry.

So this was very exciting. The Sandoz letter also offered another little tip, which became my destiny. It suggested that this substance might also be used as a very unconventional training or educational tool for psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, and students of psychology and psychiatry. The idea was that LSD would give these people a chance to spend a few hours in a world that would be very much like the world of their patients. As a result they would be able to understand them better, be able to communicate with them more effectively, and – hopefully – be more successful in treating them. So this was something that I wouldn’t have missed for anything in the world. I was in a deep professional crisis, feeling very disappointed with the therapeutic means we had at our disposal at the time. So I became one of the early Czech volunteers and had a profound experience that radically changed my life and sent me professionally and personally to a whole other direction.

David: How can LSD psychotherapy be helpful in overcoming traumatic life experiences, alcoholism, or facing a terminal illness?

Stan: We have done studies in all those areas. Psychedelic therapy revealed a wide array of previously unknown therapeutic mechanisms, but the most profound positive changes happened in connection with mystical experiences. We were very impressed with what you could do with very difficult conditions, like chronic alcoholism and narcotic drug abuse. But the most interesting and the most moving study that we did at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center was the one that involved terminal cancer patients. We found out that if these patients had powerful experiences of psychospiritual death/rebirth and cosmic unity, it profoundly changed their emotional condition and it took away the fear of death. It made it possible for them to spend the rest of their lives living one day at a time. We also found out that in many patients LSD had very profound effect on pain, even pain that didn’t respond to narcotics.

David: Why do you think that holotropic states of consciousness have so much healing potential and do you think that psychedelics can enhance the placebo effect?

Stan: What do you mean by “the placebo effect” in connection with psychedelics?

David: The placebo effect demonstrates the power of the mind over the body. We know that placebos–or biologically inactive substances–can have a measurable healing effect simply because people believe in their power. Do you think that part of the healing potential of psychedelics comes from enhancing what we call the placebo effect in medicine?

Stan: Well, when you call something a placebo, you assume that there is no real biochemical effect.

David: I don’t mean placebos, I mean what’s been called “the placebo effect,” which one can measure. The whole reason that we use placebos in medical studies, when we’re testing a new drug, is because of the “placebo effect”–because our beliefs have the power to influence our wellbeing in measurable ways. We know that just believing that something will have an effect can create a measurable effect and neuroscientist Candace Pert’s research showed that positive emotions can effect the immune system and neuropeptide levels. Do you think that what psychedelics are actually doing, when they assist with healing, is enhancing that power of the mind to effect the body’s own natural healing system?

Stan: Well, I never thought about psychedelics as enhancing the placebo effect, because their psychological effects are so obvious and dramatic; one of the major problems we had in psychedelic research was actually to find a believable placebo for them. But I guess if you put it the way that you put it, you could see it as enhancing the placebo effect–because it certainly enhances the power of the mind over the emotional psychosomatic processes.

David: Can you talk a little about the relationship between certain psychological conflicts and the development of certain cancers, which you witnessed as a result of some psychedelic sessions that you ran?

Stan: We have never really systematically studied this. What I have written in the book The Ultimate Journey are mostly anecdotal reports of the insights that came from the patients themselves. For example, sometimes patients had the feeling that their cancer had something to do with their self-destructive tendencies, or that it had something to do with an energetic blockage that occurred in a certain part of their body as a result of traumatic experiences. Sometimes they actually made attempts during their sessions to find psychological ways to  heal their cancer, but we never studied this systematically to the point that I could make any definitive statements about it.

Carl Simonton made a large study where he tried to demonstrate participation of emotional factors in the etiology of cancer. One finding was particularly interesting and constant – a pattern of serious loss eighteen months prior to the diagnosis of cancer. But I think that those cases are all really anecdotal, and I don’t think anybody has really shown this beyond any reasonable doubt.

One thing that I would like to add is that – because of my medical background – I used to doubt that cancer could have something to do with emotions. This was at a time when it seemed that the key problem in the genesis of cancer was what transforms a cell into a cancer cell. This changed radically when new research showed that the human body produces cancer cells all the time. So the problem is not what makes a cell a cancer cell, but what causes the immune system to fail destroying them. And it is certainly possible to imagine that psychological factors could cause a breakdown of the immune system, either generally or in certain specific parts of the body.

David: What kind of an effect do you think that psychedelics have on creativity and problem-solving abilities?

Stan: Oh, a tremendous effect. We have extensive evidence in that regard. In the 1960s, James Fadiman, Robert McKim, Willis Harman, Myron Stolaroff, and Robert Mogar conducted a pilot study of the effects of psychedelics on the creative process, using administration of mescaline to enhance inspiration and problem-solving in a group of highly talented individuals. In 1993, molecular biologist and DNA chemist Kary Mullis received a Nobel Prize for his development of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) that allows the amplification of specific DNA sequences; it is a central technique in biochemistry and molecular biology. During a symposium in Basel celebrating Albert Hofmann’s 100th anniversary, Albert revealed that he was told by Kary Mullis that LSD had helped him develop the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Francis Crick, the Nobel-Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he discovered the double-helix structure of DNA. He told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD to boost his power of thought. He said it was LSD that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.

In his book “What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry,” John Markoff described the history of the personal computer. He showed that there is a direct connection between the psychedelic use in the American counterculture of the 1950s and 1960s and the development of the computer industry. Steve Jobs said taking LSD was among the two or three most important things he had done in his life.” He has stated that people around him, who did not share his countercultural roots, could not fully relate to his thinking.

Willis Harman collected in his book Higher Creativity many examples of high-level problem-solving in non-ordinary states of consciousness. I think that studying the effect on creativity is by far the most interesting area where psychedelics could be used. Offer them to people who are experts in certain areas, such as cosmology, quantum-relativistic physics, biology, evolutionary theory, and so on – individuals who hold an enormous amount of information about a particular field and who are aware of the problems which need to be solved. Several of my friends from the Bay area who are physicists, such as Fred Alan Wolf, Jack Sarfatti, Nick Herbert, and Fritjof Capra, have had some really interesting insights into physics in non-ordinary states of consciousness. Some had spontaneous experiences of non-ordinary states of consciousness and others psychedelic sessions. For example, Fred Wolf spent some time in South America doing ayahuasca.

David: Nick Herbert lives nearby and is a good friend. We’ve actually discussed the following question quite a bit. Many people report unexplained phenomena while under the influence of psychedelics, such as telepathic communication or uncanny synchronicities. What do you make of these types of experiences, which conventional science has great difficulty explaining, and seem to provide evidence for psychic phenomena?

Stan: The number of these seemingly unexplainable phenomena is growing, and it’s occurring in all kinds of disciplines. In astrophysics, you have the anthropic principle. In quantum physics you have a vast array of problems that cannot be explained, such as the Bell’s Theorem, which points to nonlocality in the universe. We can add some of the dilemmas that Rupert Sheldrake points out in biology, when he talks about the need to think in terms of morphogenetic fields and so on. Ervin Laszlo, in his book The Connectivity Hypothesis, actually looked at all these different disciplines and showed all the so-called “anomalous phenomena” that these current theories cannot explain. He also specifically discusses transpersonal psychology and all the challenging observations that cannot be explained by current theories in psychology or psychiatry. I think Ervin’s concept of the psi- or Akashic field is the most promising approach to these paradigm-breaking phenomena.

So I think that all this points to the fact that the current monistic/materialistic world view is seriously defective and that we need a completely different way of looking at reality. But there is tremendous resistance against the new observations in the academic world because the revision that is necessary is too radical, something that cannot be handled by a little patchwork, by little ad hoc hypotheses here and there. We would have to admit that the basic philosophy of the Western scientific worldview is seriously wrong and that in many ways shamans from illiterate cultures and ancient cultures have had a more adequate understanding of reality than we do. We have learned a lot about the world of matter, but in terms of basic metaphysical understanding of reality, Western science went astray.
David: What sort of lessons do you think a conventional western physician could learn from an indigenous shaman?

Stan: It would be above all the knowledge concerning the healing, transformative, and heuristic potential of non-ordinary states of consciousness. This would be especially true for shamans who are using in their practice psychedelic plants. They use these extraordinary tools that provide insights into the psyche and therapeutic possibilities that by far surpass anything available in Western psychiatry and psychotherapy. When I had my first psychedelic sessions and started working with psychedelics, I felt very apologetic toward shamans. The image of shamans that I inherited from my teachers at the university was very conceited and dismissive; it described them as primitives, riddled with superstitions and engaged in magical thinking. Our own rational approaches to the study of the human psyche, such as behaviorism or psychoanalysis, were seen as superior to anything the shamans were doing.

So, when I discovered the power of psychedelics, I saw the arrogance of this kind of attitude. The potential of the methods used by modern psychiatry did not even come close to that inherent in psychedelics or in various native “technologies of the sacred,” which induce non-ordinary states by non-pharmacological means. Then I began understanding what had happened historically. Three hundred years ago, the Industrial and Scientific Revolution brought some important scientific discoveries, which spawned technological inventions that started radically changing our world. This led to glorification of rationality and intoxication with the power of reason. For example, during the French Revolution the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris was declared the Temple of Reason. In its juvenile hubris, the Cult of Reason rejected without discrimination everything that was not rational as embarrassing leftovers from the infancy of humanity and from the Dark Ages. The overzealous reformers did not realize that not everything that is not rational is irrational; there exist phenomena which are transrational. The mystics are not irrational; they can be perfectly rational in everyday situations, but as a result of their experiences they also transcend the realm of the rational. We are now slowly realizing that in this historical process, the baby was thrown out with the bath water and are learning to make the distinction between the irrational and transrational.

David: What are your thoughts on the extraterrestrial encounters that many people report on high-dose psychedelics and do you think that the beings encountered on high-dose psychedelic experiences–such as DMT or ayahuasca–actually have an independent existence?

Stan: I have seen those experiences frequently. We have seen them in psychedelic sessions, in holotropic breathwork, and in some spiritual emergencies. I have spent a lot of time with my close friend John Mack, who conducted at Harvard extensive research of the alien abduction phenomena. Did you know John?

David: I interviewed John for my book Conversations on the Edge of the Apocalypse.

Stan: Unfortunately he was killed by a drunken driver in London and is not with us any more. Like John, I believe that these experiences belong to the category of “anomalous phenomena,” paradigm-breaking observations for which we do not have explanations within the current conceptual frameworks. The kind of explanations that have been given by traditional researchers just are not satisfactory–that these phenomena are hallucinations, various meteorological events, new secret US spacecrafts, balloons, birds, satellites, planets and stars, or optical effects such as reflections, mirages, “sprites,” “sundogs,” and refractions caused by inversion layers in the atmosphere.

I think that these are painfully inadequate, and that there are significant aspects of the UFO abduction phenomena or even UFO sightings that simply cannot be explained within the current scientific world view. One possible explanation is that the source of these phenomena is the collective unconscious, as C. G. Jung suggested in his book Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies. As Bud Hopkins and others have shown, people who have the UFO experiences often report very similar things, often with great detail, even if these observations occur completely independently and there is no connection between these people. One of the most astonishing examples was a sighting in Africa, which involved a group of school children and a teacher. The interviews with these witnesses were done by John Mack and resulted in a remarkable video.

In the past, similar things were described in The Bible, in the Book of Ezekiel, and other places. Jung has shown that these sightings have been described repeatedly n certain periods of human history. The collective unconscious certainly is a reasonable source of these phenomena. If something comes from the collective unconscious then individual people can have intrapsychic access to it but, at the same time, they can receive consensual validation from other witnesses in the same way in which consensus can be reached on visions of archetypal figures or realms from different mythologies. The distinction between the subjective and objective is transcended. Jungians refer to this realm as “imaginal” to distinguish it from the “imaginary.”

When I think about the collective unconscious, I see the parallels with the world that we have created with modern electronics. As we are sitting here right now, we are immersed in an ocean of information. It’s coming from the different short wave radio stations around the world, from the television satellites, from the Internet, the i-phones, and so on on. So, if we had what it takes to access this information, we could have a vast array of experiences right here, where we are sitting, and it would not be your experiences or my experiences. We would be tapping into something that is objectively real, although under normal circumstances it is invisible. When different people tune into these programs, they can reach a consensus that they have experienced the same kind of thing. So, from this perspective, the UFOs would be phenomena that are not just intrapsychic or just objective in the usual sense, but would lie in the twilight zone in between the two.
David: Do you think that the archetypes and information that is stored in the human collective unconscious is of a genetic origin–that is, stored in our DNA–or do you see them as being more like a morphic field that permeates the biosphere and incorporates cultural as well as genetic information?

Stan: I don’t think it’s in the DNA or in the brain. I don’t think it’s in anything that we can consider to be material substrate, at least not in the ordinary sense.

David: So do you see it more like a morphic field?

Stan: Yes. The best model that we currently have is Ervin Laszlo’s concept of what he used to call a “psi field;” now he calls it the “Akashic field,” In his last two books, The Connectivity Hypothesis and Science and the Akashic Field, he describes it as a subquantum field, where everything that has ever happened in the universe remains holographically recorded, so that under certain circumstances we can tune into it, and have the corresponding experiences. For example, in non-ordinary states of consciousness, we can have experiences of scenes from ancient Egypt or the French Revolution, because there’s an objectively existing record of these events in that field, and people who tap that information can reach consensus that they experienced the same kind of things.

David: How does transpersonal psychology differ from conventional psychology, and could you talk a little about your involvement with it?

Stan: I was part of the small group that formulated the basic principles of transpersonal psychology, together with Abe Maslow, Tony Sutich, Jim Fadiman, Miles Vich, and Sonya Margulies. Transpersonal psychology was a reaction to a number of “anomalous phenomena” described by mystics of all ages, scholars of the great Eastern religions, anthropologists who had done field research with shamans and native cultures, and psychedelic researchers.

In the first half of the 20th century, psychology was dominated by two schools of thought — Freudian psychoanalysis and behaviorism. In the 1950s, there was increasing dissatisfaction with the limitations of these two systems and Abe Maslow became the main spokesman for this  increasing dissent. He and Tony Sutich launched humanistic psychology, which in a very short time became very popular in professional as well as lay circles. However, within the first ten years of the existence of humanistic psychology, Abe and Tony became dissatisfied with the field they had created, because it did not include important aspects of human nature, particularly the spiritual and mystical dimensions, creativity, meditation states, ecstatic experiences, and so on. When I met them, they were working on yet another new branch of psychology, which would incorporate the elements that humanistic psychology was lacking.

They originally wanted to call this new psychology “transhumanistic,” going beyond humanistic psychology. I brought into this group the data from ten years of my psychedelic research in Prague and a vastly extended cartography of the psyche that had emerged from this work. Part of this cartography was a category of experiences that I called “transpersonal,” meaning transcending the limits of our personal identity, of the body-ego. Abe and Tony liked this term very much and they decided to change their original term “transhumanistic psychology” to “transpersonal psychology.”

The best way of describing transpersonal psychology would be to say that it studies the entire spectrum of human experience, including what I call “holotropic” experiences. This includes the experiences of shamans and their clients, of initiates in the rites of passage, in healing ceremonies, and other native rituals, of the initiates in the ancient mysteries of death and rebirth, of the yogis, Buddhists, Taoists, Christian mystics, Kabbalists, and so on. Transpersonal psychology includes all of these experiences.
David: What’s the difference between a spiritual emergency and a psychotic episode?

Stan: After we had had extensive experience working with psychedelic therapy and with the Holotropic Breathwork, it became increasingly difficult to see many of the spontaneously occurring episodes of non-ordinary (holotropic) states as being pathological. They included the same elements as the psychedelic sessions and the sessions of Holotropic Breathwork – experiences of psychospiritual death and rebirth, past life experiences, archetypal experiences, and so on. And if they were properly understood and supported, they were actually healing and often led to a positive personality transformation.

So it became increasingly difficult to see as pathological experiences, which a sample of “normal” people in our workshops and training would have after forty-five minutes of faster breathing. Moreover, if these experiences could be healing and transformative when they are induced by faster breathing and music, or by miniscule dosages of LSD, why should they be considered pathological when they occur without any known causes? So we coined for these spontaneously occurring episodes the term “spiritual emergencies.” It is actually a play on words, because it shows the potential positive value of these experiences. They certainly are a nuisance in people’s lives and can produce a crisis, an “emergency,” but – if correctly understood and properly supported – they can also help these individuals to “emerge” to a whole other level of consciousness  and of functioning.

Now, the question that you ask — the question concerning “differential diagnosis” — is difficult to answer for the following reasons: The concept of differential diagnosis comes from medicine, where it is possible to accurately diagnose diseases on the basis of what you find in the blood, in the urine, in the cerebral spinal fluid, on the X-rays, an so on. You can accurately establish the diagnosis, and if you make a mistake, another doctor can show you that you made a wrong diagnosis and – as a result – prescribed the wrong treatment. In psychiatry, this is possible only for those conditions that have an organic cause. There is a group of psychotic states, where this is the case – the so called “organic psychoses.” However, there exists a large group of conditions diagnosed as psychoses for which no biological causes have been found.  These are called “functional” or “endogenous psychoses.”

Anybody familiar with medicine knows that this essentially means admission of ignorance wrapped in a fancy title (endogenous means “generated from within”). This is not a medical diagnosis backed by laboratory data. It is a situation characterized by unusual experiences and behaviors for which the current conceptual framework of psychiatry has no explanation. To make a differential diagnosis, we would first have to have a diagnosis established as rigorously as it is done in somatic medicine. Because that is not the case, we have to use a different approach. We can try to identify the criteria that would make the person experiencing a non-ordinary state of consciousness a good candidate for deep inner work. If they meet these criteria, we try to work with them psychologically to help them get through this experience, rather than indiscriminately suppressing their symptoms with psychopharmacological agents.

The first criterion there is the phenomenology of the individual’s condition. A positive indication is presence of elements that we see daily in participants in Holotropic Breathwork sessions or psychedelic sessions – reliving of traumatic memories from infancy or childhood,  reliving of biological birth or episodes of prenatal existence, the experience of psychospiritual death and rebirth, past life experiences, visions of archetypal beings or visits to archetypal realms. Additional positive indications are experiences of oneness with other people, with nature, with the universe, with God.

The second important criterion is the person’s attitude. The individual in spiritual crisis has to have some sense of understanding that this is a process with which is happening internally. Very bad candidates for alternative psychological work are people who use a lot of projections, who deny that they have a problem and that they are dealing with an internal process. They are convinced that all their problems are caused by outside forces: it is the neighbor who is poisoning their soup and placing bugging devices in their house; it is the Ku Klux Klan trying to destroy them; it is a mad scientist attacking them by a diabolic machine, or the invading Martians. So there is a tendency to blame that condition on somebody or something outside of them and being unwilling to accept the possibility that there is something within their own psyche that they can work on. So, unless that attitude changes, it is very difficult to do this type of work.
David: Why do you think that the conditions surrounding one’s birth have such a lasting effect on one’s outlook toward life?

Stan: Birth is an extremely powerful, elemental event that for many children is a matter of life and death. This is especially true for those who were born severely asphyxiated – dead or half-dead – and had to be resuscitated. In any case, it is a major trauma that has a physical as well as an emotional dimension. The position of current psychiatry and psychology toward birth is unbelievable – contrary to elementary logic, we see a massive denial of the fact that birth is a major psychotrauma. The usual reason given for the fact that birth is psychologically irrelevant – inadequate myelinization of the newborn’s cortex – is hard to take seriously. It is in sharp contrast with data from both postnatal and prenatal life.

There exists general agreement among child psychiatrists that the experience of nursing is of paramount importance for the rest of the individual’s emotional life. Obstetricians and pediatricians even talk about the importance of “bonding” – the exchange of looks between the mother and the child immediately after the child is born – as the foundation of the future mother-child relationship. And extensive prenatal research of people like Alfred Tomatis has shown extreme sensitivity of the fetus already in the prenatal period. How should we reconcile this with the belief that the hours of life and death struggle in the birth canal are psychologically irrelevant?

It seems really bizarre that psychiatrists and psychologists believe that there is no consciousness in the child during the passage through the birth canal, but then suddenly appears as soon as the newborn emerges into the world.  And the argument about the lack of myelinization of the newborn’s cortex violates elementary logic and doesn’t make any sense either. We know from biology that memory does not require a cerebral cortex, let alone a myelinized one. There are organisms that don’t have any cortex at all and they certainly can form memories. Several years ago, the Nobel Prize was given to Austrian-American researcher Eric Kandel for studying memory mechanisms in a sea slug called Aplysia. So it’s very difficult to imagine how people in the academic circle think, if they can accept that the sea slug can form memories but a newborn child, with an extremely highly developed nervous system and brain, would not be able to create a memory record of the hours spent in the birth canal.

David: What do you think of applying Konrad Lorenz’s notion of biological imprinting–as opposed to conditioning or learning–to the lasting psychological effect that psychedelic experiences often produce?

Stan: The term “imprinting” is most relevant here in relation to the very early situations in an organism’s development. As you know, ethologists have shown that the early experiences of life are extremely influential. For example, there is a period of about sixteen hours in the early life of ducklings when whatever moves around becomes for them the mother. So if you walk around in red rubber shoes, they ignore their mother and follow the shoes. Psychedelics can induce deep age regression to the early periods in one’s life and offer the opportunity for a corrective psychobiological experience. This new experience then seems to have the same powerful influence on the individual’s life as the natural imprinting.

I ultimately don’t believe that the memories we experience in psychedelic sessions are stored in the brain, certainly not all of them. I think that many of them obviously don’t have any material substrate in the conventional sense – ancestral, collective, phylogenetic, and karmic memories, archetypal matrices, etc. Recently, there has been much discussion about “memory without a material substrate” – for example, Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenetic fields or Ervin Laszlo’s Akashic field. So I don’t believe that what we experience is stored the brain. I believe that the brain is mediating consciousness, but does not generate it, and that it mediates memories, but does not store them.

David: Why do you think it is that the LSD experiences have such a lasting effect on people?

Stan: Isn’t that true about every powerful experience? The more powerful the experience is, the more of an effect it has. It is true even for experiences that we have forgotten, repressed, dissociated from consciousness. Everything that we experience in life is shaping us with a lasting effect. Some of these influences are more subtle, and some of them more dramatic, but certainly traumas that people experience in childhood can have tremendous impact. Events in human life can have everlasting impact of people.

David: What do you personally think happens to consciousness after death?

Stan: I have had experiences in my psychedelic sessions — quite a few of them – when I was sure I was in the same territory that we enter after death. In several of my sessions, I was absolutely certain that it had already happened and I was surprised when I came back, when I ended up in the situation where I took the substance. So the experience of being in a bardo in these experiences is extremely convincing. We now also have many clinical observations suggesting that consciousness can operate independently of the brain, the prime example being out-of-body experiences in near-death situations (NDEs).

Some out-of-body experiences can happen to people not only when they are in a state of cardiac death, but also when they are brain dead. Cardiologist Michael Sabom, described a patient he calls Pam, who had a major aneurysm on the basilar artery and had to undergo a risky operation. In order to operate on her, they had to basically freeze her brain to the point that she stopped producing brain waves. And, at the same time, she had one of the most powerful out-of-body experiences ever observed, with accurate perception of the environment; following her operation, she was able to give an accurate description of the operation and to draw the instruments they were using.

So what these observations suggest is that consciousness can operate independently of our body when we are alive, which makes it fairly plausible that something like that is possible after our body is dead. So both the experiential evidence from my own sessions and what you find in the thanatological literature, certainly suggest that survival of consciousness after death is a very real possibility.

David: What is your perspective on the concept of God?

Stan: When Jung was over eighty years old he had an interview with a BBC reporter. At one point this BBC reporter asked him “Dr. Jung, do you believe in God?” A smile appeared on Jung’s face and he said, “No, I don’t.” Any Jungians who are watching this tape cannot believe it: “What? Dr. Jung doesn’t believe in God?” Then, after a dramatic pause, Jung says: “I know. I had the experience of being grabbed by something that was by far more powerful than I could even imagine.” Like Jung, I had experiences – actually quite a few of them over the years – of what I would refer to as God.

I have experienced in my sessions many gods – archetypal figures of many forms from different cultures of the world. But when I refer to God, I am talking about an experience, which is beyond any forms. What I experienced as God is difficult to describe; as you know, the mystics often refer to their experiences as ineffable. It could be best described as an incredibly powerful source of light, with an intensity that I earlier couldn’t even have imagined. But, it doesn’t really do it justice to refer to it as light because it was much more than that. It seemed to contain all of existence in a completely abstract form and it transcended all imaginable polarities. There was a sense of infinite boundless creativity. There was a sense of personality and even a sense of humor (of a cosmic variety).

The experience of God seems to be under certain circumstance available to all human beings. If you haven’t had the experience, then there’s no point in talking about it. As long as people have to talk about believing in God or not believing in God or, for that matter, believing in past lives or not believing in past lives, it is irrelevant because they do not have anything to go by. Their opinion doesn’t have any real basis; it reflects the influences of their parents, their preacher, or something they have read. Once you had the experiences, you know that the experiences were real and very convincing.

David: What types of research and therapies do you foresee for psychedelics in the future?

Stan: I think that the most interesting area waiting to be explored is to use psychedelics for enhancing creativity, as we talked about it earlier. It is something that would facilitate completely new ways of looking at various areas and generate extraordinary new insights into the nature of reality. But I am afraid it will take some time before we see research of this kind. The most difficult challenge has always been to get permission to use psychedelics in populations where there is no serious clinical reason (e.g. terminal cancer, chronic alcoholism, etc.).

David: What are you currently working on?

Stan: Christina and I are writing a long overdue book on the theory and practice of Holotropic Breathwork. It will be a very comprehensive book, covering a wide range of topics from the history of the breathwork to the therapeutic use of breathwork sessions andits social implications. It will include the description how to prepare a session and how to run a session, as well as the complementary methods that you can use following the session. It discusses the therapeutic effects, the posibilities of developing a new worldview and new life strategies, as well as the possible importance of working with holotropic states as a means of alleviating the current global crisis.

David. Is there anything that we didn’t speak about that you would like to add?

Stan: One of the areas I am particularly interested in is the revolutionary development on various scientific disciplines and the emergence of the new paradigm. I firmly believe that we are rapidly moving toward a radically new world view and that transpersonal psychology and spirituality will be integral parts of it. A worldview that will synthesize the best of science and the best of spirituality and would demonstrate that there is really no incompatibility between science and spirituality, if both of them are properly understood. The other area that I am very deeply interested has to do with the phenomenal digital special effects, which are now available in the movie industry.

David: Are you still interested in making animated films?

Stan: It is ironical, isn’t it? As I look at it, my career has not changed as much as I initially thought when I became interested in psychiatric research. Psychedelic experiences with their rich imagery are not that far from animated movies. But I am not interested any more in making animated movies; what I am interested in is the spiritual potential of these new special effects. I believe that the special effects are so powerful these days that they could not only portray mystical experience, but they could actually induce them in people if they were properly constructed. If we could combine what we know about the inner logic of these experiences with these new special effects, the results could be truly extraordinary. Unfortunately, the new special effects are being used mostly for portraying destructive movies scenes.

Hollywood movies portray with formidable power scenes reflecting what I call BPM III – the violent and sexual imagery associated typically with the final stages of birth. The destructive scenes are so boringly stereotypical that they are almost  exchangeable from movie to movie; only the danger takes different forms – alien invaders, natural disasters, dinosaurs or other monsters, demonic beings, and all kinds of dangerous villains threatening to destroy the planet.  Most of these movies end up in a situation where the enemy is overcome and people celebrate the victory on a trashed, devastated planet.   What is missing is the shift to BPM IV, lifting the experience to the transcendental level, to spiritual death/rebirth experience. I don’t know if you know that Christina and I were consultants on the movie called Brainstorm, which was an attempt to portray a transcendental experience.

David: I had read that, and found that very interesting, as Brainstorm is one of my favorite films. I thought that there were a lot of fascinating ideas in it.

Stan: That was an effort to bring to the screen the transcendental aspects of the death experience.  Unfortunately, the special effects were very compromised, because of the tragic death of Natalie would shortly before the movie was finished. MGM didn’t want to put any more money into the movie; they believed that it was not viable, because there were three scenes of principal photography with Natalie that were still missing. Doug Trumbull convinced the MGM people that he could finish the movie. He did his best to put it together, but it didn’t really come out very well. If you watch the movie, it is not only the lack of the special effects, but there is a kind of a logical gap; you can tell that there is something missing. But I think that the topic of the movie is so interesting that it deserves a remake, as they are remaking all kinds of other movies. I think that this is one that deserves to be remade and done really well.

Hans Moravec – 2

Hans Moravec

By David Jay Brown

Hans Moravec is one of the world’s leading experts in robotics. He is a Research Professor  in the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, where he founded the Mobile Robot Laboratory, and directs the world’s largest robotics research program. 

Dr. Moravec is the author of two of the most popular books on the subject of robots, and the implications of evolving robot intelligence, Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence (Harvard University Press, 1988) andRobot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind (Oxford University Press, 1998), which renown science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke described as “the most awesome work of controlled imagination I have ever encountered.” Dr. Moravec has also published many papers and articles about robotics, computer graphics, multiprocessors, space travel and other speculative areas. 

Dr. Moravec has been interested in robots and “thinking machines” since he was a child in the 1950s. He built his first robot out of tin cans, batteries, lights and a motor, at the age of ten. In high school he won two science fair prizes for a light-following electronic turtle and a tape-controlled robot hand. In college he designed a computer to control more sophisticated robots. For his master’s degree Moravec built a small robot with whiskers and photoelectric eyes controlled by a minicomputer. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University in 1980  for a TV-equipped robot, remote controlled by a large computer, that negotiated cluttered obstacle courses, taking about five hours.

Since 1980 Dr. Moravec’s Mobile Robot Lab at Carnegie Mellon University has discovered more effective approaches for robot spatial representation–notably 3D occupancy grids, that, with newly available computer power, promise commercial free-ranging mobile robots within a decade. In 2003 he co-founded SEEGRID Corporation to undertake this commercialization. To find out more about Dr. Moravec’s work visit his Web

Dr. Moravec predicts that by the middle of the 21st century extremely powerful robots will be built with superhuman intelligence. He envisions robot physicians in the future that will be able to repair virtually any type of damage to the human body. These “fractal branching, ultra-dexterous bush robots” would be composed of “a branched hierarchy of articulated limbs, starting from a macroscopically large trunk through successively smaller and more numerous branches, ultimately to microscopic twigs and nanoscale fingers.” Dr. Moravec suggests that “even the most complicated procedures could be completed by a trillion-fingered robot, able, if necessary, to simultaneously work on almost every cell of a human body.” He also imagines that one day we may be able to transplant our brains into powerful robot bodies, or transfer the contents of our minds into extremely sophisticated computers. 

I spoke with Hans on March 13, 1999, and again on April 12, 2004. Hans possesses that rare whole-brain synergy that comes when technical expertise is coupled with an expansive imagination. He seems to genuinely love speculating about consciousness and robotics, and he laughs a lot. I spoke with Hans about the current state of robotics, artificial intelligence and the nature of consciousness, the possibility of multiple universes, and how robots might evolve in the next century. 

David: How did you get interested in robotics?

Hans: That’s life long. When I was four years old my father helped me build a dancing man. I had this mechanical construction kit, made of hard wood, pegs and pulley wheels. And there was a device that especially caught my attention. You turned the crank, and a central wheel inside of a box turned another wheel at right angles. That moved up and down, and turned round and round.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Aubrey de Grey

The Seven Lively SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence):

An Interview with Dr. Aubrey de Grey

By David Jay Brown

Aubrey de Grey, Ph.D. is on a search for the Holy Grail of medicine–the ability to stop and reverse the human aging process. Although this ambitious biogerontologist at the University of Cambridge in England was trained as a computer scientist, he is also a self-taught biologist with a strong interest in why organisms age. After marrying a geneticist in 1991, Dr. de Grey became so interested in biology that he began teaching himself the subject. In 1996 he had progressed far enough to make a significant contribution in molecular biology, by identifying previously unknown influences that affect the mutations that occur in mitochondria (the intracellular structures that provide cells with energy), after only reviewing the relevant literature on this for several months. 

Dr. de Grey received his M.A. in computer science at the University of Cambridge, and has been working there as a computer scientist in the Department of Genetics since 1992. His insights into mitochondria earned him a Ph.D. in biology from the university, although Dr. de Grey is not a laboratory researcher. He does no biology experiments. Rather, he is purely a theoretician in the realm of biology, and he prefers to see the Big Picture. By studying the literature from different scientific disciplines, he has assembled a master plan for how to “cure aging.” Although controversial, he has outlined what many experts believe are feasible engineering solutions to the seven basic consequences of prolonged metabolism that accumulate as what we call “aging.” 

These seven factors involved in aging, and Dr. Grey’s proposed solutions, will be discussed in the interview, but briefly they are: (1) The loss of cells that we need; (2) The accumulation of cells that we don’t need; (3) DNA mutations inside the cell nucleus; (4) DNA mutations inside the cell’s mitochondria; (5) The accumulation of “junk” inside of cells; (6) The accumulation of “junk” outside of cells; and (7) The formation of cross-linked proteins outside cells.

For each of these seven problems Dr. de Grey has a solution. These solutions are organized as part of a project he has masterminded, which he calls “Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence,” or SENS. Two of these strategies are ideas of his own, while the other five came from colleagues. The strength of Dr. de Grey’s ideas lies in his engineering approach–which is goal-directed to find practical solutions–and his interdisciplinary perspective. What may be most important about Dr. de Grey’s work is that he has brought together many experts from different fields that normally wouldn’t be interacting and sharing ideas. It is through this cross-fertilization of ideas that so much excitement and controversy has resulted from his work.

Dr. de Grey is currently the chairman and the Chief Science Officer of the Methuselah Foundation, which offers financial prizes to researchers who can break previous records of lifespan in mice. He is on the scientific advisory boards for the Maximum Life Foundation, Legendary Pharmaceuticals, Centenarian Species and Rockfish project, and the Alcor Life Extension Foundation. Dr. de Grey is also on the Board of Directors of the International Association of Biomedical Gerontology and the American Aging Association, and he is editor-in-chief of the journal Rejuvenation Research. To find out more about Dr. de Grey’s work visit his Web site:

I interviewed Dr. de Grey on February 3, 2005. Aubrey is extremely attentive, mentally energetic, and eloquent with words. We talked about the reasons for aging, the obstacles that stand in the way of reversing the aging process, and the social and psychological consequences of having a population that lives for hundreds or thousands of years.

David: How did you first become interested in biogerontology? 

Aubrey: This is one of the most common questions that I get asked, of course, but it’s actually one of the ones I find hardest to answer. I’ve been wracking my brains for years about this, because, you see, it was very gradual. I’m sure that from the dawn of time–from when I was a kid–it was obvious to me that aging was not a good thing, but that didn’t really count as being interested in gerontology because I never regarded it as my problem. I was not a biologist back then. My main interests in school–as a kid and as a university student–were in math and computers. I guess I took the view that while it’s obviously hard to do anything about aging there are professional biologists who must doubtless be hammering away at this, and they’ll make their breakthrough in the fullness of time.

So it was really only after I met my wife that I became interested in biogerontology. My wife is a geneticist, and she’s quite a lot older than me. She was already forty-five when we met. She was a full professor at UC San Diego and was on sabbatical here in Cambridge. It was really through, first of all, learning a lot of biology, just by accident, by just talking to my wife, that I began to reawaken this interest. I began to think about the question What is actually so hard about postponing aging? And the more I thought about it, the more I’d find I couldn’t really understand what was so hard. 

So I started to talk about this to my wife and to other people of her generation, and it became apparent that they didn’t really know either, but that they regarded it as not an interesting problem, which was scandalous to me. I mean, I understand why they thought that, because, you see, scientists are interested in understanding things. They’re interested in knowledge for it’s own sake, whereas engineers are more interested in knowledge as a means to an end, and I think that I’m very much an engineer at heart.

So I was scandalized by this. Eventually, I was sufficiently scandalized that I went off and actually taught myself some of the relevant areas of biology that were not ones in which my wife herself was an expert–like biochemistry, for example–so as to be able to understand what was known about the biology of aging, and what people might actually try to do something about. I got very lucky. I was able to make an interesting contribution in one area of gerontology after I’d really only been reading the literature extensively for a month or two. That contribution was published and well-received in 1997. Since then I’ve basically been going without stopping.

David: Can you describe how you arrived upon your initial insight–your “aha” moment–of how the aging process can be reversed, and why you think that the key to longevity is basically an engineering problem? 

Aubrey: I don’t think there was a real moment when I realized that it’s an engineering problem. It was obvious to me that it was an engineering problem. Bodies are just machines. They’re very complicated but they are just machines. The big breakthrough I made–that you may be referring to, and which has been talked about a little bit in other publications–is that in the summer of 2000 I realized something about how to approach the problem. This was not to approach the general concept of aging as an engineer, but actually how to break the problem down, how to subdivide it into parts that could each–with reasonable plausibility–be, not just slowed down, but actually repaired and reversed without too much risk of side-effects and things spinning out of control in ways that one couldn’t predict. That was in the middle of the night in Los Angeles in July of 2000.

David: What do you think are the seven primary causes of aging? 

Aubrey: It’s probably not really quite correct to call them “the causes of aging.” What they are is the early manifestations of aging. These are intrinsic side-effects of metabolism, of being alive in the first place, and they are things that build up throughout life. Although these side-effects are not the cause of aging, they start to become harmful once they get to a certain level of abundance. Once there’s enough of them around the body starts to suffer from them and eventually it suffers seriously. But the point is that initially they are completely inert. So this is really why a twenty year old, and a thirty or forty year old, are more or less equivalent in terms of functionality–in as long they’ve looked after themselves reasonably well. You can run as fast, you can think as fast, and so on, more or less, because the things haven’t reached a pathogenic level.

So the seven areas are as follows. First of all, there is a loss of cells. There are certain tissues in which, when the cells in that tissue die the tissue doesn’t know how to replace them, not at the adequate rate anyway. For example, in the heart, or in certain areas of the brain, cells die and are not replaced.

The second one is the opposite of that. It’s having too many cells of a certain type. This includes cells that really ought to have

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Kary Mullis

David Jay Brown


Kary Mullis

 Kary Mullis won the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his invention of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which revolutionized the study of genetics. The journal Science listed Dr. Mullis’ invention of PCR as one of the most important scientific breakthroughs in human history.

PCR is a technique that allows chemists to easily, and inexpensively, replicate as much precise DNA as they need. This solved a core problem in genetics. Before PCR, the existing methods for making copies of those particular strands of DNA that one was interested in were slow, expensive and imprecise. The brilliance behind this invention, as well as it utter simplicity, lies in PCR’s ability to turn the job over to the very biomolecules that nature uses for copying DNA. PCR multiplies a single, microscopic strand of genetic material billions of times within hours. The process has many applications in medicine, genetics, biotechnology and forensics.

When the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded Dr. Mullis the Nobel Prize, they said it had “hastened the rapid development of genetic engineering” and “greatly stimulated biochemical research and opened the way for new applications in medicine and biology.” Just flipping through any current issue of the journals Science or Nature one will encounter advertisements for PCR systems every few pages. In addition to revolutionizing the study of genetics, it’s also influenced popular culture and science fiction. Because PCR has the ability to extract DNA from fossils, it was the theoretical basis for the motion picture Jurassic Park. In reality, PCR is the basis of an entirely new scientific discipline, paleobiology.

Dr. Mullis earned his Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California at Berkeley in 1972, and lectured there until 1973. That year he became a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric cardiology at the University of Kansas Medical School. In 1977 he began two years of postdoctoral work in pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California, San Francisco. He joined the Cetus Corporation in Emeryville, California, as a DNA chemist in 1979, and it was during his seven years there that he invented PCR. Dr. Mullis has authored several major patents, and he has received numerous, highly prestigious awards–including the Japan Prize in 1993, the Thomas A. Edison Award (1993), and the California Scientist of the Year Award (1992). He was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1998.

His many publications include “The Cosmological Significance of Time Reversal” (Nature), “The Unusual Origin of the Polymerase Chain Reaction” (Scientific American), “Primer-directed Enzymatic Amplification of DNA with a Thermostable DNA Polymerase” (Science), and “Specific Synthesis of DNA In Vitro via a Polymerase Catalyzed Chain Reaction” (Methods in Enzymology). Dr. Mullis is also the author of the book Dancing Naked In the Mind Field (Pantheon Books, 1998). This autobiographical account of his fascinating, and sometimes mind-bending adventures, simply overflows with a bounty of novel and thought-provoking ideas. Dr. Mullis makes a compelling case for the existence of greater mystery in the world around us, and he seems more interested in seeking truth than he is avoiding controversy.

Dr. Mullis is currently a Distinguished Researcher at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute. He also serves on the board of scientific advisors of several companies, provides expert advice in legal matters involving DNA, and is a frequent lecturer at college campuses, corporations and academic meetings around the world. He is the inventor and founder of Altermune LLC. To find out more about Dr. Mullis’ work, visit his Web site:

Dr. Mullis lives with his wife, Nancy Cosgrove Mullis, in Newport Beach, California and in Anderson Valley, California. I met Kary and Nancy in 1999, when we did a radio show together with the late Elizabeth Gips on KKUP in Cupertino, California. I spoke with Kary again on September 22, 2003 for this book. During the interview, I noticed playful, childlike 

qualities in Kary when he was discussing sophisticated scientific ideas. There was a simplicity, and a clarity, in the way that he approached complex ideas, and his mind seemed to exist in many dimensions at once. Kary put a lot of thought into each of his answers, and although his mind seemed to be moving very quickly, he also appeared to be a very relaxed. Kary has an uncanny ability to combine extremely far-out perspectives with very practical, nuts-and-bolts thinking.

We spoke about the direction of science, the relevance of nonrandom mutations in evolution, psychic phenomena and other unexplainable experiences, the nature of time, the “thickness” of the moment, and the possibility of an asteroid colliding with the Earth–which he thinks is the most urgent threat to life on this planet. We also discussed his current research, which offers tremendous hope as a medical treatment for dealing with virtually any type of pathogen by engaging the immune system in a novel way. 

David: Where do you think humanity should be focusing its scientific efforts right now?

Kary: I think that if we, as a society, want to survive for a long time, then we’ve got to put up an umbrella over our heads to protect us from the things that are obviously going to fall on our planet. 

I often wonder, given that the universe is so vast, with so many stars that must have planets like ours, why there aren’t aliens down here trying to trade us beads and trinkets for Manhattan? (laughter) We must have something that they’d think was cool, and yet, it just doesn’t seem to be the case. If it is, they’re not making themselves known.

Maybe it’s because cultures tend to get wiped out by asteroids. We have gotten to the point where we can look into the near vicinity of space and see the things that are a serious danger to us.  The asteroid belt is full of things that don’t have stable orbits.  Maybe by the time a culture can recognize that, it’s too late, because they have gone off on some ridiculous tangents.  I think we’ve done that, in terms of our science.


We’re not pragmatists anymore. For at least a couple of hundred years Americans have always been thought of as pragmatic philosophers–if it doesn’t matter, we’re not going to worry about it too much. We’ve spent billions and billions trying to understand something called ‘The Grand Unified Theory of Everything’–and all you have to do is take LSD one time to realize that that is not going to happen. (laughter) You’re just not going to find ‘The Grand Unified Field of Everything’.

You can pretend to find it by spending vast sums of money and building huge machines. We’re building this great big thing called BABAR, which looks like an elephant. It’s an attachment that detects B-mesons, and will sit on top of the Stanford Linear Accelerator. They’re making something that’s going to produce a lot of what’s called B-mesons, and, from its particular properties, physicists hope to understand enough to provide the final structure of the universe–’The Grand Unified Theory of Everything’.

But human beings, who are paying for this whole endeavor, will never understand this. I’ve been studying it since I was a little boy, and it’s not really clear to me that this particular theory of everything is anything more than just a myth. You can find evidence for anything if you look hard enough. 

David: What do you think is the biggest threat to the human species?

Kary: We need to know where the asteroids are, and which ones could be on a course for Earth sometime in the next five hundred years, or even right now. If something two miles wide crashed on this planet going 17,000 miles per hour– which it probably would be by the time it got here– it would destroy everything. It’s done it before. We know for sure it happened 65 million years ago. That seems like a long time, but it’s not an infinitely long time. It’s just a long time.

You have to have a sense of a long distant future for man to be concerned about something like that. There are many asteroids, and every now and then, because of

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7