Science (USA) should apologize to readers around the world for propagating anti-scientific content               Muying Zhou 28 Feb. 2013

Wake-up calls:

① “USA produced the first atomic bomb” means “USA is a producer”.

Similarly, “A germplasm (a collection of genetic resources for an organism) can produce an organism” means “germplasm is a producer or, at least, contains a component: producer”. And DNA never is a producer, therefore it is impossible that germplasm=DNA.

  But Encyclopaedia Britannica says: germplasm is DNA.

② The question “These are all planes from the same factory; why are some of them Boeing 727s and others Boeing 757s?” did not address “what elements produced the planes”. The only thing addressed by this question is “what element prescribes to the producer the specification (or characteristics) of its products”. So the answer would be “the blueprint” instead of “producing-line and blueprint (both elements needed for producing plane)”. Similarly, Mendel’s question “all these peas are offspring from same parents; why are some of them tall and others short?” did also not address “what elements produced the peas”. The only thing addressed by Mendel’s question is “what element prescribes the producer the characteristics (or specification) of its products”. So the answer would be “the gene” instead of “germplasm (which should contain two elements: producer and gene)”.

In 2010, Science (USA) published a paper [J. Craig Venter et al: Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome, Science, 329, 52 (2010)] to tell the world that a man-made DNA produced a “synthetic cell”. However, in fact this cell’s producer is non-DNA (transcriptase) and this DNA consumed no energy, did no work for producing this cell. Therefore, Science had propagated a contradictory thought (DNA produced a cell=non-DNA produced a cell) and a piece of anti-scientific content (this DNA was a kind of perpetual motion machine). [An expert argued, “If you were to ask someone who said to you that DNA can produce a cell if they really mean that DNA can produce a cell in the absence of any machinery, transcriptases or other ingredients, I am quite certain they would answer ‘of course not!’. They are merely pointing out that DNA (in the presence of the right machinery, enzymes and raw ingredients) can produce a cell. The part in brackets is simply unspoken”. In one word, people say “DNA produces a cell” means “DNA needs transcriptase and other materials to produce a cell”. My respond is: “A produces P” could means “A needs many other (including raw materials) materials and conditions except the producer to produce P”; however, if A needs non-A as producer to produce P, “A produces P” becomes “non-A produces P”. This is contradictory. The tank is produced by producing-line. You can’t say “the blueprint can produce the tank. Of course, it is simply unspoken that the practical producing work needs the producing-line to do and the blueprint merely tells the producing-line to produce no other than tank”. A beggar can’t say “my draw of a pie produced this pie. Of course, it is simply unspoken that the practical producing work needs my benefactor to do and my draw merely tells the benefactor to make what”. Why we have to reverse the fact instead of to tell the fact?]  

Scientific journals, especially the world top science journals, should not propagate contradictory thought and anti-science content. So I wrote a “Letter to Science” asking Science to apologize to readers around the world. But Science rejected my Letter in 16 Nov. 2012 for a technical reason (“Letters to Science are not used as a forum for new research or theories”). We know it is a very common thing that a journal rejects a submission; however, does a scientific journal have the right to propagate anti-scientific content and then to refuse apologizing for such propagating?

Perhaps, Science didn’t think that it had ever propagated any anti-scientific content. So I have to get the facts disclosed to the world and let the world to judge who was wrong: Science or I. If I was wrong, I would apologize to Science and pay $ 15000 to the person who proving I was wrong as I had said in my Letter to Science.

The theory of the gene is a wrong theory

“DNA produced a cell”, this affirmation is based on the theory of the gene. This theory claims genes are the hereditary material. So a germplasm contains only one element: genes, consistent with the statement in the Encyclopaedia Britannica that “germplasm is the hereditary material of the germ cells: genes (DNA)”.

However, “A germplasm (a collection of genetic resources for an organism) can produce an organism” means “germplasm is a producer or, at least, contains a component: producer”, and DNA never is a producer, therefore it is impossible that germplasm=DNA.

The life is the biggest producer on the world. If there were no producer in the germplasm, the following facts could not be possible: every year more than 400~500 billion tons of organic materials are produced by the life; an Escherichia coli cell produces 2⁷² cells in 24 hours under ideal conditions; and a human oosperm (<1 µg) can produce 16×10¹⁴ cells forming an adult (＞60 kg). If our mothers had not put producer (egg’s transcriptase system materials) passed on to us, we would be DNA-junk heaps forever instead of adults. In this meaning we could say that no producer no life.

To find the germplasm the geneticist should ask questions as such: “what elements of pea produce new peas?” or “relying what elements pea produced own offspring?”

As we all known G. Mendel had never asked such questions and done experiments to answer these questions. Therefore, it is impossible that Mendel’s experiments could tell us：what is the germplasm.

Gregor Mendel’s experiments were performed to answer such questions: all these peas are offspring from same parents; why are some of them tall and others short. This type of questions may also be: “Why Hapsburgs has its unique family nose?”, “why does he like his father, his brother like his mother?”, “those are all planes from the same factory; why are some of them Boeing 727s and others Boeing 757s?”  These questions do not address how are these products (pea, nose, man and plane) produced. The only thing addressed by this type of question is what element prescribes to the producer the specification (or characteristics) of its products. As we all known, the gene （as the fruit of Mendel’s work） is no other than the element prescribing to the organism the characteristics of its offspring.      

G. Mendel did not claim that genes are the only one component of germplasm or genes are the hereditary material (that means genes are the whole components of germplasm), and he never thought one day he could be the founder of the modern genetics. In fact, like with only one side to build a rectangle, it is impossible to found the modern genetics based on genes only. However, as all we known, T. H. Morgan made the claim mentioned above not made by Mendel and founded “the modern theory of heredity” (see the theory of the gene published in 1928). Facts showed this theory had led the world to wrong road. Obviously, T. H. Morgan did not understand the significance of Mendel’s experiments (and his own Drosophila experiments). And this is a history tragedy.

Muying Zhou

Central Hospital of

Shandong Feicheng Coal-Mining Group Corporation

Feicheng, Shandong 271608, China

E-mail: fckzmy@yahoo.com.cn   Personal Web Site: www.science-china.com