As you might imagine, I was an avid reader as a kid—still am, of course. One of my favorite books was about an eleven-year-old boy, Will, who learns that he’s one of the Old Ones and has to fight the Dark to save the Earth. I’ve thought about this book many times over the years, but its title and author had completely escaped my memory until recently, when I mentioned the story to my friend Steve.

“Oh, that’s The Dark Is Rising, by Susan Cooper,” he said immediately. Delight! Rapture!

Then he went me one better. A few weeks later, we met for lunch, and he brought me a copy of the entire Dark Is Rising series! Oh, frabjous day!

So I’ve been journeying back to my childhood via Will Stanton and the eternal battle between Light and Dark. If that weren’t bliss enough, it turns out that there are five books in the series—and I had only read the first two. A trip down Memory Lane and a new adventure! Life doesn’t get much better than this. Incidentally, Will’s story was turned into a perhaps not-so-good movie just last year.

The Dark is Rising is classic good vs. evil, in which Will must fulfill his destiny as the last of the Old Ones. His destiny is a good one, but not all destinies are. Consider this quote from Dr. Robert Green, professor of neurology, genetics and epidemiology at Boston University School of Medicine (hat tip: Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei):

Genetic information has a special power. It has a feel of fate about it, a sense of inevitability, that sense that, “Oh, you are marked.”

Of course you could be marked for something good or for something bad, but what we seek in genetic information is usually the bad: Do I have a propensity for obesity? Cancer? Heart disease? The lack of these markers isn’t cause for celebration, but their presence is cause for despair.

I don’t know whether destiny exists. I have two astrologer friends who tend to be pretty accurate with their insights and predictions, so maybe it does. Nonetheless, I urge you:

Strive to excel regardless of whether or not you believe it is your destiny.

Wouldn’t you always want to do your best, even if your life was predetermined? Let’s say you’re genetically programmed to never win a gold medal at the Olympics. Wouldn’t you still benefit from training to your peak? Let’s say it’s your destiny to get heart disease. Shouldn’t you still eat well and exercise?

Looking to destiny is one thing; relying on it, in the absence of your own positive action, is another thing altogether.

My brilliant friend Shana once described how she met a fella she’d been dating: “I put a clarion call out to the universe that I was ready to be with a really great guy, and then I took the action steps to make it happen.”

I loved that. There are lots of people who understand the first half of that equation, but it’s the totality of the statement that makes the difference. That’s why I love the epigenetics story: that your environment, including your beliefs, determine whether your genes get switched on or off. In Dr. Green’s parlance, your environment and beliefs drive the inevitable outcome of your life.

Don’t worry about whether or not something is your destiny. Just take the action steps. Even if you don’t achieve your original goal, I promise you that you will be more satisfied than if you had done nothing.

What are your thoughts on destiny?

Wired ran a piece this week about post-traumatic stress disorder that reinforced the epigenetic connection between experience and genes.

The study they reported on found that people who had been abused as children were likely to experience variations in a stress-related gene, and that people with those variations were more likely to experience PTSD if they were exposed to traumatic events as adults.

This is profound in two directions: first, because it identifies the genetic influence on PTSD (one of only two studies to do so). Second, because it shows the experiential influence on genes.

The results suggest that there are critical periods in childhood when the brain is vulnerable “to outside influences that can shape the developing stress-response system,” said Emory University researcher and study co-author Dr. Kerry Ressler.

Of course, given that several authors of the study have financial ties to psychiatric drug manufacturers, the obvious reaction is for them to identify a drug-distribution opportunity:

Ressler noted that there are probably many other gene variants that contribute to risks for PTSD, and others may be more strongly linked to the disorder than the ones the researchers focused on.

Still, he and outside experts said the study is important and that similar advances could lead to tests that will help identify who’s most at risk. Treatments including psychotherapy and psychiatric drugs could be targeted to those people, Ressler said.

I would hope that scientists in this area also use this profound information to explore more non-drug remedies. If the cause of the initial gene change is experiential, couldn’t the cure be experiential?

The statement about “critical periods in childhood” pre-defines the argument by suggesting that there’s this tiny window in which genes can be changed without drugs, and then after that it’s pills, baby, pills!

Let’s not limit ourselves. This study has dramatic implications across all aspects of human life. Our experience directly impacts our physical reality, which directly impacts our subsequent experience, and on and on.

What do you think about this research? Does it push any buttons for you?

I’ve been giving some thought lately to the concepts of quackery and legitimacy, of reputation and credibility. What is it that constitutes acceptance by the scientific community, and what is it that causes some people to be considered charlatans?

Take, for example, the concept I’ve been discussing recently, that belief determines biology. There is no shortage of disdainful pages decrying this type of nonsense as New Age mysticism.

That belief determines biology may or may not be true. That it is New Age mysticism may or may not be true. What sparks my curiosity, though, is the basis on which these determinations are made, and the messianic conviction with which they are delivered.

For example, there’s nothing New Age-y about the idea that our emotions produce physical consequences. We need look no further than adrenaline to prove a scientifically accepted and tangible mind-body connection.

And quantum physics has certainly shown to the satisfaction of the scientific community that matter is energy, and energy matter—this isn’t new.

Being only the merest layperson in this discussion, I am not trying to make a scientific argument one way or the other. What I am trying to understand, and what I welcome enlightenment on, is what makes one person a revolutionary scientist and another person a quack. I’m trying to understand the process by which some radical ideas are accepted as ‘true’ and propagate memishly throughout laboratories across the globe while others languish in tea rooms and underfunded, second-rate schools.

I’m quite confident that Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point arguments and Duncan Watts’ equally convincing counterarguments could offer us some lessons here, lessons about what makes an idea go viral and how much of a theory’s success depends on its timing.

I can only say that I would hope that those in our midst charged with exploring the mysteries of the universe would be the ones with the most open minds, just as I would hope that our politicians would be the ones with the greatest capacity to empathize with people from all walks of life—even (gasp!) those from the other party.

I invite your speculations if you know nothing of the topic, and your well-informed wisdom if you happen to be enmeshed in it. Help me understand the forces at work here, so that we can all become more aware.

On January 28, Hsien-Hsien Lei wrote about the American Journal of Medical Genetics Special Issue on Children and Genetics. One item in particular caught my attention: a discussion of the psychosocial effects of predictive genetic testing in minors:

Harms described included knowledge of future illness, witnessing distress in parents, negative effects on family relationships and friendships, effects upon employment and school, experiencing regret, feeling guilty and having to confront difficult issues…

The study does describe beneficial effects as well. But does the harm that comes from knowing you may contract a disease outweigh the benefits?

In additional, there’s the self-fulfilling prophecy question:

Does a belief that you may contract a disease increase the likelihood that you will?

The work we do at VortexDNA builds on the foundation laid by epigenetics, literally, ‘above-genetics’: the study of the factors that determine whether our genes get turned on or off and how they eventually manifest.

Epigenetics offers an understanding of why people with certain genes get cancer while others remain tumor-free. It brings a greater depth to the notion that we are determined by our genes—in reality, there are myriad factors that contribute to the behavior of each of our genes. Recent science shows quite clearly that we hold a far greater ability than you may have thought to choose how our genes behave.

Bruce Lipton outlines this concept in his book quite clearly. Single cells respond to direct stimuli, like moving toward food or away from toxins. Multicellular communities, like people, behave a bit differently. In order to capitalize on the advantages offered through belonging to a gang, cells agree to answer to a leader: the brain. If there’s a conflict between the cell’s isolated imperative and the brain’s command, the brain wins. As Lipton says:

Our responses to environmental stimuli are indeed controlled by perceptions, but not all of our learned perceptions are accurate. Not all snakes are dangerous! Yes, perception “controls” biology, but… these perceptions can be true or false. Therefore, we would be more accurate to refer to these controlling perceptions as beliefs.

Beliefs control biology!

This concept is tremendously empowering. It means that we’re not subject to the whims of a DNA that we have no control over. It means we can choose the type of life we want to live, right down to our level of health. Our beliefs and our intention are directly causative of our experience.

At VortexDNA, we’ve taken the concept of epigenetics and the relationship between belief and biology, and explored it mathematically. What we’ve found is this:

Human intention is governed by the mathematics of complex systems.

Those same beliefs that control our biology; that same intention that determines our experience, can be expressed mathematically, with predictive characteristics.

This math can represent the level of alignment between two people. It can determine the strength of a company’s values, or how likely you might be to enjoy a particular book.

Knowing that your beliefs control your biology, would you still choose genetic testing? Would you choose to have your children genetically tested? Or would you invest your effort in consciously designing the life you want?

I’m about midway through Bruce Lipton’s book, The Biology of Belief, and it’s incredibly exciting. The biology is exciting, the possibilities are exciting, and the alignment with VortexDNA is beyond exciting. Bruce is a cell biologist by training; he’s taught at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine and conducted studies at Stanford University’s School of Medicine.

His primary and emphatic message, shown in the video below, is that our beliefs control our DNA and the functions of our bodies.

The video is a bit long, but it’s well worth the hour if you are at all interested in this topic.

Meanwhile, in the creating-your-reality department, it turns out he’s just moved to New Zealand. I’m gonna go look him up

There’s been a lot of news recently about personal genetic testing, along the lines of 23andMe. A post from Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei, though, raises some of the ethical questions that could arise from DNA testing, particularly in countries where it would be legal to require such tests as a prerequisite to hiring. As Dr. Lei points out, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) passed the House last month, which should provide some measure of protection in the U.S. Unfortunately, the same consideration doesn’t hold true for Trinidad and Tobago, the UK, or Australia.

Here are some ways DNA from job applicants, including police recruits, can be used:

1. To predict current and future health status as it affects fitness for the job.
2. To determine insurance liability both for the job candidates and their families (since genes are inherited).
3. To assess personality traits, such as the MAOA gene which is associated with violent behavior, the D4-7 gene variant associated with risk taking, the stathmin gene associated with fear, and the CHRM2 gene associated with performance IQ, so that candidates can be matched with the appropriate job.
4. To make sure the candidate isn’t a crime suspect by comparing his/her DNA with DNA databases. According to another interview with Noel Perry, Assistant Commissioner of the Ethical Standards Commissioner in 2003, gang leaders and members of organized crime have joined police forces before (remember that horrible movie starring Matt Damon and Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed?).
5. In the case of police recruits, DNA can be keep on file for comparison to samples taken at crime scenes as a safeguard against police involvement in criminal activity.

This post raised some big issues, one of which was picked up on by more than one of the commenters:

If DNA is predictive, what are its appropriate uses?

Lei mentions Gattaca (I hadn’t picked up until now the connection between the movie title and the DNA bases G-A-T-C, but it’s a good one); to me, these questions are more along the lines of The Minority Report. If you could see the future, what would you do with it?

The question gets even trickier when you consider probability: if you could see one possible future with no guarantee that it would be accurate, what would you do about it? If someone has a 40% chance of committing a crime, should we put her in jail preventatively? If someone has a 70% chance of committing a sex offense, should we castrate him in advance?

Those are questions related to punishment, but what about reward? It’s common in most societies to want to affiliate with perceived success. What about predicted success? Jumping on the bandwagon? What if the prediction is that you won’t be successful—who’s gonna hire you?

These are important questions: important for deoxyribonucleic acid testing and important for VortexDNA intention-mapping, but there’s a fundamental difference in their significance. When applied to physical DNA, the probabilities are assumed to be fixed and deterministic: this DNA gives you this likelihood of this outcome.

With epigenetics and the DNA of intention, on the other hand, there is infinite opportunity to choose another outcome. If you choose to believe this, you are likely to get that result; if you change your beliefs, you can achieve this other result.

It’s clear that the two approaches would provoke fundamentally different reactions, and that there are tricky ethical questions that arise from both—I’ll be discussing them further over the coming days. What are some that occur to you? Would you want people to know your DNA? How about your core beliefs? Why or why not?