Controlling for Biochemical Individuality - Making Research more Valid

by Don Richard Paladin

Western science, like any system and approach created by humans, is based on agreed upon and accepted conventional knowledge. Although the goal of science is to discover the truth, in any system in which a pattern of logic is used to sort through and evaluate information, it can become a closed system that may prevent understanding of additional knowledge. This often happens in dualistic, reductionistic thinking. We sort into bins of either/or. The two byte logic works well for computers, but it is not completely reflective of reality. Sorting (analyzing thought) and evaluating information is a very valuable component of learning; but, it has its limitations. There is an inability of those with a very skewed logical perspective to see the interrelationship of all things. When there are missing elements of understanding in the logic of a thinker, it is very difficult to bring new knowledge that contradicts a previous level of understanding.

A classic example of the limitations of such thinking is the debates about which is more powerful on the development of a human. . . ones environment or ones genetic makeup. Often in a dualistic system, issues are polarized into excluding systems. (E.g., Men are better than women, environment is more important than genetics, etc.) There is no doubt value in sorting information by differences. However, it is important to realize that when things can be polarized into opposites that they can also be viewed as complementary .The Chinese would refer to this as a Unitary principle. Polarity is not exclusive. It is complementary. The most obvious example is men and women. There are definitely biological and behavioral differences. It is valuable to recognize differences as well as common factors. In the Eastern view, those which are complementary actually work together. No one who is wise would say that both environment and genetics do not have an impact upon the lives of all the living.

The problem becomes when one assumes that all things are equal and attempts to generalize from small sample of a group to the whole group. This is generalized discrimination. The failure to recognize biochemical individuality and diversity, can cause great problems in science. If we test a treatment of a particular drug or chemical on a large random blinded sample, and then statistically prove that treatment has a beneficial effect, we may actually be creating problems for those who may have in inherited intolerance of the drug or treatment being used. Just as a scientist might recognize that no two snowflakes are exactly alike, they must also assume that no human or lower animal has the exact same biochemical tolerance of his or her environment.

In the Western Science system, when things are sorted using a linear, logical approach, the system restricts the introduction of new information based upon that which is already known. In other words, a new premise will be rejected if it violates the conventional understanding of information already understood. This makes Western Science a closed system. One has to be trained in the dogma of the conventional paradigm to be able to communicate with others in the system. It has created its own testing protocols, knowledge base, and accepted system of truth. There is even an assumption by some that Western Science is a unshakable, valid, and reliable system of unchallengeable truth. There is an incorrect assumption by some that all information already "accepted" is valid and cannot be challenged. This kind of rigid thinking makes conventional science no less rigid than the religious dogmas it displaced.

Fortunately, intellectual evolution is not stagnant. Even though there may be a portion of the human population who cannot reason beyond their present level of "knowledge" and understanding of conventional wisdom, there are always those who bring greater understanding because they can see beyond the limitations of knowledge that is culturally biased and passed on as definitive truth.

Those who can see beyond the current level of understanding, know that all previous temporal knowledge is knowledge in which one must be instructed. It is not intuitive knowledge that one develops from living and being a part of the natural order of life. This is not to say that there is not great value in looking at the vast collection of scientific knowledge. Quite the opposite. The challenge becomes in how this knowledge is used and interpreted. If the mechanism for evaluation of new knowledge is closed so that only knowledge within the current system is used to evaluate new information, then the progress to understanding more valuable knowledge will be limited.

It is important that we add to our collective knowledge base that we have not ARRIVED. We do not know all the answers. We have not found all the solutions to our collective problems. We must stay open to the truth. Yes, there must be a structure and a process of evaluation the allows valuable knowledge to be added to our system. However, if what we may have believed as truth in the past is not really universally valid, then we must be open to letting new information in that increases our level of understanding. Often new understanding does not contradict previous understanding, it complements and adds to it.

We must accept that our objective science uses measurement tools that were designed to measure what they were designed to measure. Are these tools definitive measures of truth? Not likely. In our conventional research model, we often create our science based upon a "normal distribution" of the population of the whole. We sort data into standard statistically deviations based on a sample of variables. The creators of the specific research select the variables to be evaluated by the statistical tools.. No one knows how these variable truly reflect understanding of universal truth. Often, they are not focusing on long term consequences of a tested variable.

Statistical evaluation is important. The problem with using a normal distribution which may be representative to the whole population is that it excludes out the importance of biochemical individuality. If only a small percent of the given population has an intolerance to a drug, for example, then this information will not be reflected significantly in the research. If only 5% of a test group who are given a drug for a treatment cannot tolerate it, and 95% can and do benefit from it, the same subgroup's problem will be lost in the statistics on this research There is a great deal of this kind of research being published. Has it caused problems? If the statistics published in the Journal of the American Medical Association hold up, it would suggest there is a big problem. According to that research published in 1998, over 100,000 people a year die from drug reactions. Another 2 million or so become ill from drug reactions. This suggests that there is a real problem with the scientific design that test drugs and chemicals..

I am not suggesting that we abandon random, normalized testing in a scientific research population. I am suggesting that all research also be controlled for biochemical individuality. If a small percentage of a test group have reactions to a tested stimuli, that may be an important indicator that this will be reflected in a percentage of the greater population. If previous research has not controlled for biochemical individuality, I would suggest that the research information is not universally valid and applicable to the total population.