Search Results

26 results found

    Services (4)
    • HEALTHY YOU, HEALTHY WORLD

      SPHERES OF PERCEPTION MORE THAN OPENING DOORS TO A BETTER WORLD...

    • Donations

      All donations are used to create better awareness of the need to advance the ethic in business and healthcare to meet evolving demands. This is done through numerous publications and educational services in a network of authors and researchers.

    • Talk to us/free to members

      Open discussions around concepts introduced in Spheres of Perception with the author or other professionals. Free to members and subject to booking

    View All
    Blog Posts (10)
    • The Deceptions of our times

      Letters from China, Nov 8, 2020 These are indeed unusual and confusing times. Roughly this bafflement has divided people into two groups from what I can see. There are those that are aware and tolerant of the existing deceptions, and those in denial—continuing to live in ignorance or even benefitting from all this canard. Political lies, false beliefs, conspiracy theories, misleading media, economic falsities and the acquisitive algorithms of Internet search engines are the new ‘realities’ making trustworthy information hard to find. In striking contrast to these manmade delusions, our evolutionary presence here is based entirely on pragmatic truths and cooperation. 130 Million years ago when the first flower species learned to coexist with the first insects, life blossomed and diversified and as a result achieved its ultimate perceptive achievement so far —us. This perpetual and delicately interconnected struggle to synchronize life with the environment advanced a higher perceptive primate, and this was not by chance. It is in its continuous search to advance communication methods, interconnect progressive knowledge and information that evolution by design, continuously drives a progressive awareness between objects and emerging life. It is a constant search for pragmatic truths in order to advance, survive and harmonize these elements. No wonder then that doomsday and extinction theories are currently emerging, and wisdom is hard to define in a dissonant world. In trying to define wisdom we can describe it as the ability to discern inner qualities and subtle relationships between things— then translate them into what is recognised as good judgment. So, what gives me or anyone else then the right to act pretentiously in search of wisdom and make wild accusations against the current human condition. After the release of Spheres of Perception and worried of being caught-up in the totalitarian mindset that may result from the entanglement with the novel concept presented in this book, I ended up in China during the Corona virus outbreak. I am still here and let me explain why. Undeniably sound experience is our best guide to new knowledge and a reciprocal guide to wisdom. Such wisdom then recorded in the numerous writings we inherit from the efforts and experiences of others that came before us. What stands out amongst all this toil is wisdom that continues to inspire us or is of pragmatic value to improve the human condition. In my case experiences and inspirations were gathered after many years of living in various countries under an array of diverse cultures while practicing as a vet and tapping on all the knowledge and wisdom I could muster. Strangely, I turned my back on the gains of new certificates on the wall from our so called highly rated institutions. I also without much resistance walked away from the easy lifestyle the booming veterinary clinics I established in Australia and New Zealand could offer. I hope to create some understanding why I did so in this short article here. Recently I stumbled on the work of a much overlooked intellectual, anarchist and socialist Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921). The appeal of his work, besides its undeniable insight, aligned well with my own conclusions here and are as applicable today as it was then. It also severely challenges our current economic hierarchies. Stated in the opening chapter of the book Conquest of Bread, he said: “On the wide prairies of America each hundred men, with the aid of powerful machinery, can produce in a few months enough wheat to maintain ten thousand people for a whole year. And where man wishes to double his produce, to treble it, to multiply it a hundred-fold, he makes the soil, gives to each plant the requisite care, and thus obtains enormous returns. While the hunter of old had to scour fifty or sixty square miles to find food for his family, the civilized man supports his household, with far less pains, and far more certainty, on a thousandth part of that space. Climate is no longer an obstacle. When the sun fails, man replaces it by artificial heat; and we see the coming of a time when artificial light also will be used to stimulate vegetation. Meanwhile, by the use of glass and hot water pipes, man renders a given space ten and fifty times more productive than it was in its natural state.” Excerpt From: kniaz Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin. “The Conquest of Bread. Today we live in a changed world with many new advances, and yet Kropotkin’s wisdom still rings true, in addition we have a vast knowledgebase available at the tips of our fingers (via the Internet). It is impossible for even the smartest man on Earth to absorb all this electronic information in the various disciplines in one lifetime. Yet, all this knowledge, and its potential benefits (only a click away for most of us), does not reach everyone fairly and is not necessarily untarnished and based on reliable experiences or wisdom. We also are not conditioned to associate the intellectually ‘soft’ idea of wisdom with our evidence-based sciences. Complicating matters more than perhaps helping, an abundance of Internet links on various topics masquerade wisdom by claiming peer reviews from prominent institutions. If we declutter our minds, we can perhaps understand the links and the deceptions they can mask better. Somewhat ‘isolated’ in China due to Google and Facebook restrictions, and away from those deceptive algorithms of social media and misleading news links, Beijing’s crowds and air pollution can inevitably become restrictive. In my own case however, it came with an unexpected bonus. It took me a while to figure out exactly what this new fascination was. It certainly wasn’t the poor air quality, the annoying smokers in the crowded streets, or being isolated from that all too familiar addictive media. Neither was it the false allure of the glamorous buildings and shopping malls in Chao Yang; I lived in Singapore, London, Auckland, Johannesburg and Sydney for long enough to recognize their contradictory appeal. This new calmness, clarity and refreshed vigor I discovered was hidden in the absence of Google and Social media! Yes, waking up in the morning without these distractions, for the first time in a long while, I could become fully absorbed and drawn into every moment of my day, think more freely, openly and with more clarity. The only news I now exposed myself to was of pragmatic value and came from experience and unblemished sources. Past experiences and knowledge also had a different meaning, with new value and added support. I recall the grateful faces of the improvised communities I served as seconded vet in rural Africa in my younger days. I recall the cruelty of apartheid in South Africa where I grew up. I can now compare this with the ingratitude and adversity seen in our larger cities, where disparity has been given open reign. Communities where disgruntled children in affluent suburbs are being shipped off in fancy cars to private schools for privileged educations, and the schoolbag carrying maids are being shouted at because the child is late. I notice the striking absence of beggars and homeless people in the city streets where I now live here in China. I witness the ubiquitous selfish demands of the arrogant rich and the desperate subservience and kindness of the poor and the over-mortgaged, in this new apartheid based economic hierarchy we created. Distracting as these thoughts may be, the first cup of coffee in the morning has changed from what used to be a hurried, annoying and subconscious reflex while attempting to flick through emails and news flashes, to a fully absorbed invigorating experience in days filled with new insights and fascinations. Days, also now with much more time in it. My morning walks are relaxed and filled with trees, parks, gardens, old buildings and interesting new faces. Images and experiences that previously eluded me in the many cities I lived, always distracted by my smartphone, the need to exercise or rushing off somewhere. Currently the experience of the beauty and rich colors of autumn here in Yunnan, embellished by the old buildings of the ancient cities, also have new appeal and meaning compared to my previous hurried visits to the same part of the world while living in Singapore. Above all, I now see the people around me no longer through links on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, ‘foreign eyes’ or the directives of online apps. The various expressions on faces in the crowds, the crispness in the air with the promise of a cold winter to be here soon, the odors in the streets are real experiences—with no hidden costs, false pretense or links to make purchases attached. Previously, too absorbed in thoughts of how to respond to such and such via email, gather CPD points, grow networks or if my writing or veterinary clinics got any new likes on social media or not, I was somehow always rushing off somewhere (something ‘better’ perhaps?). Life, events and seasons drifted past unnoticed and unexperienced. My weather app was my essential guide to environmental conditions, and social media indicated my state of wellbeing. My presence was set by my laptop, clients, phone, networks, apps, comments on social media and must reads and do’s and yearly tax returns. Now isolated from all those algorithms that previously defined my existence and social status, I suddenly seem to be alive again. I have a new, much more meaningful presence and image, even here in a strange new land as a struggling author and poor currently unemployed vet. Surrounded by real people with sincere needs and real wishes, unaffected by profit-hungry inscrutable computers and their demands new wisdom is to be found everywhere. Suddenly the people I encounter, the books, science and medical articles I now read, are unblemished by misleading media and can’t be bothered about likes, reviews or the need for designer education, institutionalized demands or sales. They have now become self-elected delicacies of wisdom and practical knowledge— based on my own thoughts and unmarred experiences. They serve pragmatic needs, needs interconnected to my new habitat and experiences. While the global multitude and their pets continue to get sick, die, experience, live, hope, wait, suffer, stare at their smartphones and pray to the different gods they all hope exist, new ideas now surreptitiously appear in my head. The fact that most likely no one will ever have the joy to share the clarity and value of similar unblemished thoughts and experiences make me somewhat sad, yet it does not bother me like it used to. In fact, more concerning perhaps is that I fear I may contaminate my thoughts by re-exposing them to the deceptive guidance of social media under a capitalist ‘democracy’. Gone is that urge to post ideas in a hurry or write to a sale directed audience. Most likely I will eventually submit my writing, if I remember or encounter sincerely concerned parties. One such sincere reader has recently offered to translate Spheres of Perception into Chinese, free of charge, and purely because she thought it had a useful message in it. The silent pleasure of experiencing such sincerity and my own new infant thoughts however is enough for me, and perhaps the ultimate and only reward for the multitude who find escape from all this turmoil in their own writing. Perhaps it may seem that my self-induced isolation is in defiance of the uncertainty in the untruthful money-hungry and status seeking world we currently live in. The fact is, I possess less and encounter more challenges than I ever experienced before. Yet, I also share more thoughts with pragmatic impact on those around me than I ever did before. Everything I see, hear and read comes with refreshed understanding and new insight. The past now makes more sense and also its value and that of the new experiences and knowledge, where and when it matters untarnished by biases. Is wisdom perhaps closer than ever now? Take, indeed, a civilized, developed country anywhere in the world you may find yourself today. The vegetation which once covered it have been cleared, the marshes drained, rivers dammed, the climate improved and the population have access to healthcare, large shopping malls, employment and education, they even have a KFC and Starbucks. It has been made ‘habitable’ and ‘secure’. Security itself, particularly with respect to caring better for our environment and basic material needs such as food, water, shelter, healthcare and protection from violence, the essential requirements for freedom, has never been so hard to define and within reach of us all, but is it? In Kropotkin’s words, “The soil, which bore formerly only a coarse vegetation, is covered to-day with rich harvests. The rock-walls in the valleys are laid out in terraces and covered with vines. The wild plants, which yielded nought but acrid berries, or uneatable roots, have been transformed by generations of culture into succulent vegetables or trees covered with delicious fruits. Thousands of highways and railroads furrow the earth, and pierce the mountains. The shriek of the engine is heard in the wild gorges of the Alps, the Caucasus, and the Himalayas. The rivers have been made navigable; the coasts, carefully surveyed, are easy of access; artificial harbours, laboriously dug out and protected against the fury of the sea, afford shelter to the ships. Deep shafts have been sunk in the rocks; labyrinths of underground galleries have been dug out where coal may be raised or minerals extracted. At the crossings of the highways great cities have sprung up, and within their borders all the treasures of industry, science, and art have been accumulated.” Excerpt From: kniaz Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin. “The Conquest of Bread.”. The truth is, health, security, good living, clarity of mind and happiness requires very little and should be a basic human right accessible to all. It also does not have to hurt the environment if we act wisely and are able to interact reliably. It certainly does not need profit searching social media as a guide. What it needs is living experiences, the ability to distinguish between truths and untruths to address the real needs in communities based on trust, releasing the wisdom to care for themselves and the environment they exist in. And yet we dismally fail in creating communities based on such dependability. The propitious Internet is simply not designated to this task of presenting us with pragmatic truths or developing functional societies. Full of potential to help improve the human condition, it now subtly deprives us of the freedom it promised to open knowledge that can benefit us all equally and be turned into wisdom. Designed to unknowingly lure the innocent to absorb information and make purchases, it concentrates wealth to hidden entities using algorithms purely concerned with selling their products and personal ideas. Most of us are unaware of this artificial redirection of our intelligence when we ‘surf’ the net. What should be more accurately described today as ‘serving’ the net has become the new dictator of how we should live, directing us to the unwise. Peter Kropotkin again, “….a hundred men manufacture now the stuff to provide ten thousand persons with clothing for two years” Excerpt From: kniaz Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin. “The Conquest of Bread.” Today we can add, a few machines and computer software programs are capable of manufacturing enough stuff to clothe, feed and provide housing and transport for all of us for many years to come— fads, property markets, brands and fashion drives aside. And yet again, some of our children walk around in rags deprived of so-called ‘elite’ educations existing on suboptimal diets while a growing number of people worldwide are displaced or homeless. Others in turn have more than they can spend in many lifetimes. Experiencing the leaning towards natural remedies, simple living and community where I currently am (and previously encountered in other parts of the world), and with my knowledge and in-practice exposure, I can discard the overrated value (and its financial drive) of many of the novel pharmaceutical agents and gadgets on the market today. I have also somewhat changed my overall stance on healthcare. With a healthcare predominantly driven by sales and mind-boggling costs (mostly due to expensive drugs) I am now convinced we should search for alternatives in healthy-social-living to prevent these expensive diseases. These alternatives should focus on how we shape the environment and communities where we live and interact. We should tap on wisdom, personal and local experiences, reliable information and truths to serve ​and interconnected and pragmatic needs to advance our future communities. These future communities should be based above all on trust where all resources and new knowledge are fairly shared to constantly improve our world. We must recall here, and as Kropotkin also points out, it took many generations of acquired participation and wisdom with millions dying and living in misery, oppressed and ill-treated by their ‘masters’ until worn out by their toil, to create this immense inheritance of comfort, knowledge and excesses we now have at our disposal. This inherited in a wisdom we should now all be sharing equally. Yet, some benefit greatly from all these inventions and gains while others are still denied the basic rights to the wellbeing this inheritance can offer them. This ‘wealth’ we obtained, now fueled by the hunger of the poor and the constant creation of new ‘needs’ for the middle classes. Resource sharing, egalitarianism, kindness and communities built on trust with information reliably distributed, will not only reduce the health and crime burdens on governments by cutting the costs of stress, drug dependency and substance abuse in these communities, but it will escalate the overall mental health and ability of the populace. Karl Marx claimed, ‘Property is theft’, after years of rejection and taking quiet pride in my own few ‘wise’ investments in property, I finally understand what he meant. Not only is (especially investment property) stealing from those currently in need but it places an increased burden on all of us. It also is in disregard of all those souls whose toil and suffering brought us where we are today. It does so by constantly creating market increases in a canard of the unwise. Afterall all, we only need one home that belongs to us, and not the mortgage lender, to feel secure. There is perhaps nothing as pitiful as a landlord raking in profits from struggling workers while sitting around doing nothing except catering for personal excesses, all too often encountered in our larger cities with their unaffordable properties. Certainly, also no evolution will be naïve enough to tussle through eons to advance and deliver perceptive lifeforms to survive with a progressive epistemology, giving them the ability to create wellbeing for all, simply to let it be scavenged off and cater for the excesses of an elect few, and then for a few fleeting moments of their lives. Such injudiciousness is clearly in total disregard of the suffering of present and past. It callously and continuously harvests cheap labor from a growing number of desperate unemployed ‘slaves’—slaves now to the cost of living and housing. Yet again, we accommodate, even encourage, such an apathetic hierarchy under the rogue capitalist system we have created and unwittingly bow down to. For most of us today when we talk about security we have only financial security in mind. It is very easy to see how focusing on the maximisation of profit and excesses gets things horribly wrong in attempts to talk about morality, truth and reliability, or when comparing the so called ‘elite’ beneficiaries of the current system to those marginalised by it. The impoverished Brazilian writer Carolina Maria de Jesus in the 60’s perhaps described this ongoing subservience to the stupidity of the financial markets best. In a few simple words she wrote —'hunger made her unfree’. And today the capital markets system makes us all unfree by constantly creating new shortages and hungers in a world of surplus. A dissonant world where the price of food, housing and healthcare now prevent many from realizing their own desires. Most of our current emerging mental and physical health issues, such as anxiety, depression, obesity, high blood pressure allergies and cancers can also be indirectly linked to the increased spreading of lies and misinformation, bad housing, noxious environments and poor food quality or false aspirations. It can in turn be prevented by creating interactive communities where resources are reliably shared, and information is trustworthy — and not driven by the profit hungry. These new sources of information should not be directed by greedy Internet search engines, corrupt politicians or large corporations backed by giant advertising campaigns— with their sole aim to promote themselves, their products and personal world views. It should be based on a model where information systems can interact, connect and distribute applicable and reliable information to improve local communities—to benefit all its members fairly and equally. This directive based on real needs and concerns will not only realistically help in the fight against poverty, emerging diseases, unemployment and crime but be motivated to self-sufficiency through expanding pragmatic knowledge to small independent yet reliably interconnected communities. If global security cannot be found by generating large amounts of profits through the creation of mega-corporations (with enough evidence that it can’t), it can only be found in a new form of global trust. I have proposed such a model in Spheres of Perception (2020). If we dissect ourselves very objectively, based on current day scientific knowledge, we have to stand naked as no more than a transgenerational, delicately finetuned, passage of information. This passage of shared and obtainable wisdom, using DNA as an adaptable mechanism to interconnect and communicate progressive knowledge. Such a DNA, responding to changing demands in rapidly evolving environments, make responses possible by altering a few basic chemical elements. A few chemical rearrangements, so science tells us, is also what makes up all life on Earth. These DNA helixes conducting a few protein structures, are not only sensitive and interactive but ‘aware’ of changes around it— be it on sub-atomic level or complex societies. It also comes with a transgenerational memory and moral duty—all based on communicating truths and reliable information. It gives us the ability to create order out of disorder and think about our actions and pursuits here. Whether or not there is a higher purpose or drive to this transmogrification, is not our interest here, perhaps it is not part of our present design to be able to access such insights. However, what we can realistically claim based on our current knowledge and understanding, is that life is driven to escalating complexity, increased awareness and coexistence. If I made only one impression here, I hope it is the following: our experiences and how we interconnect and nurture them will affect our DNA and help to grow our understanding in our search of pragmatic truths and reliable information. Ultimately this will determine what we are, our morality and how healthy us and our future generations will be. A workable evolution in a pliable and adaptable DNA simply can’t tolerate untruths and lies. What you eat, drink, breathe and all your different emotions and interactions with the people around you are real events that shape you. These basic actions can either help create or prevent toxic environments, more lies and suffering from developing and spreading further; a process that will have a significant impact on your own quality of life and impact on all of us and our future wellbeing. We know how Cobvid-19 has impacted on this dissemination of information and knowledge, depending or where and who you are. If you really care for and nurture your DNA and how it interacts with your surroundings and have an impact on others, and realize how it could affect that of our future generations, try and establish yourself in a healthy environment with dependable communities where information is reliable and justly shared. In a few simple steps you can avoid those ‘patch-up modern drug treatments’, bad environments and toxic search engines leading you to the so called ‘natural remedies’, good investments and false utopias as alternatives. Based on very simple advice then we can live healthy, happy and productive lives. This is possibly the most abbreviated no-strings attached health advice I have ever unraveled and cannot sell. It will without a doubt also be rejected and clash with those already addicted to the capitalist’s dream of sales or their own wisdoms in novelty searches and ideas on the Internet: · Breath fresh air deeply, freely and often— promote your local officials to keep the air quality clean. · Drink fresh water and again place pressure on local authorities to ensure fresh clean water is a basic human right and need accessible to all. · Eat simple fresh vegetarian based meals, organic and locally harvested wherever you are, avoid eating meat. Put pressure on producers and authorities to supply local markets before they cater for lucrative export markets. · Try and establish yourself and your skills in communities where it is really wanted and needed, even for little or no immediate financial returns. · Avoid getting bank loans or using credit cards, or in current times taking a second mortgage on your family home (if you have one). · Avoid the following: - Stress wherever you can, give up high paying stressful jobs and relationships for less stressful work, surround yourself with people that relax you. Consider charity and community work in something you are passionate about — help the poor or save our much-neglected environment. - Avoid social media, advertisements, politics and watching much TV. Surf wisely and do not serve. Enjoy a good movie once in a while and read all that inspires you to the above! - The obvious, drugs and alcohol. - Prescription medicines and natural remedies —take only when there are no alternatives to a cure and after a carefully confirmed ailment by a knowledgeable and wise clinician. Remember anything novel (pharmaceuticals) or in excess will cause subtle changes in your DNA and affect your health in the long run. Avoid medicines that treat the symptoms and not the disease. · Be kind · Love those around you · Trust, this is easy if you are lucky enough to be in a dependable community where information is reliably shared—if not, change your community. · Live by doing something that will help others, forget about showing a profit. · Don’t invest in share​s​ markets or read investment news—it isolates wealth and turns your toil into ‘lazy capital’ for the already rich. · Support socialism and the truth. Kropotkin’s insight again, “Truly, we are rich—far richer than we think; rich in what we already possess, richer still in the possibilities of production of our actual mechanical outfit; richest of all in what we might win from our soil, from our manufactures, from our science, from our technical knowledge, were they but applied to bringing about the well-being of all.”… “If every peasant-farmer had a piece of land, free from rent and taxes, if he had in addition the tools and the stock necessary for farm labour—Who would plough the lands of the baron? Everyone would look after his own. But there are thousands of destitute persons ruined by wars, or drought, or pestilence and need.” To reiterate, be very careful of the new ‘hunger’ and poverty that untruths stimulate and the readjustments of narrow newly laid laws, constantly needed to protect such falsities. Such fabrications mostly subsidized by the large corporations, their puppet-politicians and a drive to accumulate and funnel wealth. This ideal of ‘idle wealth’ is certainly also not one pursued by the keen to work, honest and insightful— their essential interest to provide for themselves and their families, establish themselves and improve their communities. Similarly, the idea of anarchism (rule based on pragmatic community needs and reliable information) or expropriation will not lure the profiteers of volatile markets, landlords with multiple properties or vulturous investors with the principle aim to maximize profits, flaunt their wealth and promote personalized world views. Should these individuals perhaps be driven mostly by their own fear and a need for security in an uncertain world (not greed alone), it also works against them by creating a volatile divide where disparity and need will eventually be forced to disregard novelty laws and fail to protect them. Turning to our evolutionary roots then and stripped bare to our DNA, all we can depend on with some element of certainty is that our ongoing search for truths and progressive ability to discern these inner qualities and subtle relationships between objects representing these truths, is still in its infancy. It will only be when maturity is achieved in this ability to value, search and perceive new truths that we can gain progressive knowledge and enough understandings to distinguish between what is right and wrong and also progress morally. Truth and reliable information, giving us then the ongoing wisdom and progressive knowledge that we can translate into what is recognised as good judgment to help each other in this evolutionary process giving us all this awareness we call life. Best wishes Theo

    • Society in trouble.

      Disparity as a ‘Moral Disease’, the cure must come from Science: Theo D Holtzhausen 26/6/2020 (Global online conference, Social Sciences) I believe that social science, and in fact all of science, is facing serious challenges in the coming years. I also share in the ambitions of my colleagues here to rescue the role of the social sciences, seeing it as vital to help communicating a reliable science to diverse communities. Inevitably this is a complex matter involving many disciplines and diverse aspects in a complex setting and must be an interdisciplinary effort. I may perhaps differ in seeing it as essentially a moral issue and fail to see how we can proceed unless we address this faltering ethos as a primary concern. I don’t think any of us can think of precarity, manipulation of knowledge or where we witness officials turning a blind eye on the growing marginalisation of impoverished communities, as anything but moral neglect. If we continue to propose, that ‘engagement should be about opening up policy, exposing it to criticism, challenging its assumptions (including those about knowledge and expertise) and forcing governments to make difficult decisions out in the open’, I also cannot see how we can make any ground when not operating under a trustable and universally applicable ethic. It will be impossible to communicate through an escalating hierarchy of channels with differing moral standards the true benefits of science to a society already suspicious of policymakers and their motives. The more complex these advisory structures become, simultaneously the more composite the avenues open for manipulation and expression of personal biases. This affecting the reliability and value of this science eventually relayed to society. I suggest that the principle cause of the growing disparity and marginalisation of communities are due to a reigning non-progressive morality that has infiltrated all avenues society, business and science especially. This insufficient ethic, failing to keep up with demands of the rapid advances we have seen in science. I also propose that evolution presented us with a pragmatic model from which can be established a more progressive and universal ethic. I believe this is where we should primarily focus our attention and look for a remedy if we truly want to succeed. We cannot single out any discipline to carry the blame or responsibility to fix this deficiency on its own. Perhaps breaking tradition then, I believe the only way to solve this problem is to integrate morality, society and science in a pragmatic and progressive ethic, applicable across all disciplines. Such an integration in order for it to be successful, must involve interdisciplinary collaboration with support and evidence of such a universal ethic coming from science itself. We should ask ourselves three very important questions before we continue: Firstly, what is the chance of success to communicate a ‘trustworthy’ science to a society already suspicions of its political hierarchies and their decision makers, with this society seeing a disregarding science as subject to the same manipulation and control? Also, what is the use of any science to society if it cannot co-evolve morality with the interconnected needs of a just society? How do we communicate a science already suspect of being set in a faltering ethos to a society quick to find escape in false beliefs and financial lures? Science classically is renowned for its phobia of moral and ethical issues, considering them as concerns residing well outside its own realms and its own dealing with the physical world and reality. Try and explain to a professional colleague, be it a vet, dentist, doctor or biochemist there is morality in the citric acid cycle and mostly they reach for their smart phones. Subsequently, science is only concerned with ‘evidence-based’ research in the physical world. In recent decades, with science more profit driven than historically ever witnessed before, it is slowly becoming disconnected, not only from other disciplines and culture but also society and its more pragmatic and diverse needs craving for fairness and equality. We should contemplate briefly before we continue, if it is not perhaps better for science and some disciplines to remain isolated from morality and other disciplines, such as the arts and law, and to perform its duties independently set on ‘fact’? I will in this short paper briefly explain why we absolutely cannot afford to do so and it that it is unrealistic to continue to do so. Superficially it might also seem a frivolous matter for science to consider involving itself with an equivocal matter such as morality, especially since the incidence of misconduct or fraud in an evidence-based discipline should be low. When we turn to statistics on fraudulent activity in the sciences findings are vague if not confusing with the incidences reported as low as 0.1% and upon deeper analysis studies claiming it to be as high as 27%. Data fraud in clinical trials suggest such equivocality is mainly due to the ethos in research facilities responsible for under-reporting fraud by as much as 70%, this figure based on a study by Stephen L George and Marc Buyse in Nov 2015. The true incidence therefore is difficult to estimate accurately based on any publication for various reasons. Only a few are mentioned here. In a profit driven system, and with no clear ethic, any attempt to direct estimation via a survey of investigators, those who commit fraud are not likely to be forthcoming about having done so, the higher the expected rewards (such as in pharma) or status to be gained the higher the incentive to manipulate outcomes and commit fraud and avoid it from being reported. This is a well-known phenomenon to those who study unethical, illegal or any socially unacceptable behaviour since respondents have incentives to be evasive, (mainly status or financial incentives in the professions). There is also a ‘survival of the fit’ culture at play that I will explain further below. Closer to my own discipline it is reported that under-reporting of fraud is more severe in medical research or fields where incentives can be considerably high. Here we also have to single out the negative consequences such reports can have on pharmaceutical companies, other sponsors or indirectly governments associated with such misconduct. There is lucrative incentive for these sponsors to divulge as little as possible about misleading information or misconduct detected in the trials they fund. Lured by such high rewards they are more inclined to find escape in any uncertainty or weaknesses of a science that can, and inevitably must be falsifiable and exceedingly so in the life sciences based on our recent understanding of evolution, I will address this as the ‘shaky foundations of science’. In short, the science we attempt to reliably communicate can be seen as unreliable. In addition there are significant new definitional problems on the use of ethics in medical science. This has recently been much complicated by rapid advances on the genetic front and how we understand our evolutionary origins and define survival. Survival has taken more universal terms in recent years with science now predicting significant environmental threats, and fraud and corruption now with an impact able to cut much deeper into society. The increasingly shaky foundations of science: We should next consider the evidence coming from the natural and physical sciences that there may not be any concrete theories or set rules on fixed matter based on any genetic evolution-based life. Science is not only falsifiable but so too is the physical world it studies busy evolving and changing while we are observing it. It now appears any workable system of evolution must be able to co-evolve perceptions, understanding and morality to reliably confront a changing world, and universe as it unfolds for us. For any model of evolution (the pillars of most of science) to be functional, it requires both a progressive cognition and principled interactions, in what can be seen as a narration of moral rules constantly adjusting to universal demands. Such a model must also be able to persistently progress its principles to interact and adapt to an evolving world of escalating complexity and changing surroundings. Thanks to new advances in technology and better understanding, it has become evident that for a flexible gene to adapt and advance as part of a complex network, principled interconnections and progressive means to perceive and communicate on various levels are vital to make such an interactive system work. Such interactions happening on biochemical, cellular, extracellular, endo- and exosomatic levels. Concrete matter and theories, the substance of the physical and natural sciences, and where evolution also found reason to insulate itself from moral issues, now appear more elusive and morally dependant than previously thought. Simultaneously as this demand for pliancy in our understanding is increasing so also the vulnerability of science. I claim both science and morality must be progressive, interconnected and all-regarding to advance an epistemology of any use to society. A new model—it must come from science: In a science on a less steady platform than previously believed, we are forced to be more attentive to how an interconnected and perceptive evolution co-evolve morality and cognition in consonance and what are the rules. We function in three essential spheres of perception of this world to do so, these are unavoidable physical realities (evidence-based, where science operates), logical deductions in uncertainty, and the metaphysical (unknown)— we cannot evolve if isolated and operating in any single sphere alone. Using evolution as a model here, it works on the same principles interacting in unison as a perceptive mechanism to interact with changing environments, as a progressive interactive system. Be it a strand of RNA, gene, organism, social structure or ethic without this basic construct it cannot evolve. Both the physical and natural sciences are now witness to our physical sphere (evidence-based sphere) being progressive, pliant and vitally interconnected and dependant on the other two spheres. With moral interaction between these three spheres vital to make any sense of evolution. Application: False belief systems and power structures in control of our destiny, function essentially in the uncertain and metaphysical spheres of our existence, take advantage of the equivocality in these spheres to sway outcomes for personal benefit— we have enough evidence of this. Science in turn attempts to insulate itself in the physical sphere, not as secure as we thought. Fraudulent activity supported by such structures can gain an unfair advantage in the manipulability of both the uncertain and metaphysical spheres and subsequently use this to exploit an already weakened evidence-based (physical sphere). I suggest in order to eliminate this vulnerability of science, and if we wish to effectively address precarity and disparity in a functional moral and just society, we need a universal ethic. Only when we can reliably interconnect all three spheres of reasoning to interact progressively and openly will we succeed to create and relay a reliable science. Such an ethic is now presented to us through better understanding of our evolutionary roots. Subsequently I suggest any solution on communicating science effectively will need to incorporate such a socially acceptable and pragmatic morality supported by both science and a global society. Armed with a new model of how life emerged we now have such a platform. With a more morally acceptable contemporary version of evolution we also diminish the emphasis placed on survival and reproduction set in a disregarding evolution. The classical mechanical and egocentric natural selection theory has overplayed the role of reproduction and survival and established this view as the general drive of evolution. Such an impression coming from science, making the world appear an especially harsh, brutal and disregarding place where only the fit survives, and financial power can be used to manipulate outcomes. I suggest remedying this misunderstanding should be one of sciences first concerns, to not only rescue the moral standing and value of science but the value of science to society. We can achieve this by marrying science with a progressive morality and evidence coming from science itself. Communicating any information, however useful and evidence-backed such advice may appear to be, the ethic and morality of the source must have universal acceptance for it to be reliably applied and distributed. Other fields and misconceptions must also be bluntly singled out for delaying this marriage between science and morality and causing the ongoing disparity and panic we witness today. Undeniably, politics, a blinkered economic system and false belief systems must be highlighted having significant power to affect outcomes. It is naïve to think these forces can be ignored or changed overnight but I suggest using a model with unanimous support coming from science and our educational facilities these obstacles can be overcome without insulting core their core beliefs and values. It is an overlooked issue that these controlling figures seek support for their actions in the traditional view of Darwinism where they can justify their directives of profitability in a disparate world of shortages. Alternatively find their escape hiding behind metaphysical belief systems. We are all familiar with how this survival of the fit attitude has become especially dangerous in business and ‘elite’ education— business is war, survival at all costs, including human lives. It is furthermore acknowledged by both lay persons and scientists in various fields of research and practice how the corporate and private funding of research have gained control to affect the directives and outcomes of research. Powerful individuals, personal biases, set beliefs and motives, regardless of their standing on morality, now have sufficient power to sway outcomes in research down a hierarchy of advisory bodies. We can see the futility of our task in delivering and communicating a useful science to benefit all levels of society, unless we remedy this faltering ethos. Our first duty then should be to create a reputable moral platform to better communicate new advances in science. Approaching this by demonstrating evolution as an interdependent all-regarding concern set in a progressive morality should be seen as vital and not idealistic. The second duty must be to bring disciplines together to circulate ideas and perceptions between all three spheres and prevent non progressive attachments to singular spheres— in a multidisciplinary effort under a universal ethic. Unless we address the current disconnections, I believe not only will the social sciences be in trouble, but all the benefits of science to society slowly become misdirected and misapplied to serve a so called ‘fit elite’ more and more turning their backs on growing disparity and poverty. A blinkered science will endeavour to even further insulate itself in the physical sphere seeing morality as a metaphysical aversion —we are witness to this today. With more resources and knowledge available than historically ever experienced and set in a rapidly advancing technology, science should benefit us all equally. With disturbing mismatching supply and demand issues set in a complex and insecure socioeconomic system attempting to profit from volatile markets, science can no longer find comfort in its disconnected physical sphere. Based on experiences in my own profession I found there is growing emphasis on the development of novel pharmaceutical agents, new technology and profitability, all hiding behind evidence-based research and heavily sponsored publications and corporations. These expensive and overvalued drugs and technologies are essentially aimed at the higher echelons of society who can afford it or are covered by lavish insurances. Others in turn find comfortable outlets in public healthcare systems. Side effects can be played down in a complex hierarchy set in politics and personal biases. Subsequently it becomes easy to ignore, shift blame and fail to address the growing list of ailments where evidence suggest poverty, unhealthy environments and poor lifestyle choices are the primary causes. In healthcare the poor and uninformed and their ailments are slowly being marginalised with most research aimed at cohorts promising higher returns on drugs targeting the ageing rich in wealthy communities. In conclusion: Ironically our concerns have now become evident as essentially a faltering moral matter in a marginalised unstable science, and any remedy ignoring this disjunction I believe will continuously fail. If we truly wish to reduce the growing disparity, precarity and brutality of a segregated world, never before had this need for morality, science and society to coevolve been so much needed to rescue the reliability and value of science to society. I suggested in brief here and explained in more detail in Spheres of Perception how such a model is already evident in both the natural and physical sciences but has not been sufficiently explored or communicated. So far science has made no effort at all to expose or research all the potential benefits of an evidence-based and progressive morality coming from within its own realms. If only one impression left here, it should be that the pillars of science have evidence of a progressive and universal ethic, and we should not fail in our urgent duty to communicate and enrol these benefits in all spheres of perception in our fight against disparity, brutality and marginalisation of people, and to protect rights to equality and respect of our cultural heritage. Thank you for your time.

    • Is your Genome being reshaped by Pharmaceuticals and big Industry?Odds are, it is.

      DISCLAIMER, no connection is intended between any individuals in the above images and concepts brought across in this article, the ideas are entirely those of the author. **Images sourced on Pinterest- upload by user. Definitions: Medicine or drug —a chemical agent used to cure, modify a disease or relieve pain by altering cellular protein production and physiological actions. Eugenics — the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. We live in exciting times, Trumpian politics aside. In recent years with the advent of mapping the human genome, scientists can now detect minute sequence changes in our genome after exposure to various environmental insults and drugs. Perhaps the most dramatic of these effects are seen in response to certain chemicals, including an array of pharmaceutical agents. New evidence now show protein modifying effects in cells, could cause genetic modifications for generations to come. Recently the effect of variation in genes coding for drug targets and for the enzymes involved in drug metabolism has highlighted the genetic component of drug response. This variation seen besides the diversity already found based on composite environmental interactions between different individuals. Consensus have been reached amongst scientists that drug responses are linked to complex, multifactorial genetic traits, and the study of these genetic variations, termed pharmacogenetics, is analogous to the study of complex genetic disease in terms of the questions posed and the analytical possibilities. Just as DNA variants are associated with specific disease predispositions, so will they be associated with individual response to specific drugs—these responses further influenced by the environment. The testing for drug response is starting to follow the same route as the genetic testing for inherited disorders, and has reached the stage where both genome-wide analysis and single gene analysis are accepted realities, a welcome advance. Pharmaceutical agents are subsequently seen as altering disease outcomes based on genetic responses via DNA and messenger RNA in a cascade of chemical modifications with some similarity and individuality. Gone are the days of superficial objectivity, with adverse effects based on statistics in events such as vomiting, diarrhoea, headaches or skin rashes, gathered from cohort studies consisting of controls and trials. Operating now in a different world, drug response outcomes can be interactively seen on DNA level as altering base pairs on variable individual level as an interactive concern. And now, with the so-called surplus or ‘junk’ DNA also realised as purpose bound, things have become even more complex. This 'junk' or non-decoder DNA until recently suited a reductionist model in classifying it as an isolated 'invader DNA', finding support in a simple natural selection-based version of Darwinism. However, more recently it is realised that minor sequence changes can boost gene expression and that surplus DNA can act as a not so feckless bystander in a complex malleable and ‘perceptive’ interactive network— our evolution is now for the first time ever manipulatable in our own hands. Simultaneously, we are slowly beginning to realize how delicately interconnected and interdependent things are. Historically, in February 2001 The Human Genome Project published its first draft on the sequence of the over 3 billion base pairs that make up the human genome. The finished sequence of five entire human chromosomes (chromosomes 22, 21, 20, 14, and Y) was published for the 50th anniversary of the publication of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick on 8 April 2003. The finished DNA sequence of the entire genome was subsequently made available to the public by the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (IHGSC) on the internet, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/index.html. Over the past few years, another more than 30 organisms have had their genomes completely sequenced, with more in progress. Consequently, we find ourselves at a time in which new types of experiments are possible, and observations, analyses, and discoveries are being made on an unprecedented scale. It can be expected that genetic considerations will become important, in all aspects of disease (and life), be they diagnosis, treatment, or prevention— with ethical implications and moral impact. INTRONS: As mostly the case in our search for simplicity we instead find complexity, and to prove the point along then came the introns. Part of the so-called surplus DNA, introns are segments of DNA within genes that don’t code for proteins, yet they make up a huge portion of the human genome. Slowly their support roll as part of a transgenerational interactive network is becoming recognized and their initial rejection as ‘junk’ DNA seen as completely unjustified. Found in all fully sequenced eukaryotic genomes, including other nucleomorphs (Gilson et al., 2006), intron density ranges from a handful in the entire genome of some primitive single cell organisms (Mair et al., 2000; Morrison et al., 2007), to about eight per gene in the human genome (Sakharkar et al., 2004). With the ill repute of these introns they were seen as unnecessary and ‘parasitic’ in nature, with recognition of a potentially hazardous nature and of limited purpose. This initiated a quest for a function that could counter their ineffectuality in having only superfluous value or deleterious effects. The physicist, biochemist and Nobel laureate, Walter Gilbert12proposed, shortly after the discovery of the introns, what is now known as the intron-early theory (Gilbert, 1987). According to this theory, introns were pivotal in the formation of modern, complex, genes, by allowing for constant shuffling of small, primordial, mini-exons. Today introns are seen as absolutely essential in intron-rich species, as well as in many intron-poor ones (Lynch,2007) vital to boosting gene expression. One of the best examples of the importance of intronic function in contemporary eukaryotes is the increase in protein abundance of intron-bearing genes. Subsequent works reported the same phenomenon to be associated with numerous other introns in many eukaryotic species, suggesting that this increase protein expression is wide-ranging (Le Hir et al., 2003). Introns seem to affect virtually any step of mRNA maturation, including transcription initiation, transcription elongation, transcription termination, polyadenylation, nuclear export, and mRNA stability. (Chorev M, Carmel L. 2012). As understanding and knowledge escalate in the field of genetics and with drug responses now likened to complex, multifactorial genetic traits, what is becoming clear is not only that individual responses are more complex and interlinked to other factors than previously thought but that these genetic modifications may be carried forward in generations to come. Various chemicals such as the now well recognised PBA’s in plastics and petrochemical agents have been traced to affect the rat genome for up to 10 generations after exposure during pregnancy, Brand, E.J; Kennedy, J.L; Müller, (2014) Gone are the days of finding security in MTDs (minimum toxic doses) and MLDs (minimum lethal doses) when dealing with pesticides and certain chemicals. Looking back, it was in 1941 that Isaac Berenblum, then a Riley-Smith Research Fellow in the Department of Experimental Biology & Cancer Research, University of Leeds, demonstrated through experimental research that carcinogenesis induced by chemicals involved 3 separate and independent processes: initiation, promotion, and latency. Berenblum² also observed that every carcinogen that produces a tumour at the site of application or injection is an irritant, in the sense that it induces a continued state of hyperplasia. He further indicated that in all cases in which sufficiently accurate observations could be made, it was seen that the primary tumour was preceded by a stage of hyperplasia. Berenblum concluded that although hyperplasia is a precursor of neoplasia, only some and not all irritants are carcinogenic. Prior to this in the beginning of 1938, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gave regulatory powers to the FDA, requiring, among other things, that new drugs be clinically tested and proven safe before being sold. The FDA offered guidelines for such studies, but there were no designated standards. The first published guidance for industry for assessing the toxicity of chemicals in food by the FDA was in 1949. In the so called “Black book” publication, included was a contribution of work done by O. Garth Fitzhugh on the subject of long-term studies and their design. On unchallenged ground, Fitzhugh suggested that for long-term feeding studies, 2 species should be investigated: the albino rat would be studied for a lifetime of about 2 years, and a non rodent second species (dogs or monkeys) would be studied for at least 1 year. Dose selection for these long-term studies would be based on results of subacute studies. Four groups of at least 10 animals of each sex were then proposed: (1) a dietary control group, (2) a group fed a diet containing 100 times the amount of the substance proposed for use in food, (3) a group fed a diet containing the highest tolerated amount of the substance, and (4) a group given an intermediate dosage. Biochemical and haematology evaluations were to be made at 3-month intervals during the study. At the end of the study, autopsies were to be performed, along with weighing of the principal organs and preservation of tissues for microscopic examination. The pathologist Arthur Nelson described in further detail in the 'Black book' the tissues to be evaluated. These included lung, heart, spleen, pancreas, gallbladder, lymph nodes, stomach, small intestine, colon, kidney, adrenal, urinary bladder, testis or ovary, prostate or uterus, thyroid, parathyroid, submaxillary salivary gland, 4 levels of brain, hypophysis, bone, bone marrow, and voluntary muscle— reminiscent of my days as a student in the pathology labs. It was only in 1955 that Lehman7 and coworkers updated the FDA guidance to include sections pertaining to drugs and recommendations for toxicity studies aimed at supporting marketing applications. These studies included acute, subacute, and chronic toxicity testing, with chronic toxicology studies having a suggested duration/species of 2 years in the rat and 1 year in the dog. At this time, designated carcinogenicity studies had not been established; therefore, the carcinogenic potential of the drug product was assessed based on a toxicological model based on a limited and set chronic exposure. With shortfalls and limitations of techniques realised some uncertainty existed on how to progress from current methods. In 1962 an amendment to the FDA’s Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act aimed at promoting drug safety, shifting the burden of proof to drug manufacturers. For the first time, drug manufacturers had to prove that their products were both safe and effective before they could be sold. Subsequently, guidelines for toxicity tests for all drugs (known as the Lehman Guidelines) were written by Arnold Lehman, director of the Division of Pharmacology of the FDA, to aid the pharmaceutical industry in complying with the new law. Rats, dogs (beagles), and rabbits were the primary species for testing at this time, with chronic toxicology tests conducted for 1 year to 18 months depending on the species. Around the same time also in 1962, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Carcinogenesis Screening Program was initiated. Early efforts to develop standardized carcinogenicity protocols were established by the NCI scientists John and Elizabeth Weisburger in the 1960's who began revising standardized systemic carcinogenicity protocols based on FDA protocols. They ambitiously linked 55% of global cancers to inappropriate nutritional habits and another 35% to tobacco use thus well diverting focus away from other potential factors² . Their design is still used as the basis for the current design for 2-year carcinogenicity studies in rodents. The importance of stabilizing the effect of the test chemical, selection of an ‘appropriate’ test species, standardization of animal maintenance and environmental control (including temperature, humidity, hours of light, bedding, airflow, water, and diet), and issues related to various routes of administration and dose selection were well realised and considered then as all needed to secure ‘purity’ in tests outcomes. To briefly reflect on the economic evolution of testing : in 1961 an NCI carcinogen screening test of a given chemical performed in one species took 8 months and cost about $10,000 to $15,000. In 1972, a more extensive test in 2 species with larger numbers of animals required about 30 months and cost about $75,000. By 2009, costs for carcinogenicity testing in 2 species were in the range of $2-4 million. It was in the beginning of 1968 that drug package inserts were required for newly approved drugs, including a section discussing carcinogenesis. The following year, data elements to be captured for carcinogenicity studies were described by Berenblum(1) and included descriptive information on the chemicals, animals, experimental design, survival, body weight, and individual pathologic results, as recommended by the International Union Against Cancer.(10) With limited adjustment in study lengths and selection criteria during this time it was quietly noted that the selected duration of ‘chronic’ studies was influenced by toxicities elicited by a number of anticonvulsants, analgesics, hypercholesterolemic agents, and tricyclic antidepressants, which were being manifest only between 6 and 12 months of treatment. In the 1970’s the National Cancer Program and its Carcinogenesis Testing Program, the NCI was asked by the FDA to conduct carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice for some older drugs. During this time the first electronic data capture system for these NCI carcinogenicity studies, the carcinogenesis bioassay data system (CBDS), was also developed and the NCI pathology working group was organized for peer review. The design of these early NCI studies was such that one set of 20 controls was used for several drug/chemical studies conducted in one room, with 50 animals used for each of the low- and high-dose groups for each unique drug/chemical. Protocols for carcinogenicity studies conducted by the NCI Carcinogenesis Testing Program were first standardized in 1976. In a 1982 colour change the ‘Redbook’ came along, standardized carcinogenicity protocols were published by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in. These protocols specified the use of the today scarily sounding 3 dose groups, with the now maximum tolerated dose (MTD “the highest dose of a test agent used during the chronic study that can be predicted not to alter the animals’ normal longevity from effects other than carcinogenicity.” The MTD was now considered by the Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)/FDA to also include severe alterations to homeostasis or other alterations that might interfere with interpretation of the studies. By the mid-1980s, carcinogenicity studies of new drugs conducted by a drug sponsor for the FDA advanced to the inclusion of 3 dose groups of at least 50 animals for rats and mice. In 1987, CDER was established within the FDA (from the Centre for Drugs and Biologics), and soon after, the Carcinogenicity Assessment Committee (CAC) and executive CAC were formed to review carcinogenicity protocols and results to ensure consistency across the centre and that statistical analysis can be standardized and applied to be the same for all carcinogenicity studies of drugs. What is concerning in this brief history of our carcinogenic anxiety is how complacent we still are on these matters in our current world of mass drug and pesticide consumption. Disconcerting also is how focus still is directed to standardising study groups and protocols. Liberated if we wanted to by an anti-reductionist science where the interconnections seen in growing complexity fascinates most open-minded scientist, we should not only bravely confront significant new scientific challenges but also the multidisciplinarity of a new more morally truthful era and openly question our approach in view of a new biology and evolution. Exciting times if not complex, where only faltering security can be found in a science and research based on set models and protocols, anxiously attempting to appease fund distribution. *About the Author: Dr Theo Holtzhausen is a practicing vet and author of Sensible Gene Selfish Being (2010), Spheres of Perception (2020), dedicated to a truthful Science. References: 1) Berenblum, I . The mechanism of carcinogenesis: a study of the significance of cocarcinogenic action and related phenomena. Cancer Res. 1941;1:807–814. 2) Berenblum, I . Irritation and carcinogenesis. Archive Pathol. 1944;38:233–244. 3) Brand, E.J; Kennedy, J.L; Müller, D.J. Pharmacogenetics of Antipsychotics. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 59 (2): 76-88. PMID 24881126.3)  Chorev M, Carmel L. Front Genet. 2012 Apr 13;3:55. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00055. eCollection 2012. PMID: free article 22518112 4)   Fedorov, A., Roy, S., Fedorova, L., Gilbert, W. Mystery of intron gain. Genome Research 2003. Open access 5)  Gilson P. R., Su V., Slamovits C. H., Reith M. E., Keeling P. J., McFadden G. I. (2006). Complete nucleotide sequence of the chlorarachniophyte nucleomorph: nature’s smallest nucleus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 9566–957110.1073/pnas.0600707103 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 6)  International Conference on Harmonization ICH M3(R2) Guideline . Nonclinical safety studies for the conduct of human clinical trials and marketing authorization for pharmaceuticals. 2010. 7) Jacobs A.C. Hatfield, K.P. History of Chronic Toxicity and Animal Carcinogenicity Studies for Pharmaceutical. First Published June, 13. 2012 Research article 8) Lehman, AJ, Patterson, WI, Davidow, B. Procedures for the appraisal of the toxicity of chemicals in foods, drugs and cosmetics. Food Drug Cosmet Law J. 1955;10:679–748. 9) Le Hir H., Seraphin B. (2008). EJCs at the heart of translational control. Cell 133, 213–21610.1016/j.cell.2008.04.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar 10) Lynch M. (2002). Intron evolution as a population-genetic process. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 6118–612310.1073/pnas.092595699 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 11). Mair G., Shi H., Li H., Djikeng A., Aviles H. O., Bishop J. R., Falcone F. H., Gavrilescu C., Montgomery J. L., Santori M. I., Stern L. S., Wang Z., Ullu E., Tschudi C. (2000). A new twist in trypanosome RNA metabolism: cis-splicing of pre-mRNA. RNA 6, 163–16910.1017/S135583820099229X [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 12). National Cancer Institute. Guidelines for carcinogen bioassay in small rodents. In : DHEW Publ. (NIH) 76-801. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 1976:1–65. 13) US Food and Drug Administration . FDA history: part I. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Origin/ucm054819.htm. 2009. Google Scholar 14). Sakharkar M. K., Chow V. T., Kangueane P. (2004). Distributions of exons and introns in the human genome. In silico Biol. (Gedrukt) 4, 387–393 [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 15) Saxonov, S., Gilbert, W. The universe of exons revisited. Gentica . 2003 16). Sistare, FD, Morton, D, Alden, C. An analysis of pharmaceutical experience with decades of rat carcinogenicity testing: support for a proposal to modify current regulatory guidelines. Toxicol Pathol. 2011;39:716–744. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI 17) Weisburger J H. Antimutagens, anticarcinogens, and effective worldwide cancer prevention. J Environ Pathol Toxicol Oncol. 1999;18(2):85-93. 18). Yamagiwa, K, Ichikawa, K. Experimental study of the pathogenesis of carcinoma. J Cancer Res. 1918;3:1–29. Google Scholar 19) Zbinden, G . The problem of the toxicologic examination of drugs in animals and their safety in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1964;5:537–545. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | Report this Published by 📷Theo HoltzhausenFounder Spheres of Perception , Sensible Gene Ltd, Veterinary Surgeon, International Health, AuthorPublished • 1w5 articlesFollowLikeCommentShare2 1 Comment 1 Share 27 Views Reactions 1 CommentComments on Theo Holtzhausen’s article Comments settings📷Add a comment… Images6d📷 2nd degree connection Like Lance Gardner’s comment

    View All
    Pages (6)
    • Spheres of Perception

      Endorsements What's being said about about : Spheres of Perception the BOOK 'Moving beyond and between disciplines and the effects of technology on our lives, provides a rich and sophisticated transdisciplinary exploration of humanity’s ‘being in this world’. The reflections on our logical, physical and metaphysical evolution challenge our illusions about humanity’s competence to overcome disparities between the way we live and the way we develop. This book must be read by everybody looking for a sensible and holistic evaluation of the drastic challenges we face and the transformations we require to adapt to the present.' Spheres of Perception Dr Hester du Plessis. (DLitt et Phil in Philosophy). Chief Research Specialist. Science Communication. Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC). Associate Editor: South African Journal of Science. Research Fellow: Mapungubwe Institute for Strategic Reflection (MISTRA). ​ ' As Theo’s publisher, I find it an extraordinary work, and I feel privileged to be Theo’s publisher. As with most books about ideas, getting the word out is always challenging.' Tim Ward , Publisher Changemakers Books ​ Jul 7, 2019: The ‘Decolonial Turn’ and the Humanities Curriculum: Prospects, Practice and Interventions An International Conference Date: 10- 12 July 2019 | The ‘Decolonial Turn’ and the Humanities Curriculum: Prospects, Practice and Interventions An International Conference Date: 10- 12 July 2019 edit | delete However, such a victory will be hard-won, Stiegler points out, since secondary effects of new technologies also gravely affects our minds. Just like the outer world is caught up in disruptive changes, our inner life is disrupted by the digital-media society and information technologies. Our attention is commodified and our sense of judgement and responsibility is deteriorating under the pressure of new technologies that change our lives. Stiegler, however, is far from dismissing new technologies. In fact, he understands wisdom to be largely a technical matter. Therefore, through transvaluation, thinking care-fully becomes a form of caring, a tool for orientation and deliberation, an intelligent governance of the self and the world. We must keep abreast and even get ahead of technological developments to produce better techniques for living. The goal is to create a collective intelligence, what Marx calls a ‘general intellect’, which would be capable of reversing the self-destructive tendencies of our society. The Neganthropocene, requires us to resolutely refuse to reduce knowledge to the calculable information of algorithmic governmentality, transhumanist ideology and the data economy -exclusively serving capitalism. We need to adopt new principles regulated primary by an understanding of Value and Care. This value and care differs from the acceptable values and (self)care adopted by cultural groups. It is the value and care that stems from scientific epistemic evidence which proved that we, as a species, are all the same, and that we are at the mercy of our DNA in its singular quest for multiplication and procreation. We are but a species. We also know that we live in an interconnected world. We have solutions on hand such as that proposed by Theo Holtzhausen through the realisation that three spheres in life interact in unison: we have a Physical space (sphere) of reason (PSOR), a Logical space (sphere) of reason (LSOR) and the abstract, yet vital, metaphysical space (spere) - all collectively vital to our existence. ​ book preview SEND Your details were sent successfully! All All our products are also carefully designed and selected based on the concepts expressed in Spheres of Perception.

    • Uncover truth and reliable information

      About Veterinarian, author of and Founder of Sensible Gene. Spheres of Perception Sensible Gene Selfish Being, ​ A significant paradigm shift occurred in recent years in our understanding of how a genetic life emerged on Earth. It created a much different picture to emerge of how life interconnects to the environment. This now redefines our place and purpose as part of a complex living network. ​ Spilling into healthcare and ecology we are able to now better heal, nurture and fine-tune our DNA by by caring for our epigenome (the network of chemical compounds surrounding DNA that can modify the genome) ​ Redefining a living interconnected network (perceptive of change on all levels) , my aim is to increase awareness of how healthcare and social development programs must be based on open, yet principled, interactions. From cellular level to complex social networks this demands improving and enriching our environments and abolishing poverty and inequality. It emphasises the value of organisations contributing to preventing disease by eliminating stress caused by mental and harmful environmental factors. By seeing the genome as part of a living and principled network, we promote better understanding of this consonance. Our work and products have no cultural, racial or social boundaries, or any religious or institutionalised affiliations. We are committed to reduce suffering, poverty and promote moral conduct and healthy living and working on all fronts. ​ Get In Touch

    View All