EML Radio Interview: page 2

TDS:

One important point is that for a person who has just entered in his educational career, these bold untested statements by scholars and Nobel Laureates like Francis Crick can create a lot of misunderstanding.

EML:

One must stop thinking about the Nobel Laureates as having the last word. They are chosen by a committee that sits in Stockholm. I don't take it very seriously. Many Nobel Laureates get their prizes and they they go out speaking about everything as if they know it all. I think if people take that seriously they are very foolish. I don't think the masses will be so easily convinced by a man like Crick.

TDS:

Molecular biologists tend to think that all regulations in the body, from a particular cell, in the organ, to the whole system of the organs and the body itself are just merely a function of DNA, the way it transcribes and translates into specific proteins. What is your comment?

EML:

It is one working hypothesis. You don't have to agree with that if you don't believe in it. However, you have to choose a working hypothesis that can be tested. If you have other hypotheses, you have to come up with a way to test them.
One area where faith differs from science is that faith doesn't believe in tests, and science does. Faith, as I understand, is miraculous — it goes no further. Science is doing something else. They are saying, "Well, let's take this theory and I can test it." It doesn't mean that they are dedicated to it. It's just a way of procedure. Some get lost in what they do and others get so optimistic that they come out like Crick. I don't think that the masses of people will believe in a mechanical theory because in this world there are a lot of people who say a lot of things.

TDS:

There are other people like Charles Darwin and other intellectuals of the modern scientific society who mention that the theory of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest' is one of the most wonderful events that has happened in science.

EML:

I think it's pretty wonderful and exciting. It explains a lot about bacteria.

TDS:

But the main theory of the survival of the fittest assumes the origin of life. If we don't know the origin of life, how can we predict that life evolved this way?

EML:

We don't know the origin of life, yet. We don't know why whole groups of organisms disappeared either. They are still fighting about the dinosaurs and they will never know. But it is exciting when these new theories and outlooks come out. If you don't believe in the possibility of evolution which gives a great deal of sense to what I've seen biologically, then you lose something else. You dn't get a view of the unity of the earth and all the creatures in it. There are two sides to the theory, I think it unites us and makes us humble. I would not worry about what these people say, because they don't lead everybody. There will be people like yourselves who are skeptical. So you should say your piece too.

TDS:

Ancient Indian literatures and scriptures give a different theory for the evolution of life. These scriptures indicate that all the living forms are created by God. The 'life force' within the living bodies is called atma or soul. The soul enters a living body. All, the cellular reactions, the functions and behaviour of organisms are all due to the presence of the spiritual atom, atma. DNA, enzymes, etc. are all tools through which the conscious will is transmitted, like the steering wheel and the driver. Do you think this can fit into a scientific test?

EML:

It would be very hard to fit it into scientific research, because scientific research can only work with tools and substances. If it can't be approached that way then science can say nothing about it. Scientists can't deny and can't accept at this time. They can be convinced with other methods about it. They can't deny it. It's dishonest to deny or accept. You have to be neutral or open. That is the only thing you can do. We only go as far as our tools go. It's not the end. We haven't come very far though. We have come a great deal of distance since 1950 when I was a student. At that time we wondered about the gene, we looked at it, and found that it is not creating life. It was an analysis, it was exciting, but it was only a little tiny molecule of work in this big world.

TDS:

Today the scientists are the leaders of society in all fields: health care, agriculture, transportation and so on. Do you think scientists should be involved in policy making and guiding the masses?

EML:

No, the scientists are not the leaders. They are underpaid. They fight for positions and grants.

TDS:

But they are the ones who are responsible for everyone, from housing up to the military.

EML:

I don't like to include the military. They have a different way of life and mechanism and I understand them only too well. The military people are destroyers. A real scientist is not a destroyer.

TDS:

How do you think on whether the scientist could speak out in public and contribute toward bringing back moral and spiritual values?

EML:

They certainly have spoken out against destruction, this building of weapons and all the expenses that go towards it. The physicists did it first, and now we have the Physicians for Social Responsibility. There are so many weapons that the earth can be destroyed five times over. We know that planets can disappear and die and our time might come too. There is no use doing it ourselves. We see destruction when we use poison on the earth. We use so much insecticide that the land cannot be used again to plant. Scientists do speak out against that. They might not say they are being religious, but in a way they are. They care for conserving life, as life is important. I think the businessmen have a different way of thinking. It's not like the ordinary person who has to struggle to be alive and feed his family. The businessmen just have got into a way of wanting more money. They are making more money than they need. So they are very different from scientists. They are very influential. In this country everything gets the buck test, even scientific research.

TDS:

Thank you very much Prof. Lederberg.

Interview: Page 2