Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:50, 2 February 2008

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Jacques Benveniste and Talk:Jacques Benveniste#Merger proposal. (Discuss)

Water memory is a controversial concept, mainly used to explain homeopathy, which holds that water is capable of retaining a "memory" of particles once dissolved in it, even after being diluted so much that the chance of even one molecule remaining in the quantity being used is minuscule. Shaking at each stage of a serial dilution is claimed to be necessary for an effect to occur. The term was invented to describe the claims of Jacques Benveniste, who, according to Bernard Poitevin, sought to prove one of the basic foundations of homeopathy by conducting, "independently of homeopathic interests", an experiment to be published in a major journal; However, while some studies, including Benveniste's, have claimed such an effect, double-blind repetitions of the experiments involved have failed to reproduce the results, and the concept remains unaccepted by mainstream science.

The Nature controversy

The most prominent advocate of this idea was the French immunologist Jacques Benveniste, working with a team at the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM). The team diluted a solution of human antibodies to such a degree that there was no likelihood that a single molecule remained, but when human basophils were exposed to the solution, they responded by releasing a chemical substance as they would have if they had encountered the original antibody (part of the allergic reaction). The effect supposedly only worked when the solution was shaken violently. Benveniste claimed "It's like agitating a car key in the river, going miles downstream, extracting a few drops of water, and then starting one's car with the water." At the time, Benveniste offered no explanation of how the effect might work.

Benveniste sent the research to the prestigious science journal Nature for publication. There was considerable concern on the part of Nature's editorial oversight board that the material would give homeopathic practitioners "ammunition" even if the effects eventually proved untrue. Further, there was equal concern that the research was simply wrong, given the changes that it would demand of the known laws of physics and chemistry. The editor of Nature, John Maddox, stated that, "Our minds were not so much closed as unready to change our whole view of how science is constructed." But rejecting the paper on any objective grounds was unsupportable; there were no known mistakes within the methodology that were apparent at the time.

In the end, a compromise was reached. The paper was published in Nature Vol. 333 on 30 June 1988, but it was accompanied with an editorial by Maddox that noted "There are good and particular reasons why prudent people should, for the time being, suspend judgment." Additionally, Maddox demanded that the experiments be re-run under the supervision of a hand-picked group of what became known as "ghostbusters", including Maddox, famed magician-cum-paranormal researcher James Randi, and Walter Stewart, a physicist and free-lance debunker at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

The team traveled to Benveniste's lab and the experiments were re-run. In the first series the original experimental procedure was carried out as it had been when the paper was first submitted for publication. The experiments were successful, matching the published data quite closely. However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. Although everyone was confident that the outcome would be the same, reportedly including the Maddox-led team, the effect immediately disappeared.

Nature published a follow-up report in the very next issue that was damning: "We conclude that there is no substantial basis for the claim that antiIgE at high dilution (by factors as great as 10) retains its biological effectiveness, and that the hypothesis that water can be imprinted with the memory of past solutes is as unnecessary as it is fanciful." Nevertheless, there was no suggestion of fraud; Maddox and his team initially speculated that someone in the lab "was playing a trick on Benveniste.", but later concluded, "We believe the laboratory has fostered and then cherished a delusion about the interpretation of its data". Maddox also pointed out that two of Benveniste's researchers were being paid for by the French homeopathic company Boiron.

In a response letter published in the same issue of the journal, Benveniste lashed out at Maddox and complained about the "ordeal" he endured at the hands of the Nature team, scathingly comparing it to "Salem witchhunts or McCarthy-like prosecutions." In both the Nature response and a following Quirks and Quarks episode, Benveniste especially complained about Stewart, who he stated acted as if they were all frauds and treated them with disdain, complaining about his "typical know-it-all attitude". In his Nature letter, Benveniste also implied that Randi was attempting to hoodwink the experimental run by doing magic tricks, "distracting the technician in charge of its supervision!" He was more apologetic on Quirks and Quarks, re-phrasing his mention of Randi to imply that he had kept the team amused with his tricks and that his presense was generally welcomed. He also pointed out that although it was true two of his team-members were being paid for by a homeopathic company, the same company had paid for Maddox's team's hotel bill.

Maddox was unapologetic, stating "I'm sorry we didn't find something more interesting." On the same Quirks and Quarks show he dismissed Benveniste's complaints, stating that the possibility that the results would be used by the homeopathy community demanded an immediate re-test. In failing, the tests demonstrated that the initial results were likely due to the experimenter effect. He also pointed out that the entire test procedure that Benveniste later complained about was one that had been agreed upon in advance by all parties. It was only when the test then failed that Benveniste claimed it was not appropriate.

The debate continued in the letters section of Nature for several issues, until eventually being ended by the editorial board. It continued to rage in the French press for some time. For all of the arguing over the retests, it has done nothing to stop what Maddox worried about; even in the light of their failure they are still used to claim that the experiments "prove" that homeopathy works.

More recent experiments

Benveniste gained the public support of Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a reputation for openness to paranormal claims. Increasingly unusual experiments continued, culminating in a 1997 paper claiming the effect could be transmitted over phone lines. This culminated in two additional papers in 1999 and another on remote-transmission in 2000.

Time magazine reported in 1999 that, in response to skepticism from physicist Robert Park, Josephson had challenged the American Physical Society (APS) to oversee a replication by Benveniste, using "a randomized double-blind test", of his claimed ability to transfer the characteristics of homeopathically diluted water over the Internet. The APS accepted and offered to cover the costs of the test, and Benveniste wrote "fine by us" in his DigiBio NewsLetter in response to Randi's offer to throw in the $1 million challenge prize-money if the test succeeded. However, Randi in his Commentary notes that Benveniste and Josephson did not follow up on their challenge.

An independent test of the 2000 remote-transmission experiment was carried out in the USA by a team funded by the US Department of Defense. Using the same experimental devices and setup as the Benveniste team, they failed to find any effect when running the experiment. Several "positive" results were noted, however, but only when a particular one of Benveniste's researchers was running the equipment. Benveniste admitted to having noticed this himself, and offered a variety of reasons to explain away what appeared to be another example of experimenter effect. The experiment is also notable for the way it attempted to avoid the confrontational nature of the earlier Maddox test.

Third-party attempts at replication have generally produced mixed results. Nature published a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find any effect in 1993, as was the result of an independent study published in Experientia in 1992. A major multi-lab effort directed from France reported marginal-but-positive results. Following up on this experiment, an international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed to have succeeded. Randi then forwarded the $1 million challenge to the BBC Horizon program to prove the "water memory" theory following Ennis' experimental procedure. In response, experiments were conducted with the Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby, overseeing the proceedings. The challenge ended with the Horizon team failing to prove the memory of water.

Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water measured that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure within 50 fs."

See also

• Junk science

References

1. Anonymous (1988). "When to believe the unbelievable". Nature. 333 (6176): 787. doi:10.1038/333787a0.
2. See Mole (unit) and Homeopathy for more detailed information on how we can calculate the original number of molecules.
3. ^ J. Benveniste (30 June 1988). "Human basophil degranulization triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE" (PDF). Nature. 333: 816–818. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
4. Poitevin, Bernard (2005). "Jacques Benveniste: a personal tribute". Homeopathy. 94 (2): 138–139. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2005.02.004.
5. ^ John Langone (8 August 1988). "The Water That Lost Its Memory". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
6. ^ J. Maddox (28 July 1988). ""High-dilution" experiments a delusion" (PDF). Nature. 334: 287–290. doi:10.1038/334287a0. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
7. ^ J. Benveniste (28 July 1988). "Dr Jacques Benveniste replies" (PDF). Nature. 334: 291. doi:10.1038/334291a0. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
8. ^ P. Coles (28 July 1988). "Benveniste controversy rages on in the French press". Nature. 334: 372. doi:10.1038/334372a0. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
9. Homeopathy breakthrough
10. molecule memories: Letter to New Scientist
11. ^ J. Benveniste (February 21-26, 1997). "Transatlantic Transfer of Digitized Antigen Signal by Telephone Link". Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
12. ^ J. Benveniste. "The molecular signal is not functional in the absence of "informed water"". Medical Hypotheses. 54 (A163 (abstr.)). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
13. ^ J. Benveniste. "Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted phorbol-myristate acetate". FASEB Journal. 13 (1): 33–39. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
14. ^ Jonas, Wayne B. (January 2006). "Can specific biological signals be digitized?". FASEB Journal. 20 (1): 23–28. Retrieved 2007-06-05. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) — this paper includes an excellent references list.
15. ^ Hirst S. J. (December 9, 1993). "Human basophil degranulation is not triggered by very dilute antiserum against human IgE". Nature. 366 (5): 525–527. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
16. ^ Ovelgonne, J. H. (May 15, 1992). "Mechanical agitation of very dilute antiserum against IgE has no effect on basophil staining properties". Experientia. 48 (5): 504–508. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
17. ^ "Inhibition of human basophil degranulation by successive histamine dilutions: Results of a European multi-centre trial". Inflammation Research. 48 (Suppliment 1): 17–18. April, 1999. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
18. ^ Ennis M. (April 2001). "Flow-cytometric analysis of basophil activation: inhibition by histamine at conventional and homeopathic concentrations". Inflammation Research. 50 (Supplement 2): 47–48. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
19. ^ "Homeopathy: The test". 2003-11-26. Retrieved 2007-03-04. Homeopathy is back where it started without any credible scientific explanation. That won't stop millions of people putting their faith in it, but science is confident. Homeopathy is impossible.
20. Cowan ML, Bruner BD, Huse N; et al. (2005). "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H₂O". Nature. 434 (7030): 199–202. doi:10.1038/nature03383. PMID 15758995. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Homeopathy