Suboptimal design or suboptimal science?You make the call

#6 of Our Top Ten Evolution Stories of 2014: Phys.org Says the Argument for Suboptimal Design of the Eye "Is Folly"

Casey Luskin

 

In 2010, the pro-ID website Access Research Network (ARN) posted its Top Ten Darwin and Design Science News Stories of the year, and its No. 1 story was a paper in Physical Review Letters, "Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity." Why was this article ARN's top story for the year? Because it found that special "Müller glia cells" sit over the retina, acting like fiber-optic cables to channel light through the optic nerve wires directly onto the photoreceptor cells.

This refuted the old objection to intelligent design that the vertebrate eye is "poorly designed" because the optic nerve extends over the retina instead of going out the back of the eye. These cells ensure that there is no loss of visual acuity due to the presence of the optic nerve, as the paper found, revealing the retina "as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images." As New Scientist put it at the time, these funnel-shaped cells "act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp." We also reported on this here.

Now a new paper in Nature Communications, "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision," has expanded upon this research, further showing the eye's optimal design. According to the paper, Müller cells not only act as optical fibers to direct incoming light through the optic nerve, but are fine-tuned to specific wavelengths to ensure that light reaches the proper retinal cells. From the Abstract:

Vision starts with the absorption of light by the retinal photoreceptors -- cones and rods. However, due to the 'inverted' structure of the retina, the incident light must propagate through reflecting and scattering cellular layers before reaching the photoreceptors. It has been recently suggested that Müller cells function as optical fibres in the retina, transferring light illuminating the retinal surface onto the cone photoreceptors. Here we show that Müller cells are wavelength-dependent wave-guides, concentrating the green-red part of the visible spectrum onto cones and allowing the blue-purple part to leak onto nearby rods. This phenomenon is observed in the isolated retina and explained by a computational model, for the guinea pig and the human parafoveal retina. Therefore, light propagation by Müller cells through the retina can be considered as an integral part of the first step in the visual process, increasing photon absorption by cones while minimally affecting rod-mediated vision. (Amichai M. Labin, Shadi K. Safuri, Erez N. Ribak, and Ido Perlman, "Müller cells separate between wavelengths to improve day vision with minimal effect upon night vision," Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5319 (July 8, 2014).)

The paper presents Müller cells as a direct answer to the view that the vertebrate eye has a suboptimal wiring:

[T]he mammalian retina and the peripheral retina of humans and primates are organized in a seemingly reverse order with respect to the light path. This arrangement places the photoreceptors, responsible for light absorption, as the last cells in the path of light, rather than the first. Therefore, the incident light must propagate through five reflecting and scattering layers of cell bodies and neural processes before reaching the photoreceptors. This 'inverted' retinal structure is expected to cause blurring of the image and reduction in the photon flux reaching the photoreceptors, thus reducing their sensitivity. It has been recently reported that retinal Müller cells act as light guides serving to transfer light across the retina, from the vitreo-retinal border towards the photoreceptors.

How do Müller cells accomplish this feat? The article continues: "A single Müller cell collects light at the vitreo-retinal surface from an extended retinal region, and guides it onto one coupled cone, located at its distal end." The shape of the Müller cells -- wide at the top where it collects light, and narrow at the bottom where it delivers light to the rods and cones -- presents a potential optimization tradeoff between day vision (which depends more on efficient light transmission to the cones) and night vision (which depends more on efficient light transmission to the rods).

They then ask an engineering question: "Can this cost-benefit optimization problem between day vision and night vision be solved, without significantly impeding one or the other?" They find that the retina is optimized to solve this problem:

[H]uman Müller cells separate white light according to its wavelengths; medium- and long-wavelength light is concentrated onto cones and short-wavelength light leaks to illuminate nearby rods. Next, we show similar theoretical calculations for the guinea pig Müller cells and describe imaging experiments in the isolated guinea pig retina, to find remarkable agreement between the experimental results and the computational model. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the wave guiding properties of Müller cells are wavelength-dependent in a manner that improves cone-mediated vision while minimally impeding rod-mediated vision.

The paper explains that Müller cells give the retina a specialized architecture to foster light collection: "We could clearly identify distinct light guiding tubes across most of the retinal depth, spanning the retina from the retinal surface down to just above the photoreceptors. The only retinal structures that fit these light-guiding tubes are the Müller cells." They conclude:

The findings presented here indicate that the spectral separation of light by Müller cells provides a mechanism to improve cone-mediated day vision, with minimal interference with rod-mediated night vision. This is achieved by wavelength sorting of incident light by the Müller cells. Light of relevant wavelengths for cone visual pigments is directed towards the cones, while light of wavelengths more suitable for rod vision is allowed to leak outside the Müller cells towards the surrounding rods. This is a novel mechanism that needs to be considered when visual phenomena concerning cone- and rod-mediated vision are analysed.

The implications of these findings have not been lost on expert optics commentators. A striking article at Phys.org about this new paper, "Fiber optic light pipes in the retina do much more than simple image transfer," reflects a keen awareness of the debate over whether the vertebrate eye is suboptimally designed. It concludes that the retinal architecture, as it now stands revealed, settles the debate. In the words of Phys.org, the notion that the vertebrate eye is suboptimally wired "is folly." Why? Because "Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature." Here's the full passage from the article:

Having the photoreceptors at the back of the retina is not a design constraint, it is a design feature. The idea that the vertebrate eye, like a traditional front-illuminated camera, might have been improved somehow if it had only been able to orient its wiring behind the photoreceptor layer, like a cephalopod, is folly. Indeed in simply engineered systems, like CMOS or CCD image sensors, a back-illuminated design manufactured by flipping the silicon wafer and thinning it so that light hits the photocathode without having to navigate the wiring layer can improve photon capture across a wide wavelength band. But real eyes are much more crafty than that. A case in point are the Müller glia cells that span the thickness of the retina. These high refractive index cells spread an absorptive canopy across the retinal surface and then shepherd photons through a low-scattering cytoplasm to separate receivers, much like coins through a change sorting machine. A new paper in Nature Communications describes how these wavelength-dependent wave-guides can shuttle green-red light to cones while passing the blue-purples to adjacent rods. The idea that these Müller cells act as living fiber optic cables has been floated previously. It has even been convincingly demonstrated using a dual beam laser trap. In THIS case (THIS, like in Java programming meaning the paper just brought up) the authors couched this feat as mere image transfer, with the goal just being to bring light in with minimal distortion. (Emphasis added.)

Take special note of the sentences I've put in bold at the end of the last paragraph. These recent discoveries about the retina were made by proposing that Müller cells behave like "living fiber optic cables" that have a "goal" to "bring light in with minimal distortion." This is an example of systems-biology-thinking, as I described it here recently, where you assume that biological systems function much like goal-directed technology, and then reverse engineer a system to determine how it works. Such teleological thinking is once again bearing fruit in biology.

But the Phys.org article explains that these Müller cells aren't just passive cables that transfer images -- they are dynamic structures that can adjust to the amount of incoming light to avoid distorting the image:

In considering not just the classical photoreceptors but the entire retina itself as a light-harvesting engine, it seems prudent to also regard its entire synaptic endowment as a molecular-scale computing volume. In other words, when you have many cells that have no axons or spikes to speak of, that can completely refigure their fine structure within a few minutes to handle changing light levels, every synapse appears as an essential machine that percolates information as if at the Brownian scale, or even below. [...]
Most incredibly, like the wings of a swallow, the retina more-or-less works right out of the box, even if it has not seen any exercise. In seeking to understand how it then further refines its delicate structure we should perhaps not overlook the pervasive organizing influence of the incoming photons themselves. Now that it is becoming abundantly clear that the whole works can "feel" them, the next question to answer is how.

A Darwinian paradigm assumes that biological systems are cobbled together haphazardly by natural selection over eons of unguided descent with modification. Compare that paradigm with one that recognizes intelligent design and that accordingly predicts biological systems are built from the top down. In investigating the evidence of biology, ID expects to find goal-directed structures that are organized much like human technology -- except better, it often seems. Which model seems the more appropriate here?

 

Victors not victims.

Auschwitz Survivors Mark 70th Anniversary of Liberation, Jehovah’s Witnesses Among Those Remembered

WARSAW, Poland—On January 27, 2015, thousands will commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, a Nazi German concentration and death camp. This infamous camp, primarily used to eliminate racial groups targeted by the Nazis, was also a mechanism for persecuting Jehovah’s Witnesses of various nationalities, including Germans.

The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and the International Auschwitz Council are organizing the event. The president of Poland, Bronisław Komorowski, is expected to attend, and several countries from around the world will send official state delegations. The event will also be broadcast live online.

Auschwitz is located in the suburbs of Oświęcim, a Polish city annexed by the Nazis during World War II. It began as a German concentration camp with some 700 Polish prisoners arriving there in June 1940. Auschwitz quickly grew into a massive complex with over 40 camps and subcamps. The four gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau claimed as many as 20,000 lives a day. At least 1.1 million people, including over 400 Jehovah’s Witnesses, were sent to Auschwitz during its almost five years of operation.

According to the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum website: “Aside from brief mentions, the literature on the history of Auschwitz Concentration Camp does not take account of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (referred to in the camp records as Bible [Students]) who were imprisoned because of their religious convictions. These prisoners deserve closer attention because of the way they managed to hold on to their moral principles under camp conditions.” Museum records indicate that Jehovah’s Witnesses were among the first prisoners sent to Auschwitz, and of the hundreds of Witnesses sent, over 35 percent died there.

Andrzej Szalbot (Prisoner–IBV 108703): In 1943, arrested by Nazis and sent to Auschwitz for conscientiously objecting to military service.

The Nazi government targeted the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses as early as 1933 and banned the organization throughout Germany. The Witnesses’ moral principles and practices were not compatible with Nazi ideology. For example, the Witnesses would not offer the obligatory “Heil Hitler!,” as they considered paying homage to Hitler a betrayal of their loyalty to God. The Witnesses also refused to perform any military-related duties, a stand the regime considered to be anti-state. “To refuse military service meant being sent to a concentration camp,” explains Andrzej Szalbot, who was arrested in 1943 and sent to Auschwitz at only 19 years of age. Jehovah’s Witnesses were promised immediate freedom if they signed a document renouncing their membership in the organization and declaring that its teachings were erroneous. Mr. Szalbot refused to sign.

Jehovah’s Witnesses were promised release if they renounced their faith by signing a declaration similar to this one.

Official Nazi documentation refers to Jehovah’s Witnesses by using the abbreviation “IBV,” which stood for Internationale Bibelforscher-Vereinigung (International Bible Students Association), the official German name of their organization. The Nazis required the Witnesses to wear a purple triangle on their uniforms. This symbol helped the Witnesses to identify their fellow believers in the camp. They met every evening before roll call for mutual support. Secret meetings were also organized to discuss the Bible with prisoners who were impressed by the Witnesses’ kindness and faith. A number of prisoners became Jehovah’s Witnesses while in Auschwitz camps.

On Saturday morning, January 27, 1945, the Soviet Union’s Red Army arrived in Oświęcim. By 3 p.m., the Soviet forces had liberated some 7,000 prisoners from Auschwitz I, Auschwitz II (Birkenau), and Auschwitz III (Monowitz).

Stanisław Zając. Arrived in Auschwitz on February 16, 1943.

Stanisław Zając, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, was among the tens of thousands forced by the Nazis to evacuate the Auschwitz camps in anticipation of the Red Army’s approach. Mr. Zając and about 3,200 other prisoners left the Jaworzno subcamp and trudged through deep snow as part of the infamous death march. It is estimated that less than 2,000 survived the three-day walk to Blechhammer, an outlying Auschwitz subcamp located in the forest. In his memoirs, Mr. Zając recalled the battle that ensued while he and other prisoners were hiding in the camp: “We could hear tanks passing by, but nobody got up the courage to go and see to whom they belonged. In the morning, it turned out they were Russian. . . . The Russian army was filling the wide clearing and this is where my concentration camp nightmare ended.”

This year, on January 27, conferences and exhibitions related to the 70th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz will take place in various cities around the world.

Household maintenance makes no sense in the light of Darwinism.

How Many Darwinists Does it Take to Screw in a Light Bulb? Evolutionists and Intelligent Design Scientists Weigh in

Jonathan Witt 

A furious debate is stirring over at Cartago Delenda Est. The issue? How many Darwinists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be shown that the bulb entered the socket without a series of clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down.

ACLU: None! We have separation of church and state in this country.

Eugenie Scott: None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation.

Panda's Thumb: None. To say that light bulbs don't screw themselves in is not a testable proposition. You can't prove they don't. That would be an argument from incredulity. You are committing a 'Darwinist Of The Gaps' fallacy.

Generic 2: None. The quintessentially non-random process of natural selection is sufficient. Those objects capable of giving off light when screwed into sockets will be in sockets. Those that aren't will be in the trash.

Richard Dawkins: None. A light bulb that gives off 1% light intensity is very much worth having. A bulb sitting on the shelf at the supermarket gives off a certain amount of light. One in the cupboard at home gives off more. One five feet from the socket gives off more, and one two feet away even more. One in the socket gives off the most of all. It is therefore inevitable that the bulb will reach the socket.

Stephen J. Gould: None. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually.

The complete and completely silly debate with opinions from "Kenneth Miller," "The Flying Spaghetti Monster," "Michael Ruse," and several design theorists

Bug-brained indeed!

How Much Brain Can You Pack Into a Spider Head?

Evolution News & Views April 23, 2015 2:58 PM | 

Thirty years ago, state-of-the-art "minicomputers" (as they were then called) were refrigerator-size contraptions loaded with large, flat circuit boards, heavy cables, and noisy fans. Disk drives the size of washing machines spun stacks of large metal plates for a grand total of 300 megabytes of storage. If a minicomputer bore unquestionable evidence of advanced intelligent design just a few years ago, how much more so a modern smartphone (now a smartwatch) with more processing power, and one hundred times the memory, in a thousandth of the space?

Well, now consider the lowly spider. Its entire brain is about the size of a pinhead. Yet this creature can dance! Here is a video of Maratus volans, the "peacock spider" of Australia -- this little guy is a beautyNo wonder the folks at Brain Decoder call this a "great mystery in a tiny head." Sara Goudarzi writes:

The spider may be itsy bitsy but its brain is nothing short of amazing. With just a poppy-seed-sized noggin, these arthropods employsophisticated hunting methods, can find their way out of complicated labyrinths, and some have mating dance moves that take the breath away from their fellow spiders. [Emphasis added.]

The elaborate decorations on the male's abdomens come in bright fluorescent colors, with patterns that look like human faces and other artistic designs -- yet the whole spider is only about five millimeters long! Still more amazing is the central nervous system that allows the male to raise and shake its colorful banner on command, and raise its third legs, in a complex mating display that may last almost an hour.

Mating is just one behavior controlled by a spider's brain. There are many others: engaging all its senses, knowing how to hunt and find food, knowing how to operate its eight legs in a coordinated way -- in fact, many of the behaviors larger animals need to survive and reproduce. Goudarzi focuses on one brain power in particular:

Another amazing feature of some spiders is their sophisticated visual systems. Jumping spiders, for example, have eight eyes, giving them a nearly 360 degree panoramic view, with two front-facing eyes that are as acute as human eyes. The visual combo allows these hunters to pursue and pounce on prey, much like cats do. But an interesting question for scientists is how the spider brain actually processes the visual information.

"As acute as human eyes"... the tiny camera lenses in today's smartphones, allowing them to take pictures almost as sharp as SLRs, come to mind.

We joke about teachers or parents with eyes in the back of their heads, but imagine actually having to operate eight eyes without getting confused. That's a lot of processing power in a poppy-seed brain, especially when you consider how fast these creatures can move. While dancing, the male is alert to the female's advances, and can retreat backwards as fast as her forward attack, if she doesn't like the dance. These motions are all controlled by fast-firing neurons in the spider's brain.

To be able to do such fine mental tasks, spiders need an elaborate nervous system. But they don't have much space in their tiny bodiesand there's a limit to how small neurons can get and still function.

Part of the solution is that the nervous system extends into the legs: "the central nervous systems of the smallest spiders fill up almost 80 percent of their total body cavity, including about a quarter of the space inside their legs."

Adding to the wonder, think about their webs. Orb-spinning spiders construct beautiful geometric webs out of one of the most perfect materials in nature -- a substance that is the envy of engineers for its strength and flexibility. Spiders can manipulate the strength of each strand, and make them sticky or plain. They maneuver deftly about their webs without getting stuck themselves, and use their legs to wrap their prey quickly while simultaneously secreting a specialized web material for that purpose.

Goudarzi writes about new techniques to get inside a spider's brain. It's delicate work, because the tissue is so tightly packed it tends to explode when punctured. Cornell biologist Ronald Hoy is one of the first to get a look inside a live spider's head with a tiny electrode. He finds that the organization of the spider brain is similar to any other brain:

"If you look at a section of spider brain you'll find that there areclusters of cell bodies with a cabling of the axons going from one part to another part and that's true of insects and that's true of us too," Hoy says. "Things are just more compact in a spider's brainbecause you're packing a normal head brain into the thoracic ganglion."

There are more than 44,500 identified species of spiders, Goudarzi says, and probably "at least as many yet to be discovered." National Geographic assures us that the vast majority are not venomous. The variety is staggering: orb weavers, jumpers, wolf spiders, tarantulas, trap-door spiders, water spiders at the bottom of the sea, and spiders that are hairy, smooth, black, white, or multicolored. Some can change color to match their backgrounds (PhysOrg). Not long ago, the biggest web weaver of all was discovered in Madagascar, able to build orb webs eighty feet wide that can span rivers (Daily Mail). (Shelob, call your office.)

Most spiders, however, are small enough to fit on a finger. The thought of a spider on your finger will creep some people out, but it's time to teach children to respect these small wonders and learn more about them. Before you step on that spider running across the floor, think about the high-tech brain you're squashing. You wouldn't do that to an Apple Watch, would you?:

closer and closer to the chasm?

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

In a world first, Chinese scientists have reported editing the genomes of human embryos. The results are published¹ in the online journal Protein & Cell and confirm widespread rumours that such experiments had been conducted — rumours that sparked a high-profile debate last month^2, 3 about the ethical implications of such work.

In the paper, researchers led by Junjiu Huang, a gene-function researcher at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, tried to head off such concerns by using 'non-viable' embryos, which cannot result in a live birth, that were obtained from local fertility clinics. The team attempted to modify the gene responsible for β-thalassaemia, a potentially fatal blood disorder, using a gene-editing technique known as CRISPR/Cas9. The researchers say that their results reveal serious obstacles to using the method in medical applications.

"I believe this is the first report of CRISPR/Cas9 applied to human pre-implantation embryos and as such the study is a landmark, as well as a cautionary tale," says George Daley, a stem-cell biologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts. "Their study should be a stern warning to any practitioner who thinks the technology is ready for testing to eradicate disease genes."

Related stories

• Mini enzyme moves gene editing closer to the clinic
• Ethics of embryo editing divides scientists
• Don’t edit the human germ line

Some say that gene editing in embryos could have a bright future because it could eradicate devastating genetic diseases before a baby is born. Others say that such work crosses an ethical line: researchers warned in Nature² in March that because the genetic changes to embryos, known as germline modification, are heritable, they could have an unpredictable effect on future generations. Researchers have also expressed concerns that any gene-editing research on human embryos could be a slippery slope towards unsafe or unethical uses of the technique.

The paper by Huang's team looks set to reignite the debate on human-embryo editing — and there are reports that other groups in China are also experimenting on human embryos.

Problematic gene

The technique used by Huang’s team involves injecting embryos with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. The system is well studied in human adult cells and in animal embryos. But there had been no published reports of its use in human embryos.

Huang and his colleagues set out to see if the procedure could replace a gene in a single-cell fertilized human embryo; in principle, all cells produced as the embryo developed would then have the repaired gene. The embryos they obtained from the fertility clinics had been created for use in in vitro fertilization but had an extra set of chromosomes, following fertilization by two sperm. This prevents the embryos from resulting in a live birth, though they do undergo the first stages of development.

Huang’s group studied the ability of the CRISPR/Cas9 system to edit the gene called HBB, which encodes the human β-globin protein. Mutations in the gene are responsible for β-thalassaemia.

Serious obstacles

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”

His team also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” he says.

Ethical questions

Huang says that the paper was rejected by Nature and Science, in part because of ethical objections; both journals declined to comment on the claim. (Nature’s news team is editorially independent of its research editorial team.)

He adds that critics of the paper have noted that the low efficiencies and high number of off-target mutations could be specific to the abnormal embryos used in the study. Huang acknowledges the critique, but because there are no examples of gene editing in normal embryos he says that there is no way to know if the technique operates differently in them.

Still, he maintains that the embryos allow for a more meaningful model — and one closer to a normal human embryo — than an animal model or one using adult human cells. “We wanted to show our data to the world so people know what really happened with this model, rather than just talking about what would happen without data,” he says.

But Edward Lanphier, one of the scientists who sounded the warning in Nature last month, says: "It underlines what we said before: we need to pause this research and make sure we have a broad based discussion about which direction we’re going here." Lanphier is president of Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, California, which applies gene-editing techniques to adult human cells.

Huang now plans to work out how to decrease the number of off-target mutations using adult human cells or animal models. He is considering different strategies — tweaking the enzymes to guide them more precisely to the desired spot, introducing the enzymes in a different format that could help to regulate their lifespans and thus allow them to be shut down before mutations accumulate, or varying the concentrations of the introduced enzymes and repair molecules. He says that using other gene-editing techniques might also help. CRISPR/Cas9 is relatively efficient and easy to use, but another system called TALEN is known to cause fewer unintended mutations.

The debate over human embryo editing is sure to continue for some time, however. CRISPR/Cas9 is known for its ease of use and Lanphier fears that more scientists will now start to work towards improving on Huang's paper. “The ubiquitous access to and simplicity of creating CRISPRs," he says, "creates opportunities for scientists in any part of the world to do any kind of experiments they want.”

A Chinese source familiar with developments in the field said that at least four groups in China are pursuing gene editing in human embryos.

The root of all evil?

THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT

Money

Is money the root of all evil?

“The love of money is a root of all sorts of injurious things.”—1 Timothy 6:10.

WHAT SOME PEOPLE SAY Money is the root of all evil.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS “The love of money”—not money itself—causes “injurious things.” In the Bible, wealthy King Solomon identified three kinds of injurious things that often happen to people who love money. Worry: “The plenty belonging to the rich one does not permit him to sleep.” (Ecclesiastes 5:12) Dissatisfaction: “A lover of silver will never be satisfied with silver, nor a lover of wealth with income.” (Ecclesiastes 5:10) Temptation to break the law: “The one hastening to get rich will not remain innocent.”—Proverbs 28:20.

What purpose does money serve?

“Money is a protection.”—Ecclesiastes 7:12.

WHAT SOME PEOPLE SAY Money makes you secure and happy.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS The myth that money buys happiness and security is part of “the deceptive power of riches.” (Mark 4:19) Still, “money answers every need.” (Ecclesiastes 10:19) For example, money can buy the things you need to survive—such as food and medicine.—2 Thessalonians 3:12.

Money also helps you to take care of your family. In fact, the Bible states: “If anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith.”—1 Timothy 5:8.

How can you use money wisely?

“First sit down and calculate the expense.”—Luke 14:28.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS Use money in a way that has God’s approval. (Luke 16:9) It is wise to use money responsibly and honestly. (Hebrews 13:18) To avoid the burden of living beyond your means, “let your way of life be free of the love of money.”—Hebrews 13:5.

Although the Bible does not condemn debt, it warns: “The borrower is a slave to the lender.” (Proverbs 22:7) Avoid impulse buying, because “all who are hasty surely head for poverty.” (Proverbs 21:5) Instead, “set something aside according to [your] own means” and save money for what is important to you.—1 Corinthians 16:2.

The Bible encourages us to “practice giving.” (Luke 6:38) People who want to please God have good reason to be generous, because “God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7) Therefore, “do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices.”—Hebrews 13:16.

On the arithmetic of the sacred scriptures

The testimony of John Milton

JOHN MILTON (circa. 1608-1674 C.E.): “...Let us then discard reason in sacred matters, and follow the doctrine of Holy Scripture exclusively.[12] Accordingly, no one need expect that I should here premise a long metaphysical discussion, and introduce all that commonly received drama of the personalities in the Godhead: since it is most evident, in the first place, from numberless passages of Scripture, that there is in reality but one true independent and supreme God;[13] and as he is called one, (inasmuch as human reason and the common language of mankind, and THE JEWS, THE PEOPLE OF GOD, HAVE ALWAYS CONSIDERED HIM AS ONE PERSON ONLY, THAT IS, ONE IN A NUMERICAL SENSE) let us have recourse to the sacred writings in order to know who this one true and supreme God is. This knowledge ought to be derived in the first instance from the gospel, since the clearest doctrine respecting the one God must necessarily be that copious and explanatory revelation concerning him which was delivered by Christ himself to his apostles, and by the apostles to their followers. Nor is it to be supposed that the gospel would be ambiguous or obscure on this subject; for it was not given for the purpose of promulgating new and incredible doctrines respecting the nature of God, [116.] hitherto utterly unheard of by his own people, but to announce salvation to the Gentiles through Messiah the Son of God, according to the promise of the God of Abraham. 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him,' John i. 18. Let us therefore consult the Son in the first place respecting God. According to the testimony of the Son, delivered in the clearest terms, the Father is that one true God, by whom are all things. Being asked by one of the scribes, Mark xii. 28, 29, 32, which was the first commandment of all, he answered from Deut. vi. 4. 'the first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord;' OR AS IT IS IN HEBREW, 'JEHOVAH OUR GOD IS ONE JEHOVAH.' The scribe assented; 'there is one God, and there is none other one but he;' and in the following verse Christ expresses his approbation of this answer. Nothing can be more clear than that it was the opinion of the scribe, as well of the other Jews, that by the unity of God is intended his oneness of person. That this God was no other than God the Father, is proved from John viii. 41, 54. 'we have one Father, even God. It is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say that he is your God.' iv. 21. 'neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, shall ye worship the Father.' Christ therefore agrees with the whole people of God, that the Father is that one and only God. For who can believe that the very first of the commandments would have been so obscure, and so ill understood by the Church through such a succession of ages, that two other [117.] persons, equally entitled to worship, should have remained wholly unknown to the people of God, and debarred of divine honours even to that very day? especially as God, where he is teaching his own people respecting the nature of their worship under the gospel, FOREWARNS THEM THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FOR THEIR GOD THE ONE JEHOVAH WHOM THEY HAD ALWAYS SERVED, AND DAVID, THAT IS CHRIST, FOR THEIR KING AND LORD. JER. XXX. 9. 'THEY SHALL SERVE JEHOVAH THEIR GOD, AND DAVID THEIR KING, WHOM I WILL RAISE UP UNTO THEM.' In this passage Christ, such as God willed that he should be known or served by his people under the gospel, is expressly distinguished from the one God Jehovah, both by nature and title. Christ himself therefore, the Son of God, teaches us nothing in the gospel respecting the one God but what the law had before taught, and everywhere clearly asserts him to be his Father. John xvii, 3. 'this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' xx. 17. 'I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God:' IF THEREFORE THE FATHER BE THE GOD OF CHRIST, AND THE SAME BE OUR GOD, AND IF THERE BE NONE OTHER GOD BUT ONE, THERE CAN BE NO GOD BESIDE THE FATHER...” - (Book 1, Chapter 5, Section 115-117, “Of The  Creation,” In: Volume 1, “A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, COMPILED FROM THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ALONE,” By John Milton, Boston: 1825.)

[FOOTNOTE 12]: Down, reason, then; at least vain reasonings, down. Sampson Agonistes, 322.

[FOOTNOTE 13]: Seem I to thee sufficiently possess'd, Of happiness or not? who am alone

From all eternity; for none I know, Second to me or like, equal much less. Paradise Lost, VIII. 404.

More light less heat.:The Watchtower Society's commentary

Blood Transfusions—A Long History of Controversy

“If red blood cells were a new drug today, it would be very difficult to get it licensed.”—Dr. Jeffrey McCullough.

IN THE winter of 1667, a violent madman named Antoine Mauroy was brought to Jean-Baptiste Denis, eminent physician to King Louis XIV of France. Denis had the ideal “cure” for Mauroy’s mania—a transfusion of calf’s blood, which he thought would have a calming effect on his patient. But things did not go well for Mauroy. Granted, after a second transfusion, his condition improved. But soon madness again seized the Frenchman, and before long he was dead.

Even though it was later determined that Mauroy actually died from arsenic poisoning, Denis’ experiments with animal blood provoked a heated controversy in France. Finally, in 1670 the procedure was banned. In time, the English Parliament and even the pope followed suit. Blood transfusions fell into obscurity for the next 150 years.

Early Hazards

In the 19th century, blood transfusions made a comeback. Leading the revival was an English obstetrician named James Blundell. With his improved techniques and advanced instruments—and his insistence that only human blood should be used—Blundell brought blood transfusions back into the limelight.

But in 1873, F. Gesellius, a Polish doctor, slowed the transfusion revival with a frightening discovery: More than half the transfusions performed had ended in death. Upon learning this, eminent physicians began denouncing the procedure. The popularity of transfusions once again waned.

Then, in 1878, French physician Georges Hayem perfected a saline solution, which he claimed could serve as a substitute for blood. Unlike blood, the saline solution had no side effects, did not clot, and was easy to transport. Understandably, Hayem’s saline solution came to be widely used. Strangely, however, opinion soon favored blood again. Why?

In 1900, Austrian pathologist Karl Landsteiner discovered the existence of blood types, and he found that one type of blood is not always compatible with another. No wonder so many transfusions in the past had ended in tragedy! Now that could be changed, simply by making sure that the blood type of the donor was compatible with that of the recipient. With this knowledge, physicians renewed their confidence in transfusions—just in time for World War I.

Blood Transfusions and War

During World War I, blood was liberally transfused into wounded soldiers. Of course, blood clots quickly, and previously it would have been all but impossible to transport it to the battlefield. But early in the 20th century, Dr. Richard Lewisohn, of Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, successfully experimented with an anticoagulant called sodium citrate. This exciting breakthrough was regarded by some doctors as a miracle. “It was almost as if the sun had been made to stand still,” wrote Dr. Bertram M. Bernheim, a distinguished physician of his day.

World War II saw an increase in the demand for blood. The public was bombarded with posters bearing such slogans as “Give Blood Now,” “Your Blood Can Save Him,” and “He Gave His Blood. Will You Give Yours?” The call for blood brought great response. During World War II, some 13,000,000 units were donated in the United States. It is estimated that in London more than 68,500 gallons [260,000 L] were collected and distributed. Of course, blood transfusions carried a number of health risks, as soon became clear.

Blood-Borne Disease

After World War II, great strides in medicine made possible some surgeries that were previously unimaginable. Consequently, a global multibillion-dollar-a-year industry sprang up to supply the blood for transfusions, which physicians began to consider standard operating procedure.

Soon, however, concern over transfusion-related disease came to the fore. During the Korean War, for example, nearly 22 percent of those who received plasma transfusions developed hepatitis—almost triple the rate during World War II. By the 1970’s, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimated the number of deaths from transfusion-related hepatitis at 3,500 a year. Others put the figure ten times higher.

Thanks to better screening and more careful selection of donors, the number of cases of hepatitis-B contamination declined. But then a new and sometimes fatal form of the virus—hepatitis C—took a heavy toll. It is estimated that four million Americans contracted the virus, several hundred thousand of them through blood transfusions. Granted, rigorous testing eventually reduced the prevalence of hepatitis C. Still, some fear that new dangers will appear and will only be understood when it is too late.

Another Scandal: HIV-Contaminated Blood

In the 1980’s, it was found that blood can be contaminated with HIV, the virus that leads to AIDS. At first, blood bankers were loathe to consider that their supply might be tainted. Many of them initially greeted the HIV threat with skepticism. According to Dr. Bruce Evatt, “it was as though someone had wandered in from the desert and said, ‘I’ve seen an extraterrestrial.’ They listened, but they just didn’t believe it.”

Nevertheless, country after country has seen scandals break out exposing HIV-contaminated blood. It is estimated that in France, between 6,000 and 8,000 people were infected with HIV through transfusions that were administered between 1982 and 1985. Blood transfusions are held responsible for 10 percent of HIV infections throughout Africa and for 40 percent of the AIDS cases in Pakistan. Today, because of improved screening, HIV transmission through blood transfusions is rare in developed nations. However, such transmission continues to be a problem in developing nations that lack screening processes.

Understandably, in recent years there has been an increased interest in bloodless medicine and surgery. But is this a safe alternative?

[Box on page 6]

Blood Transfusions—No Medical Standard

Each year in the United States alone, more than 11,000,000 units of red cells are transfused into 3,000,000 patients. In view of that large number, one would assume that there is a strict standard among physicians when it comes to administering blood. Yet, The New England Journal of Medicine notes that there is surprisingly little data “to guide decisions about transfusions.” Indeed, there is a wide variation in practice, not only regarding precisely what is transfused and how much but also regarding whether a transfusion is administered at all. “Transfusion depends on the doctor, not on the patient,” says the medical journal Acta Anæsthesiologica Belgica. Considering the above, it is hardly surprising that a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that “an estimated 66 percent of transfusions are administered inappropriately.”

[Pictures on page 5]

World War II saw an increase in the demand for blood

[Credit Lines]

Imperial War Museum, London

U.S. National Archives photos

More light less heat II:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

The Growing Demand for Bloodless Medicine and Surgery

“All those dealing with blood and caring for surgical patients have to consider bloodless surgery.”—Dr. Joachim Boldt, professor of anesthesiology, Ludwigshafen, Germany.

THE tragedy of AIDS has compelled scientists and physicians to take additional steps to make the operating room a safer place. Obviously, this has meant more stringent blood screening. But experts say that even these measures do not ensure zero-risk transfusions. “Even as society expends great resources on making the blood supply safer than ever,” says the magazine Transfusion, “we believe patients will still try to avoid allogeneic [donor] transfusions simply because the blood supply can never be completely safe.”

Not surprisingly, many doctors are becoming wary of administering blood. “Blood transfusions are basically no good, and we are very aggressive in avoiding them for everybody,” says Dr. Alex Zapolanski, of San Francisco, California.

The general public too is becoming aware of the dangers of transfusions. Indeed, a 1996 poll revealed that 89 percent of Canadians would prefer an alternative to donated blood. “Not all patients will refuse homologous transfusions as do Jehovah’s Witnesses,” states the Journal of Vascular Surgery. “Nonetheless, the risks of disease transmission and immunomodulation offer clear evidence that we must find alternatives for all of our patients.”

A Preferred Method

Thankfully, there is an alternative—bloodless medicine and surgery. Many patients view it not as a last resort but as a preferred treatment, and with good reason. Stephen Geoffrey Pollard, a British consultant surgeon, notes that the morbidity and mortality rates among those who receive bloodless surgery are “at least as good as those patients who receive blood, and in many cases they are spared the postoperative infections and complications often attributable to blood.”

How did bloodless medical treatment develop? In one sense the question is rather odd, since bloodless medicine actually predates the use of blood. Indeed, it was not until the early 20th century that transfusion technology had advanced to the point where it was routinely used. Nevertheless, in recent decades some have popularized the field of bloodless surgery. For example, during the 1960’s noted surgeon Denton Cooley performed some of the first open-heart operations without the use of blood.

With the rise of hepatitis among transfusion recipients during the 1970’s, many doctors began looking for alternatives to blood. By the 1980’s a number of large medical teams were performing bloodless surgery. Then, when the AIDS epidemic broke out, these teams were repeatedly consulted by others who were eager to adopt the same techniques. During the 1990’s many hospitals developed programs that offer bloodless options to their patients.

Doctors have now successfully applied bloodless techniques during operations and emergency procedures that traditionally required transfusions. “Major cardiac, vascular, gynaecological and obstetrical, orthopaedic, and urological surgery can be performed successfully without using blood or blood products,” notes D.H.W. Wong, in the Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia.

One advantage of bloodless surgery is that it promotes better-quality care. “The surgeon’s skill is of the greatest importance in the prevention of blood loss,” says Dr. Benjamin J. Reichstein, a director of surgery in Cleveland, Ohio. A South African legal journal says that in certain instances surgery without blood can be “quicker, cleaner and less expensive.” It adds: “Certainly the aftercare treatment in many instances has proved cheaper and less time-consuming.” These are just a few of the reasons why some 180 hospitals around the world now have programs specializing in bloodless medicine and surgery.

Blood and Jehovah’s Witnesses

For Bible-based reasons, Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse blood transfusions.* But they do accept—and vigorously pursue—medical alternatives to blood. “Jehovah’s Witnesses actively seek the best in medical treatment,” said Dr. Richard K. Spence, when director of surgery at a New York hospital. “As a group, they are the best educated consumers the surgeon will ever encounter.”

Doctors have perfected many bloodless surgery techniques on Jehovah’s Witnesses. Consider the experience of cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley. Over a period of 27 years, his team performed bloodless open-heart surgery on 663 of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The results clearly demonstrate that cardiac operations can be successfully performed without the use of blood.

True, many have criticized Jehovah’s Witnesses for their refusal of blood. But a guide published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland calls the Witnesses’ position “a sign of respect for life.” In truth, the Witnesses’ rigorous stand has been a major force behind safer medical treatment becoming available for all. “Jehovah’s Witnesses in need of surgery have shown the way and exerted pressure for improvements in an important sector of the Norwegian health service,” writes Professor Stein A. Evensen, of Norway’s National Hospital.

To assist doctors in providing treatment without the use of blood, Jehovah’s Witnesses have developed a helpful liaison service. Presently, more than 1,400 Hospital Liaison Committees worldwide are equipped to provide doctors and researchers with medical literature from a data base of over 3,000 articles related to bloodless medicine and surgery. “Not only Jehovah’s Witnesses, but patients in general, are today less likely to be given unnecessary blood transfusions because of the work of the Witnesses’ Hospital Liaison Committees,” notes Dr. Charles Baron, a professor at Boston College Law School.*

The information on bloodless medicine and surgery that has been compiled by Jehovah’s Witnesses has been of benefit to many in the medical field. For example, in preparing material for a book entitled Autotransfusion: Therapeutic Principles and Trends, the authors asked Jehovah’s Witnesses to provide them with information about alternatives to blood transfusion. The Witnesses gladly granted their request. With gratitude the authors later stated: “In all our reading on this subject, we have never seen such a concise, complete list of strategies to avoid homologous blood transfusion.”

Progress in the medical field has caused many to consider bloodless medicine. Where will this lead us? Professor Luc Montagnier, discoverer of the AIDS virus, states: “The evolution of our understanding in this field shows that blood transfusions must one day die out.” In the meantime, alternatives to blood are already saving lives.

[Footnotes]

See Leviticus 7:26, 27; 17:10-14; Deuteronomy 12:23-25; 15:23; Acts 15:20, 28, 29; 21:25.

By invitation, Hospital Liaison Committees also make presentations to hospital medical staff. In addition, if their assistance is specifically requested, they help patients to have early, open, and continual communication with the physician in charge.