Firstly is the idea that we somehow diminish a biological system by viewing it in a reductionist manner. I believe this to be patently false. This deeper understanding, to me, at least, only serves to enhance my awe of biological systems in general. Furthermore, as dragonwriter wrote, the author strongly seems to imply that all research on the level of organisms and above has been abandoned completely. I have quite a few ex-colleagues who'd beg to differ.
Secondly, I'm quite bothered by the antromorphisation and attribution of intelligence which happens in the article. Terms like 'undeniable ingenuity' get thrown about with some regularity. I'm not a fan of this, firstly since it's quite clearly a rethorical device to convince readers rather than a rational argument. However, I think the entire premise is based on redefining intelligence to something which I feel intelligence is not. To quote: 'in defining intelligence, adaptation of and to the environment, reaction to unforeseen circumstances and communitaction others is frequently mentioned. It is the essence of such intelligence that we observe in single cells.'
I think this is a highly flawed definition, although I do have to agree with the author that creating a good definition of it is highly contensious. However, I do believe that the ability to analyse ideas and to evaluate their impact on future events is a core component on this.
I would say that the behaviour defined as 'intelligent' or 'skillful' in this article, such as the healing of injuries or light sensitivity of stomata are misnomers. To describe such behaviour as intelligent is attempting to mystify what is (to me at least) a process of mechanistic adaptation.
Then, to my third point, the author goes from vague mystification straight into pseudoscientific theory such as cellular memory, the section of which is fairly underrefferenced for something described as a 'well defined phenomenon'. After that, he does the bold claim that 'the brain's capacity fundamentally redies in the intraneuronal data processing rather than mere interneuronal activity', citing for this that neurons change when exited regularly. In other words: brains do not cause intelligence because of neuronal interactions, but because neurons themselves already are intelligent. He then goes on about how he found the modulated sound of a neuron's spike activity 'hypnotic' and having voicelike quantities. He then makes the vexing statement 'The clear impression is that we are listening to the discrete signals with which one neuron in some sense addresses another'.
This statement should not be vexing. However, the intention behind it makes it so. The entire purpose of neuronal spike activity is to propagate information to the next neuron. So it is very much the descrete signal with which a neuron addresses others. However, the author clearly intended this sentence to convey the idea that the cell itself is holding some intelligent conversation with a neighbour. This man is a published biologist; how in the hell did he manage to publish this? Did he still have tenure at Cambridge after submitting this? Because I would hope that he'd get some pointed questions and strange looks on his next performance review.
Lastly, there is the language. As I mentioned earlier in this rambling rant, Ford seems more interested in using cheap rethorical tricks such as appeal to authority rather than rational arguments. I find the tone and content to be entirely inappropriate for a article published in something that pretends to be a scientific journal (although the title, description and impact factor of 0.4 all seem to dispute this).
All in all, this article managed to push all of the many buttons I have.
This was written in 2009. Perhaps one can be kinder to the author in his pleading that looking at cells as individual entities was not getting adequate research focus. Also, things like changes after organ donation do not yet have any scientific explanation.
> This was written in 2009. Perhaps one can be kinder to the author in his pleading that looking at cells as individual entities was not getting adequate research focus.
It wasn't that underresearched in 2009 either, however. Microbiology has always been an active field.
> Also, things like changes after organ donation do not yet have any scientific explanation.
> This was written in 2009. Perhaps one can be kinder to the author in his pleading that looking at cells as individual entities was not getting adequate research focus.
What does the first sentence have to do with the second? What's
changed since 2009 that would be relevant?
IMO, your comment reveals not so much about the author, but rather about the mindset of typical HN reader.