‘WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED in ‘reading abook eniled Letter to St dents of Biology ofthe 2Ist Century? ‘Normally wouldn't have been, Bio- ogy isn't my fle. The last time T formally stuaied it was in the second year of high senoo!. “The reafon I decided to read the book is that have been correspond- ing wit the author, Harota Hillman, Hillman i airecor of the Unity Lab: ‘oratory of Applied Neurobiology, University of Surrey, England. We hhave common interests in opposing {he suppression of dissenting views Inscience. {looked forward to learn- ng more about the difficulties he Ne encountered over the years ‘As Texpected, the book sna easy reading, Sentences like this come fast and furious: "Virtually al thei formation about the alleged subcel lular tocatisation of proteins, ‘enzymes lips, receptors and tans: milters has been derivea Trom ex- Perimens involving homogeatsation land centrifugation.” But even for @ Dology tyr0, t's not foo nara to 0b. fain a general idea of Hiliman's argument ‘Since the 1960, Hitman ang nis collaborator Peter sartory (now de- teased) have been examining the basi assumptions undetying blog: eal procedures, One suck procedure is electron microscopy. whien is the Use of nighenergy electrons in place fof light (whichis used in ordinary ‘microscopes) to obtain high-esalt- tion pictures. Using an electron mi- ceruscope, a. scientist can aban clases of many features of els, Hillman questions whether the electron microscope really shows ‘what eels are lke, because of what |S done tothe cells beforenand. The ectron microscope can't be use 10 look direcdy at ving cells In the hhuman brain, fr example, The cells have to be prepared. ‘That means they are cut from the organisy, treated with powerful chemicals, ae = Vicar hee ‘bombarded with electrons, thereby heating the cells fo several mundred ‘degrees, ‘a “mask”, usually composed of os- Iie acid, He argues that some of the things seen through the electron mi roseope could nt really exit nl Ing celts Tn other words they are artefacts of the process for prepa: Ing cells'for the electron micro. scope, Among the structures which Hitman says do not exist inte In- clude. the endoplasmic reticulum, {he Golgi body ribosomes and syn Ic vesicles (and ols of other com- plleatedsounding object), ‘As well a5 elecron microscopy, Hiliman has examined other meth. fds used by biochemist and phar Macologists all over the world, such as histochemistry, subcelflar rac. tionation and electropnaress. In each case he has questioned the as- sumptions underlying the process of fbvervatin. In each ase he argues {hat some ofthe structures observed are artefacts of the method use. ‘Thore isn't space here for the Tl argument, att relies on some basic ‘concepts including the geometry of {hreeimensional objects (strue- {ures of eels) seen in two dimen: slons rough a microscope) and compatiblity with observations of living cel Hilman i not out to tear down biology. What he would realy tke for biaiogists to do, the control ex: periments necessary to determine the ‘effect of their methods of Preparation ‘Where the story gets really inter ‘esting tothe nos-biotogist is fa the Fespense of the biological commun ty tothe work by Hitman and Sar- tory, tn the many years since first Falsng these Isues they nave unde taken ‘numerous experiments pub- lished numerous papers and given numerous talks at sclentie conter: Tuly 1989,-p. 13 and antagonistic, to say the leas. ‘When Hillman gave talks before learned societies, he was told his Views were out of date and that he was tilting sgsinst windmills. He {hen challenged anyone to name ‘single textbook which did ot eon fain the views he was questioning, $e was told that people should not be sonaiveas believe what they read fa textbooks. “The implications ofthis are rather startling. 80 ina etter tothe pres ious scientifc journal Nature he challenged the people who made these comments to defend them in ‘rit. No one took up the challenge itiman and Sartory had enor- mous dificalty im publishing thelr ‘Work. AS well as comments on Bio. Topieal matters, me reviewers used ‘metas such as rudeness in corre Spondence and meetings. not reply ng letters, refusal to discuss {he issues in public oF privat, rid culing their views in Social situa tions and accusing them of being “controversial ‘Why this hostile response? It is important fo realise thatthe meth- ‘9 and technologies questioned by Hillman and’ Sariory are used by ‘many thousinds of biologists Theit careers depend on olhers trusting thelr results Electron mleroseopes are very expensive:a single Instr ment ean cost $300,000 not to mention running costs. Therefore, singlehandedly, they can account fora sizeable fraction of medieal: research budget, Vested interests In ‘eputations, careers and grants are volved, aswell as cormmitments 10 leas tong held sacred, Hillman presents an entire shop ping ist of feenniques which can be ‘sed {0 allack academies who ques. tion current views He seems to have ‘experienced them al, Bhs Book is hol iniended to be an exposé. He pulls punches he could easily de iver, ot wanting to embarrass par- a sclence a5 an enterprise, (British Selence feels itself under threat from. the ‘Thatcher Government, alter all) He really belleves In the Scientific method, and deplores the Unscientific. response to. his own ‘The incredible intolerance towards Hillman and his views Was hard for me to believe, alfiough I have studied many simlar instances In ciffereat fields of science, each new story comes as a shock. in one ase, Hilman gave a talk toa large ‘audience at what be cals "a well: Known Welsh university". The many undergraduates Inthe audience seemed sympathetic fo is case. A lecturer stood up and claimed to have pictures from an electron mk- ‘rascope whieh showed that Hillman, ‘was wrong. After the talk Hulman, ‘asked the lecturer to see the plc: ures, “have not got any. he sai, laughing "Way did you say you had In front of that large audience?” “Tecause T didnot want the students {o be misled by you” Hillman’s Letter to. Students of Biolog ofthe Twenty First Century 's intended fo convey the message that biology Ike all slences, should fol be treated as dogma, But what it ‘Shows most of al is that biology is both taught and treated dogma by biologists. In saying this. what matters is less whether Hillman’s biology Is eight or wrong, But the nasty and Intolerant way in which {he biological community hase sponded (0 i Tm sorry if 1 have raised your hopes of reading this ook — it hasn't been published. Hillman has {ried many publishers, They say itis ‘wel writen, but to persona. To my ‘mind, the personal paris are the ‘ost iaportant. Perhaps that is WY fstabliment biologists Would. not subjected toa very low pressure and | ences. The response has been cold | tcular inaividuals, or to iscreat Brian Martin —________ me Age Monthly Review, Yol. 9, No. 4, St