Sir

Once again, you have not hesitated to expose my ‘errors’ to your readers, devoting significant space to beating the drum about my second Ig Nobel prize, awarded by ignorant self-appointed guardians of the purity of science (Nature 395, 535; 1998). But your readers deserve an opportunity to judge for themselves our results and their theoretical consequences.

I refer them to our website, which contains a simple protocol for those who wish to duplicate our experiments (http://www.digibio.com). Put briefly, the current short-range electrostatic theory of molecule interaction-recognition via random collision cannot help us understand how biological reactions really work. By contrast, the presence in water of long-range electromagnetic fields, as proposed by quantum electrodynamics, sheds light on key features of biological systems. We can now record specific electromagnetic signals.

Isn't it time to open the door to genuine scientific debate? Based on my own painful ten-year experience, we may as well start by throwing out the peer- (or is it pyre?) review system, which has become, behind a facade of excellence, the main antibody blocking the nearly deceased corpus called scientific free exchange, which once was the cornerstone of progress. It condemns any advance that is “hard to reconcile with what we know⃛” (Dudley Herschbach), a position which is the negation of scientific research. Surely this attitude, reflected in the scientific press, is the clearest indicator of the urgent need for uncensored media.