Richard Strohman
University of California at Berkeley

From: Richard Strohman
To: Marcello Barbieri
Date: 19 March 2001

Dear Marcello,

I liked very much the description of the epigenetic cell (and
organism) with organizational layers or hierarchies each bound or
constrained by the layer below but not reducible to the rules or laws
governing the lower state. Just as the whole is irreducible to the
parts so is each functional state beginning with the regulation of
gene expression irreducible to the laws of genetics. The whole book
represents a step out of the murky metaphors of biology and into real
theory that provides a structure for hypothesis formation and
experimental testing. As you say, epigenesis at its many levels is
the elephant -- or was it a rhinoceros -- in the living room: so
obvious but not acknowledged by anyone. The book is also, for me, a
filling in of the general descriptions of organizational principles
for living systems given us by P. Anderson (his essay "More is
Different") and M. Polanyi (his essay Life's Irreducible Structure).
Both of these men were pointing in your direction.
I wondered why you did not offer some description of morphogenetic
fields along the lines discussed by Brian Goodwin. I'm still reading
... the book is very interesting for me but also difficult. After all
I have spent most of my scientific life as a molecular reductionist
and have only recently realized that this world of theory was out
there.
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Richard

From: Marcello Barbieri
To: Richard Strohman
Date: 20 March 2001

Dear Richard

It was a pleasure to read your comment.
I have been isolated for the past 15 years, because my 1985 book has gone
unnoticed, despite the fact that Karl Popper called it "revolutionary" and
Rene' Thom wrote its introduction (if you want, I will be glad to send you
a copy of Popper's handwritten letters). You can imagine therefore I much
encouraged I was by your words. Perhaps this time the message is really
getting through.
As for the morphogenetic fields of Brian Goodwin and the likes, I have
mentioned very briefly in the Cambrian explosion chapter that I do not
really go along with the "structuralist" approach. They are saying that
life is either genes or physics, and in that reference system there is no
place for organic codes. For centuries, meaning has been regarded as a
purely mental or spiritual entity, while I am saying that it is first of
all a material, organic, entity, and that life had to create organic
meanings long before it could go on creating mental meanings. The time has
come to bring meaning into science, where it belongs, just as the 50s did
for the concept of information.
You have already given me your consent to publish your notes in the
"Comments" section of our web site, but I feel it my duty to confirm it to
you that your last note will actually be published (unless you stop me).
And I hope more will come.
Thanks again, and all the best to you.

Marcello

From: Richard Strohman
To: Marcello Barbieri
Date: 20 March 2001

Dear Marcello,

Absolutely, you have my permission to publish my comments. I really
need more time for a more thoughtful read of "Codes" and I am looking
forward to it. I had tea yesterday with Eva Jablonka who is here on
leave writing a new book with Marion Lanb on epigenetics. She also
is just starting to read Codes.
I have noticed ... I am overwhelmed by the fact ... that
anyone who writes an original thoughtful book about biology that
fails to acknowledge the consensus around the allmighty gene ... that
person is ignored at best and, at worst, is attacked by the mob.
Look what has just happened to E. Fox-Keller's book on The Century of
the Gene. Here, it has been trashed.

But truth will prevail.

Best wishes,
Richard