Tag: Deepak Chopra

Some silly microbome ideas from @DeepakChopra and @rudytanzi

Well, just got to reading this: Big Idea 2015: Medicine, Wellbeing, and the Microbiome | Deepak Chopra MD. Yes, it was from December 2014 but I could not get up to reading it then because I saw some of the comments online about it and it seemed off.  But anyway I caught up to it today.  It has many inaccurate and misleading statements about microbes and microbiomes I just felt like I had to post something.  Some of the problemmatic parts are below with comments.

Let’s start gently.  As with many other stories on the microbiome, this article quotes the oft cited “fact” of a 10:1 ratio of microbial cells to human cells.

By some estimates the body has between 35 and 100 trillion cells with only 1 in 10 belonging to tissues and organs and the rest belonging to the microbiome.

This has been refusted by a great article in the Boston Globe by Peter Andrey Smith in September 2014 (long before this was published): Is your body mostly microbes? Actually, we have no idea.  Yes, I and many others cited this 10:1 ratio before the Globe.  But seeing it cited in this from December 2014 suggests Chopra and Tanzi aren’t really paying attention to microbiome science.

The next comment I find a bit off is the follwing:

Our personal human genome also determines the composition of our microbiome, which in turn can influence metabolism and propensity for weight gain.

Sure.  Our genes influence out microbiome.  But “determines the composition” is way to strong a statement.

But the things that got to me most were many of the comments supposedly about evolution.  I list some of them below:

  • This varying ecosystem isn’t populated by foreign invaders and pathogens but by colonies closely connected to human evolution.
    • I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean.  These are not “colonies” first of all.  And second, what does “connected to human evolution” even mean?  And wouldn’t pathogens be connected to human evolution?
  • The microbiome interfaces between the human body and the outside world in complex ways, but the gist is that human DNA has evolved in cooperation with microbial DNA. This fact is more important than the interactions that cause diseases created by invading bacteria and viruses.
    • Re “human DNA has evolved in cooperation with microbial DNA“.  Well, sure.  Some of the microbes we live with are mutualists. But most likely only a limited number of mutualistic interactions are going on.  This sounds like a Gaia type of model, with no evidence.  
    • And then “This fact is more important than the interactions that cause diseases created by invading bacteria and viruses.”  Really?  More important than the plague?  Than malaria? Aids?  Cholera.  TB? Worms? And more.  This sounds really silly.
  • Mitochondria actually have their own genomes inherited from the mother without change.
    • Umm – no mitochondria mutate and change, well, all the time.
  • Some of the most archaic microorganisms on Earth survive today in our microbiome.
    • This is without any justification.  First of all – what does “most archaic” mean?  And second, if it means what I think it means (organisms that have features like those from billions of years ago) – well – no – the human microbiome does not have a lot of such organisms.  This is just complete hooey.  
  • It would appear that the genome and the microbiome cross-talk, a conversation that has been continuing for billions of years with no signs of stopping.
    • What does this even mean?  In what way has the human microbiome been interacting with the human genome for billions of years.  In what way have human ancestors been interacting with microbiomes for billions of years?

Yes, the microbiome is important.  But this “essay” is filled with nebulous pseudoscientific comments about the microbiome all, apparently, to sell an upcoming book and related activities

“In an upcoming book we are co-authoring, Super Genes, we will present the latest findings as well as a lifestyle program devoted to what we call Self-Directed Biological Transformation”

Right now, I don’t think Chopra and Tanzi show any evidence they really understand the microbiome .. doesn’t bode well for their book and lifestyle program.

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–

#Badomics word of the year already? Yup. The ‘Consciousome’ from Deepak Chopra

Oh my.  As many out there know I have a thing with “badomics” words.  These are words someone has invented where they have added the ome suffix on to the word to try and capture some of the hype of genomics.  And though many many people do this, the ones I call “badomics” words are the ones where the ome addition is all hype and no use.  And this AM I was informed of a doozy via Twitter:

And so I went to the link and found this: Self-Directed Biological Transformation Initiative — A New Frontier ‘Consciousome’ | Deepak Chopra and Rudolf E. Tanzi.  And what I found there was almost a textbook example of how to create a badomics word.  Here is the critical paragraph

The current frontier in brain research, to map the entire connectivity of the brain, the so-called connectome project, points to an even more exciting frontier, the “consciousome.” This takes the brain to the next level, where we need to explore how our conscious choices may liberate us from biology-as-destiny. Our conscious choices and reactions to life experiences remodel the neural circuitry of our brains and, now, we need to explore the effects on our genomes.

Just what is the consciousome?  I cannot tell.  But it has something to do with genomics.  And with consciousness.  Hmm.  They try to clarify later on

Where the connectome is like a diagram of all the telephone wiring in a city, the consciousome embraces the conversations taking place using the wiring.

Not really helping.  So – what does it have to do with genomics?  Unclear until later

By opening up the genetic doorway to consciousness, however, we take a leap forward. For example, recent studies indicate that meditation can have a strong effect on the length of chromosome telomeres, the nucleotide sequences that protect chromosomes from the deterioration linked to aging. That these beneficial effects occur immediately indicates just how responsive genetic activity is to mind-body interventions — something never previously suspected.

So – the consciousome is the affect of conscious thought on the genome?  Whether or not you think this is something worth studying, the slapping on of the ome term on the end of consciousness is a self directed thought that should never have been done.  There is no entity that is the consciousome.  The term makes no sense.  It is certainly a badomics word of grand magnificence.

I note – there is some seriously bizarre other stuff in this article like the following:

In our Self-Directed Biological Transformation Initiative, a 100-subject study to map biological transformation, leaders in the fields of healthcare, art, business, environment, sports, entertainment, science and technology will be given a protocol to measure new genetic activity, searching for positive evolutionary effects

What?  How exactly are they searching for “positive evolutionary effects” and what does that even mean?  And why do this with the “leaders in the fields …”. How are they supposed to be different?

And also

This “soft inheritance,” in which the parents’ life experiences and behavior may directly influence the genome of their offspring (transmitted via the epigenome), is arguably the most profound “living legacy” we can pass along to our children.

So now they have gone from a few studies in mice showing epigenetic inheritance of a few things to the “most profound living legacy we can pass along to our children”.  Uggh.  Talk about overselling genomics – this is overselling a word / field that does not even exist yet and the word certainly should not exist ever.  Personally, I think brain science is very very interesting and important.  Let’s not cloud it up by coining new fuzzy terms, trying to capture the hype of genomics, and overselling the science.  And for this, Deepak Chopra, Rudolf Tanzi and their coauthors Tara Sheahan, Gina Murdock, and
Glenda Greenwald are winners of the coveted “Worst New Omics word award.”

——–
This is from the “Tree of Life Blog”
of Jonathan Eisen, an evolutionary biologist and Open Access advocate
at the University of California, Davis. For short updates, follow me on Twitter.

——–