BEYOND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

The Biophoton
Revolution
by J onathan Tennenbaum
O
ver the l ast 20 years, bl acked-out from the pages of
standard textbooks, and onl y sel dom represented i n
the l eadi ng professi onal j ournal s, a new, revol ution
ary fi el d of bi ol ogi cal research has emerged: the i nvestigation
of the spontaneous photon radiation emi tted from l i vi ng cel l s,
as a "wi ndow" onto the most fundamental l i fe processes. At
present, experi mental i nvestigati ons rel ated to thi s "biopho
ton" emission are bei ng carried out i n about a dozen laborato
ries and i nstitutes, i ncl udi ng i n Germany, I tal y, Switzerl and,
the Netherlands, Pol and, Russia, Chi na, I ndi a, and Japan.
A number of these research groups have j oi ned forces to
create an I nternati onal I nstitute of Bi ophysi cs ( l i B), whi ch is
now coordi nati ng much of the research i n thi s area. Over the
last several years, this author has had the pri vi l ege of partici
pat i ng in several of the yearl y symposi a of the l i B, hel d i n
Hombroich, Germany.
The fact, that practical l y al l l i vi ng processes are l i ght emit
ters-al bei t usual l y at an extremel y l ow l evel -was fi rst di s
covered by. the great Russian biol ogist Alexander Gurwitsch i n
the 1 920s. Gurwitsch demonstrated i n 1 923, that when two
oni on roots are situated in a common pl ane, in such a way that
the growi ng ti p ( meri stem) of the fi rst root poi nts toward a
poi nt X al ong the axi s of the second root, at a di stance of sev
eral mi l l i meters, then the frequency of cel l di vi si on (mitosis)
was increased in the regi on of X, compared to the opposite
si de of the second root.
Thi s "mi togenetic effect" (as Gurwitsch cal led it) was not af
fected when a transparent quartz wi ndow was pl aced between
the two roots, but it di sappeared when he replaced the quartz
wi ndow by ordi nary glass or opaque materi al s. By a variety of
further experi ments, Gurwitsch was abl e to establ i sh that the
physical agent of thi s sti mul ati on of the rate of mi tosis i n the
second root (the mi togenetic effect), was a very weak, ultravio
let l i ght radi ati on emitted from the meri stem of the fi rst root.
He cal l ed thi s "mitogenetic radiation."
Soon, Gurwitsch and hi s co-workers were abl e to demon
strate that countl ess other bi ol ogi cal objects, i ncl udi ng animal
tissue, cultures of mi croorganisms, and even some bi ol ogical
materi al s such as bl ood, emi t mitogenetic radiation. Gurwitsch
found that speci al l y prepared cul tures of yeast cel ls, grown on
agar blocks, made the most convenient and rel i abl e detectors
for the study of mi togenetic emi ssi on. Typically, the yeast cul
t ure bl ocks were di vi ded i nto adjacent pai rs; one si de was
bri efl y exposed to an experi mental object as "source," whi l e
38 Wi nter 1 998-1 999 21 st CENTURY
the other was opti cal l y shi el ded as a control . Subsequentl y,
both cul tures were i ncubated for a certai n ti me; then the cel l s
were fixed and the number of mi toses (seen as "buds" on the
yeast cel ls) were counted under a mi croscope for the exposed
cul ture and for the control .
The presence (and to a lesser extent, the strength) of the mito
genetic radiation revealed itself in a significantly positive di ffer
ence in the exposed cel l s relative to the control s. Guritsch and
his co-workers developed this techni que to the poi nt, that they
could even obtai n spectra of the mi togenetic radiation, by i nter
polating a di ffraction apparatus between the source and detector.
A Science of Theoretical Biology
Fortunately, Gurwitsch was no mere experi menter, but one
of the greatest theoreticians of bi ology i n thi s century. I n fact, i t
was hi s conception of the bi ol ogi cal fi el d, developed i n con
necti on wi th countl ess experi mental studi es of embryol ogy,
morphogenesis, and hi stology, whi ch origi nal l y led him to hy
pothesize the existence of some sort of di stant, radiative i nter
action between cel l s. The experimental demonstrati on of the
mi togenetic effect by the famous "oni on root" experi ment
hai led at the ti me as one of the most i mportant experimental
di scoveries of the century-by no means di stracted Gurwitsch
from hi s mai n goal , namel y the creation of a comprehensive
Science of Theoretical Bi ology.
In the subsequent period, Gurwitsch and his growing school
of students and col l aborators, transformed mi togenetic radia
tion i nto a powerful experimental techni que for fundamental
biol ogical research. Mi togenetic radiation attracted worl dwi de
scientific i nterest and became, i n the course of the 1 930s, one
of the mai n areas of bi ol ogi cal research i n the Sovi et Uni on.
An enormous number of i nteresti ng and i mportant resul ts were
publ ished in nearly every major domai n of bi ol ogy, i ncl udi ng
also neurophysiology and cancer research.
Unfortunately, for reasons I i ndicate el sewhere (see box, p.
30), Gurwitsch' s work on mi togenetic radi ati on came under
heavy attack i n the 1 930s-not accidental l y at the same ti me as
funds began to be poured i nto mol ecul ar genetics and mol ecu
lar biology, whi ch were bui l t up to take the dominant position i n
biol ogi cal research i n the postwar peri od. After Worl d War I I ,
the whol e subject of mitogenetic radiation nearl y di sappeared
from view, at least in the West; whi l e in the Soviet Union, a few
groups-entered on students of Gurwitsch-conti nued active
experimental work i n the di rections he had i nitiated.
The mai n attack on Gurwitsch consi sted i n the cl ai m, that al l
the thousands of experi ments by Gurwitsch's and other groups
(i ncl udi ng in France and Germany), demonstrati ng the mitoge
netic effect, were "wrong, " and that Gurwitsch' s mi togenetic
radiation si mpl y "does not exi st. " To bol ster thi s assertion
hardly credi bl e to anyone fami l i ar with the qual ity of the scien
tists i nvolved, and thei r pai nstaki ng methods of work-it was
poi nted out, that Gurwitsch' s exper i ments were excl usi vel y
based on the use of biological objects as detectors; whereas at
tempts to detect the radiation by techni cal means (photodetec
tors) had fai l ed or yi el ded ambi guous resu l ts. The argument
was al so raised, that a l i ght radiation, so weak that i t coul d not
be detected by techni cal devi ces-notto speak of by the hu
man eye itself-coul d hardl y be expected to have any notice
able effect on biol ogical objects.
I n fact, as we know today, the spontaneous photon radiation
of l ivi ng organisms is i ndeed too weak-given the problems of
sensitivity and background noi se-to have been rel i abl y mea
sured by the ki nds of photodetector apparatus that were avai l
able i n the 1 930s and 1 940s. I n 1 954, however, a group of Ital
ian astronomers who had been worki ng on the development of
supersensitive l ight detectors, di scovered that sprouts of wheat,
corn, beans, and other pl ants constantly radi ate l i ght at an i n
tensity of the order of 1 0 to 1 00 photons per second per square
centimeter of l ivi ng tissue. These results were fi rst looked on as
a curiosity in the West, but they gave a consi derabl e boost to
the work of Gurwitsch's fol l owers i n the Soviet Uni on.
Fritz Popp's Experiments
In 1 973, some of the newer Soviet results caught the atten
ti on of the German bi ophysi ci st Fri tz Popp and hi s col l abora
tors. At that t i me, Popp was worki ng in cancer research; he
and a group of graduate students were tryi ng to fi nd an expla
nation for the extremel y powerful carci nogeni c acti on of the
substance 3, 4-benzpyri ne, compared to the very si mi l ar, but
essenti al l y harml ess l , 2-benzpyri ne. Popp's hypothesi s was,
that the anomal ousl y strong carci nogenic action of the former
molecule was somehow related to a known, pecul i ar feature of
its absorption and emi ssi on spectra in the u l travi ol et range.
The idea, that the carci nogenic action of 3,4-benzpyrine mi ght
be caused directly by its optical characteristics-and not nec
essari l y medi ated through its chemi cal reacti viti es-went di
rectl y agai nst the prevai l i ng, mol ecul ar-bi ol ogi cal mi ndset of
most cancer researchers.
But to put the matter rather si mpl i sti cal l y: How coul d the
posited optical acti on be accounted for, unl ess there were a
source of l i ght i n the cel l ? And unl ess very smal l photon "sig
nals" coul d trigger gross changes i n the behavior of cel l s? The
Soviet work on "ul traweak" photon radiation of cel l s seemed
to provide the mi ssi ng l i nk.
I n order to learn more about thi s photon radiation, Popp and
co-workers developed and perfected over many years, a photo
multi pl i er-based experimental apparatus with a hi gh sensitivity
and hi gh si gnal/noi se ratio, speci al l y sui ted to the measure
ment of "ul traweak" photon emi ssi on of bi ol ogi cal objects.
With the hel p of thi s greatly i mproved "bi ophoton" detector,
Popp and hi s col l aborators have been abl e to di scover a num
ber of remarkable and hi ghl y anomalous characteristics of the
bi ophoton radi ati on . I ndeed, taken together, the resu l ts of
Popp and his growi ng ci rcl e of i nternati onal col l aborators,
HZR GK274
1 80
1 55

c
1 30
.
c.
1 05
80 +-
250 31 3 375
Seconds
437
LOW LEVEL LUMI NESCENCE OF
CUCUMBER SEEDLI NGS
500
Photons per second observed between 250 and 500
seconds in the course of time. The dark-count rate is of
the order of 70 photons. The figure is from Frit Popp's
experimentation, as he reported in "Principles of Quan
tum Biology As Demonstrated by Ultraweak Photon
Emission from Living Cells, I nternati onal Journal of Fu
si on Energy, Vol. 3, No. 4, Oct. 1 985.
demonstrate the existence of pri nci pl es of organi zation of l i v
ing processes, whi ch are enti rel y i ncompati bl e with the basic
assumptions of mol ecul ar bi ol ogy.
Biophoton Radiation i n Brief
We cannot go i nto the matter i n depth here, but the fol l ow
i ng brief summary shoul d give the thoughtful reader a sense of
the fundamental i mportance and anomal ous character of bi o
photon radi ati on. Thi s shou l d wet the reader' s appetite for
more i n-depth di scussions of these matters in comi ng issues of
21 st Century.
( 1 ) It is wel l establ i shed that spontaneous, ul traweak photon
emission i s a ubi quitous phenomenon throughout nature. Thi s
ul traweak emi ssi on i s compl etel y di fferent i n nature from the
fami l i ar, much more speci al i zed phenomenon of "bi ol umi
nescence," typified by firefl ies for exampl e, and whose i nten
si ty is many orders of magni tude l arger. The i ntensity of ul tra
weak emi ssi on di ffers very greatl y between cel l
types-undisturbed ani mal cel l s havi ng general l y the lowest
rate of emi ssion-but al so varies greatly from moment to mo
ment for any given cul ture or organi sm studi ed. The emission
often contains "trai ns" of very short (sub-mi l l isecond) "photon
bursts" wi th a tendency toward recu rrence, but wi th con
stantly shi fti ng peri odicities.
(2) J udging from experiments with i nterference-fi lters, the typi
cal wavelength spectrum i s spread over a broad band, from the
near-i nfrared into the ultraviolet; the intensity di stribution varies
with ti me and the bi ol ogi cal object studied. Bursts in the ul tra
vi olet range tend to be found i n ti ssue or cul tures undergoi ng
rapid cel l divisions, i n agreement with Guritsch. However, the
exact relati onshi p between Gurwitsch's mi togenetic radiation
and the general phenomenon of ul traweak photon emission, as
detected with the apparatus of Popp, has not been cl arified . .
21 st CENTURY Wi nter 1 998-1 999 39
( 3) The i ntensity of bi ophoton emi ssi on is extremel y sensi
ti ve to vi rtual l y any di sturbance or other change i n the bi ologi
cal system. For exampl e, the i ntroducti on of toxi c substances
in extremel y smal l concentrations-concentrations lower than
those requi red to cause noti ceabl e effects on metabol i sm or
morphol ogy-are typi cal l y fol l owed by a sharp burst of bi o
photon emi ssi on.
(4) I n spite of the obvi ousl y i nti mate rel ationshi p between
bi ophoton emission and the bi ol ogi cal state of a given object,
it has proven i mpossi bl e to di scover any strict, mechani cal
correlation between variations i n photon i ntensity, on the one
hand, and any specific known set or type of bi omol ecul ar
events on the other.
(5) On the contrary, the evidence of many bi ophoton experi
ments points to the exi stence and invol vement of a correlation
among a large "continuum" of events occurri ng vi rtual l y si
multaneously, not onl y wi thi n a given cel l , but between large
numbers of cel l s in a tissue or population of mi croorgani sms
events whi ch coul d not possibly be correlated, withi n the ex
tremel y short t i mes i nvol ved, by "chemi cal messengers" or
si mi l ar mechani sms of mol ecul ar bi ol ogy.
(6) One of the cl earest demonstrat i ons of the above
mentioned fact is the dramati c change i n the photon emi ssion
behavior of two bi ol ogi cal objects, when they are pl aced i nto
optical communi cation with each other.
For example, in experiments conducted by Popp and others
at the l i B l aboratory i n Hombroi ch, Germany, two cuvettes
contai ni ng Gonyaulax polyedra were mounted i n adjacent
dark chambers and the real-time spontaneous photon emi ssi on
of each was measured by a separate photo mul ti pl ier detector,
the axes of the two detectors bei ng paral l el . When a shutter
was opened, al l owi ng the two cuvettes to "see each other"
al ong an axis perpendi cul ar to the axes of the photomul ti pl i
ers, then t he emi ssi on of both cultures changed markedl y: The
emi ssi ons became cl osel y correlated, wi th a strong tendency
toward si mul taneous, short bursts, as wel l as a general i n
crease i n emission activity.
(7) Another, somewhat di fferent demonstration of the same
pri nci pl e i s provided by studi es of the strongl y nonl i near char
acter of the biophoton emi ssi on of suspension cultures of cel l s
or mi croscopic ani mal s as a function of thei r density.
I n the case of suspensi ons of Oaphnia magna at the same
development stage, for example, the curve of the average total
photon i ntensity as a function of the number of organisms in a
fixed-volume cuvette, di splays a succession of several maxima
and mi ni ma, whi ch i s hardl y understandabl e i f we assume a
si mpl e addi ti vity of the emi ssi on from the i ndi vi dual organ
isms, together wi th the effects of absorption and opacity as the
density changes. Close study rul es out the possi bi l ity of chemi
cal communication or "col l i si on" models as an explanation of
thi s phenomenon, and strongl y poi nts to a bi ol ogi cal l y signifi
cant resonance- i nterference effect : The total i ntensi ty has a
pronounced minimum at a density correspondi ng to the "nat
ural " di stance between adjacent ani mal s when populations of
them are l i vi ng i n natural condi ti ons, but has pronounced
maxima in the regions where the densi ty i s 50 percent and 1 50
percent of the "natural" density.
(8) Although much more extensive studies need to be done,
i t has been found that the cel l s of at least some cancer types
(for exampl e, hepatocytes vs. HTC cel l s) di sti ngui sh them-
40 Wi nter 1 998-1 999 21 st CENTURY
sel ves rel ati ve to the correspondi ng heal thy cel l types by a
stri ki ng difference i n the curve of emission as a function of cel l
density-the former showi ng monotoni cal l y increasing emis
si on wi th density, and the l atter di spl ayi ng a nonl i near density
dependency wi th decrease toward a mi ni mum.
Thi s is i nterpreted, roughly, t o i ndicate that the processes i n
the popul ati on of cancer cel l s are no l onger correl ated i n the
strongl y harmoni c, coherent manner characteristi c of heal thy
tissue.
(9) Fi nal l y, the photon emi ssi on from a given l i vi ng system
(organi sm or culture) di spl ays characteristics of optical coher
ence, parti cul ar temporal coherence, i ndi cati ng t hat the
sources of emi ssi on-to the extent they can be local i zed withi n
the system at al l-are not i ndependent, but are strongl y corre
l ated with each other i n the manner suggested by the i mage of
a multimode, mubfrequency laser.
One i ndi rect i ndi cation of thi s, accordi ng to the theoretical
analysis by Fritz Popp (whi ch cannot be deal t with here) is the
shape of the decay curve of l i ght re-emi ssi on by bi ological ob
jects fol l owi ng thei r exposure to i ntense l i ght. Li vi ng systems
di splay a characteristic, hyperbolic decay-curve, whi l e nonl iv
i ng materi al s (except some with hi ghl y ordered i nternal struc
ture, such as some crystals) typical l y re-emi t in an exponential
decay curve. I n parti cul ar, after a more rapid i niti al decay, the
l i vi ng material then has a much sl ower re-emi ssi on. I t appears
to be a ubi quitous characteristic of l i vi ng matter, to mai ntai n
an el evated energy state for as l ong as possi bl e after the i ni ti al
l i ght exposure.
'Photon Sucking'
( 1 0) Many exper i ments poi nt to a further anomal y whi ch
Popp and hi s col l eagues refer t o as "photon sucki ng"! Under
certai n ci rcumstances, l i vi ng organisms, placed i n the vi ci nity
of a medi um of excited atoms or mol ecules, appear to actively
suppress l i ght emi ssi on by those mol ecul es. How? By the l i v
i ng process integrating the exci ted states of the nei ghbori ng
mol ecul es i nto its own, coherent el ectromagneti c fi el d.
Popp l i kens the resu l t to the so-cal l ed destructi ve i nterfer
ence of waves; i n t hi s case, those phase r el at i onsh i ps are
"trapped" or "cancel l ed out," that woul d otherwi se l ead to
emission of photons from the mol ecul es.
The demonstrati on of "photon sucki ng" i s a wonderful thi ng,
not least of al l because it defies any i nterpretation in terms of
Newtoni an, "bal l i sti c" concepti ons of l i ght emi ssi on, whi ch
are typical l y carried over i nto the i mage of a photon as a ki nd
of bul let shot out from the emitti ng atom or mol ecul e. I n thi s
case, ti me seems to be reversed, and wi th it the "target" whi ch
control s the path of the bul l et!
Thi s bri ef i ntroducti on has focussed mai nl y on the experi
mental resu l ts per se. I have l eft i t to Drs. Lebensfroh and
Todtkopf, i n the precedi ng article, to di scuss the real l y i nterest
i ng part-the choi ce of crucial hypothesis.
References
Recent Advances in Biophoton Research, 1 992. Eds. F.A. Popp, K. H. Li, and
Q. Gu (River Edge, N.J.: World Scientific).
Biophotonics-Proceedings of Interational Conference Dedicated to the
120th birthday of Alexander Gavrilovich Gurwitsch (1874- 1954), Moscow
Sept. 28-0ct. 2, 1994, 1 995. Eds. L. Beloussov and F.A. Popp (Moscow:
Bioinform Serices).
Biophotons, 1 998. Eds. J. J. Chang, J. Fisch, F.A. Popp (Hi ngham, Mass.:
Kluwer Academic Publishers).