Nose cells as the key COVID-19 entry point

Sungnak et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nature Medicine, April 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Detection of the virus was first reported in Wuhan, China and has since spread worldwide and emerged as a global pandemic. COVID-19 primarily affects the lungs and airways and has a wide range of symptoms including fever, coughing, and sore throat. One of the scariest aspects of the virus is that some people may not manifest symptoms but can still carry and spread it. In severe cases, the virus causes pneumonia that can ultimately lead to death. Studies suggest that the virus is thought to be spread through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes and appears to be easily transmitted within affected areas. COVID-19 has spread to more than 184 countries and claimed more than 190,000 lives so far. One of the major questions scientists around the world are trying to understand is how the virus spreads, how we can prevent transmission, and how we can develop an effective vaccine. To discover the target cells involved in COVID-19 transmission, scientists analyzed the gene expression profiles of thousands of cells from 20 different human tissues including the lung, nasal cavity, eye, gut, heart, kidney, and liver. They specifically looked for individual cell types that expressed both of two key COVID-19 entry proteins – the receptor protein ACE2 and the TMPRSS2 protease. These analyses revealed that mucus-producing goblet cells and ciliated cells on the inner lining of the nose have the highest level of COVID-19 virus proteins of all cells in the airways. While there are many external and internal factors that contribute to the virus’ transmissibility, these findings are consistent with the rapid infection rates of the virus. The location of these cells on the surface of the inside of the nose makes them highly accessible to the virus and also may assist with transmission to other people. Interestingly, ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were also found in cells in the cornea of the eye and in the lining of the intestine. This suggests another possible route of infection via the eye and tear ducts, and also revealed a potential for fecal-oral transmission. These findings have important implications for understanding viral transmissibility and could have critical translational implications. For example, given that nasal carriage is likely to be a key feature of transmission, drugs and vaccines administered intra-nasally could be highly effective in limiting the spread of the virus.

Neutrinos Could Explain Why the Universe Has So Much More Matter Than Antimatter

The T2K Collaboration. Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations. Nature, April 2020

The current laws of physics propose that 13.8 billion years ago, at the time of the Big Bang, every particle of matter had been created with a counterpart called antimatter. Antimatter is precisely the same as matter but with an opposite physical property such as an electrical charge. The great mystery for physicists is why there is so much more matter than antimatter in the universe. If there had been equal quantities in the beginning then each particle would have wiped each other out in a blaze of energy and left the universe full of just photons and dark matter. To understand the mystery behind this asymmetry, scientists have utilized an experiment known as “T2K.” T2K is a collaboration between 500 international scientists that employs a proton accelerator in Japan that generates beams of subatomic particles called muon neutrinos and antineutrinos which then travel 295 km to the gigantic Super-Kamiokande detector, located in a tank filled with 50,000 tons of water under a mountain in Kamioka on Japan’s west coast. During this trip, the muon neutrinos and antineutrinos change in flight to electron neutrinos and antineutrinos, demonstrating the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. The team observed for the first time that there is a significant difference between neutrino and antineutrino oscillations. Neutrinos were found to turn into electron neutrinos at a much higher rate than their antineutrino counterparts and, as a result, would propagate regular matter at a higher rate than antimatter. These results show that although matter and antimatter look so similar to each other, they can behave completely different. Previously, scientists have found some differences in behavior between matter and antimatter versions of other subatomic particles called quarks, but the differences observed did not seem to be large enough to account for the dominance of matter in the universe. This new data indicates that subatomic particle neutrinos might be the very reason the universe is dominated by matter. While the scientific community is very excited about these results, most experts suggest collecting a lot more data in order to get the confidence level of their results up over the current ratio of 95%.

Humans Tend To Go With Our “Gut Feelings” Over Evidence-based Decisions

Konovalov& Krajbich. Mouse tracking reveals structure knowledge in the absence of model-based choice. Nature Communications, April 2020.

A new study showed that when faced with a decision, humans prefer to follow their “gut feeling” or habits instead of taking all facts into account. In the study, participants played a simple computer game in which identifying patterns could make them more money. While following the patterns led to success most of the time, there was still a 10-40% chance that it would not give the best outcome. The researchers observed that 56 of the 57 participants were able to identify the pattern to make the decision that gave them the highest chance of success. However, only about 20% of players consistently went with that choice after it failed them. The other 80% of players diverged and made choices based upon their gut feelings. The researchers suggest that participants decided to go with their gut feelings when making in-game decisions because choosing the best pattern only led to a slightly higher chance of success. This study highlights how decision-making works in real life. People can learn what choices lead to the best outcomes; but putting that knowledge into practice can often be difficult as it likely takes a lot of mental and sometimes physical energy to always make decisions based upon your knowledge of your current environment. Moreover, the rewards of following the best strategy aren’t always obvious in real life. Following a familiar strategy may increase your success by only a small percentage. In our decision making, there is always the dilemma – what we should do from a statistical perspective versus what worked out well recently, typically in an anecdotal manner.

I have recently been very intrigued about moods, specifically how our moods biologically change. The processes behind why we get happy, sad, or angry are integral to our existence, and having some insight into how exactly they come about could help us grow immensely. 

In my search for answers, I discovered Dr. Masaru Emoto (d. 2014), a Japanese scientist that had dedicated his life to studying water. Dr. Emoto’s studies claim that thoughts, feelings, words, ideas, music, and even names affect the molecular structure of water and thus our physical reality. During his study, Dr. Emoto discovered that water droplets that had been repeatedly exposed to positive or negative words, profoundly changed the water’s color, shape, and symmetry.

His first experiment involved putting distilled water into small jars, writing a word or short phrase on a label, and then taping that label to each jar. The jars were then left overnight on their own. Some of these words had positive associations such as “self-love,” “beauty,” “passion,” and “happiness.” Other jars had negative associations such as “evil,” “hatred,” or phrases such as “you disgust me.” Each jar then had a small amount of water flash frozen in order to form crystals, which were then observed under a microscope. The results were astonishing; the positive words formed beautiful, symmetrical crystals that looked very similar to snowflakes while the negative words were discolored, chaotic, and fragmented.

His revolutionary findings were published in his book, The Hidden Message in Water. However, Dr. Emoto’s work was met with criticism, skepticism, and confusion. Other commentators were concerned that Dr. Emoto did not do enough to share his approaches or provide sufficient evidence for his experiments.

He decided to take the experiments a step further and wanted to see what would happen to a large amount of water over an extended period of time. His famous “Rice Experiment” involved putting the same amount of rice in three different jars and then adding the same amount of distilled water into the jars. He then closed the jars and labeled each jar with a different word. On the first jar, he labeled it with the phrase “Thank You”; the second jar with the phrase “You are an idiot”; and the third jar was left with a blank label. Every day, for 30 days, he visited each jar and read aloud their corresponding label to the jar for one minute and tracked the changes in each jar over the month. By the end of the month, he had noticed that the water in the jar labeled “Thank you” had started to ferment, giving off a strong, pleasant aroma. The water in the jar that was labeled “You are an idiot” turned black with an unpleasant shape. The most interesting result, in my opinion, was the last jar with the blank label that had been ignored the entire time. It turned into a nasty green-blue color as opposed to staying near its original color. His results were consistent with his previous experiments with smaller jars, and it appeared that there was a trend. I was astounded by these discoveries and could hardly believe it, so I decided to try it for myself. My daughter and I did the same experiment as a part of her science fair project. To our amazement, we got very similar results within just 19 days. This experiment was a great lesson regarding the impact that our words have on others for my children beyond being just a science fair project. 

Dr. Emoto concluded his findings by stating that water is a “blueprint for our reality” and that emotional “energies” and “vibrations” could change the physical structure of water. It is imperative to remember that water is life; about 70% of the human body, and almost two thirds of the world, is made up of water. Therefore, everything happening around us, our thoughts, our attitudes, our behaviors, and our intentions are related to each other and can affect our emotions. Scientists still need to figure out how exactly these changes in water may affect our bodies and our world, but the results are clear for all to see.

This puts more responsibility on our shoulders to be responsible human beings. We should always think, speak, and act positively if we also want our surrounding environments to be positive.

There is also a great lesson in this study for teachers and educators. We teachers come across a variety of students at various ages all throughout the school year. Our interactions with them can have a very real impact on their lives, minds, and futures for better or worse. Every year we are given around 25 jars of rice with water, to represent 25 students, in each class with no label on them. We meet with them at the beginning of the year with no bias towards any of them. They are each a perfectly clean slate in our eyes, a new jar of distilled water and rice waiting to either ferment or rot. We then, consciously or subconsciously, label them in our minds and hearts; the students labeled “jar 1” receive praise and compliments; some students are labeled “jar 2” and are told that they will fail or are troublemakers; while the last group is labeled “jar 3” and is largely ignored due to their own shyness and/or our indifference. If you are a teacher or interact with children on a consistent basis, it is more than likely you already had hundreds or thousands of jars by now and now you can ask yourself that how many of them finished the year in better shape than the beginning of the year. How many of them were labeled as “jar 1”,”jar 2” or “jar 3”? When I close my eyes and think about all the years I taught, I am not sure if I was able to treat all the jars with positive attitude.

I believe everyone had an experience about how our tone of talk or our answers changed the heat of the discussion. As stated in the Bible, “a soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). Sometimes a simple small word could change your life completely in a positive way or a negative way. Our modes, attitudes and the language we use, impact the people around us and most of the time we are not fully aware of its extent.

Both positive and negative thinking or thoughts are contagious. When we see cheerful friends around us, we feel our days a bit brighter, or we feel down when we talk to grumpy people. Positive attitudes, positive thinking and positive thoughts do change our lives. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi put it well: “A person who sees the good in things develop good thoughts. And he who has good thoughts receives pleasure from life.” People who can develop positive thinking will more likely have a healthy, happy, and successful life, and they can overcome struggles more easily. If you want to have a healthy, good looking, warm environment that is productive and gives a pleasant time, you need to use positive, encouraging and soft language to make it happen. It is in our hands to improve our world with love and gratitude.

Positive thoughts lead to good feelings, good deeds, and diminish negativity, make our hearts delighted. Whereas negative thoughts generate bad feelings, hatred, jealousy, anger, depression, stress, and negative emotions which cloud our soul and lead to an unhealthy life. To be able to stay healthy emotionally and psychologically we have to immediately turn ourselves to positive thinking when we feel we are surrounded with negativities. The Prophet Muhammad, the Messenger of God (peace be upon him) said “Follow a bad deed with a good deed and it will erase it.” We may not have full control initially over the types of thoughts that cross our minds every moment, however we have the ability to ignore or pursue them as prescribed by the Prophet, peace be upon him: “Whoever believes in God and the Last Day, let him speak good or remain silent.”

References

● https://www.masaru-emoto.net

● Beyond Words Publishing www.beyondword.com.

● https://hado.com/ihm/water-crystals/

● Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1987, Grade: Sahih

● Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6110, Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi

● https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/a_grain_of_truth_recreating_dr._emotos_rice_experiment

● Gray, Donna (July 26, 2003). “Message in the water.”Calgary Herald. p. S8. Retrieved 2019-04-21 – via ProQuest..

These situations entail the psychology of morality-an intriguing and growing topic of study. Significant and insightful research has been completed in an attempt to understand more about morality from a psychological perspective. Many questions have been raised in the realm of morality and ethics, such as: How do people think about morality? What are people’s concepts of a moral person? How do people apply morality in conflict and their everyday lives?

In psychologists’ attempts to answer these questions, we learn more about mankind as a whole and about our own individual selves. This article will summarize some of the most prominent studies in the field of morality psychology and use these perspectives to help attain a better understanding of who a moral person is and what they do.

Exploring differences in moral foundations between political liberals and conservatives is one interesting area of research in the psychology of morality. Graham, et al. (2009) established a definition of a moral foundation as consisting of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. The researchers found that political liberals were likely to chiefly judge a moral situation along the harm/care and fairness/reciprocity aspects, while conservatives were more likely to use all aspects equally. The results of this study seem to agree with the ideologies of liberals and conservatives. Considering that conservatives are less receptive to changes in political policies and culture, it makes sense that they would place a high value on the authority of a government, and also that they would give more weight to protecting their in-group from outside influences. This ideology may in turn stem from a Hobbesian worldview (Thomas Hobbes, 1588-1679) in that everyone is at the most basic level self-interested, and therefore they must protect their own interests from the interests of others.

Liberals, on the other hand, would be more likely to go against the authority of the government or in-group concerns if they felt a moral injustice was being committed. This may be one reason why conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of not being patriotic.

As for the purity/sanctity condition, there is some doubt as to whether it can really be considered a moral facet. Conservatives seem to think that this is the case, but liberals on the other hand give nearly zero consideration to aspects of purity during moral judgments, as it seems to be an unrelated concept. Additionally, this idea may explain why conservatives tend to be against gay marriage, while liberals are more likely to support gay relationships.

Before moving on, let me pose another question: which action is more moral, volunteering time in a soup kitchen or keeping your vow to your wife not to go to the racetrack and gamble on payday?

Now we turn our attention to an enlightening study by Janoff-Bulman, et al. (2009) that analyzed morality in a different way: by categorizing it into two distinctive types, prescriptive and proscriptive. Prescriptive morality has a commendatory and encouraging nature, and it is characterized by taking positive action and the question what one should do to be moral. Proscriptive morality is more commanding and punishing in its aspects, and it is characterized by preventing negative action and the question what one should not do to prevent immorality. The distinction between the two can be states as helping versus not harming.

The researchers provide evidence for these two different types of morality in their studies. For example, in one experiment, participants were asked to describe what they thought it meant to be-depending on the manipulation-either moral or immoral. They had correctly predicted that proscriptive morality tended to have more concrete and defined language, so as to assist its adherents in knowing exactly what actions are wrong. Prescriptive morality’s language was more abstract so as to include more possible right actions.

It was also found that people were more disapproving when someone committed forbidden acts as opposed to someone failing to perform righteous acts. This finding-that it is generally more objectionable to see an overtly immoral act than to see a failure to commit a positive act-is strong evidence for the prescriptive/proscriptive distinctions of morality.

There are many more questions about morality researchers are asking. For instance, what lies behind the rationalization of a racist behavior or attitude? How are people’s moral principles influenced by the particular identity of the individuals involved? Uhlmann, et al. (2009) examined these topics. Most of us tend to think of ourselves as having a relatively stable moral standing, but this study showed that for most people, this simply is not the case. People were presented with different moral dilemmas that measured if they would support either a consequentialist solution or a deontological solution to the dilemma. According to the researchers’ hypothesis, changing some details of the scenario could influence people’s preference for either consequentialism (the idea that it is permissible to commit an action that would normally be considered immoral for the benefit of the greater good) or deontology (the idea that there are some actions that are morally wrong under any and all circumstances); this is in fact what they observed.

They observed that political liberals were more likely to sacrifice a white man to save a black group of people and less likely to sacrifice a black man to save a white group. The reverse effect was observed for conservatives in that they were more willing to sacrifice a black man to save a white group and vice versa. They also found that conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of Iraqi civilians by American forces than the unintentional killing of American civilians by Iraqi armed forces.

These results provides a striking example of how people’s moral concepts can change when the specifics of those involved in the moral equation change, which in turn suggests that people value some lives more than others. Conservatives, in particular, seem to value people who are part of the in-group over people who are not. This study also suggests that liberals may actually devalue in-group members in an attempt to maintain a non-racist morality.

Another major question is how do religious concepts and the knowledge that one’s actions are being judged affect how people behave morally? The following study (Shariff & Norenzayan, 2007) asked participants to play a game that would measure their generosity towards total strangers. The researchers discovered that people who were primed with words relating to God and religion were more generous on average than those who received no priming. The researchers also found that priming people with secular concepts of moral institutions had the same effect.

These results provide strong evidence that people will try to act more morally if they have some idea in the back of their minds, whether conscious or not, about being judged in some manner for their moral actions. This does not have to apply exclusively to religious concepts, as the results of this study show. As a matter of fact, related research conducted by Bateson, Nettle, and Roberts (2006) showed that just the indirect suggestion of being judged by other people was enough to reproduce this effect-an increase in moral behavior. Specifically, they saw a three-fold increase in the amount paid for drinks supplied on an honor system when the image associated with payment resembled human eyes versus a control image. Apparently, a pair of eyes is enough to trigger a conscious or subconscious idea of being watched and judged.

What is known about the neural activity of the brain itself with regards to moral judgments? What roles do cognitive and emotional processes in the brain play in thinking about morality? Greene et al. (2004) conducted detailed biological mapping of brain neuronal activity of individuals during their thought processes that went along with solving hypothetical moral dilemmas. It was observed that areas in the brain associated with abstract reasoning and cognitive control-regions noted included the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex-were found to be more active during very difficult moral judgments where utilitarian resolutions require violation of personal moral convictions. They concluded from their work that utilitarian moral judgments rely more on cognitive processes and abstract thinking, whilst more personal moral judgments relied primarily on social-emotional processes.

This is good evidence for two different types of moral processing-cognitive or more logical, and emotional or more personal. During this study, Greene and colleagues also considered the degree of personal relatedness of a scenario with the likelihood of utilitarian resolution, and therefore the associated cognitive processes and abstract-thinking brain regions. They looked at what happens when you alter the classic moral dilemma of the runaway trolley car (Thomson, 1986) by making it either more personal or less personal. It was observed that people were more likely to engage in utilitarian calculations when the harm was less personal-in the case, that involved pulling a lever to kill a person-as opposed to when harm was more personal, in the case requiring pushing someone off of a bridge.

Morality is often connected to religion and religious values, and a natural topic to investigate is the role that sacred values may play in moral psychology. Ginges et al. (2007) examined the Israeli-Palestine conflict in an attempt to answer the question of how sacred values are involved in the resolution of political conflicts. The researchers wanted to shed some light on several issues related to sacred values in political conflict – namely, how do instrumental incentives, such as monetary gain, affect compromise with sacred values?

Interestingly, they observed that adding instrumental incentives to hypothetical deals involving the forfeiting of some sacred value actually made the subjects who held sacred values more opposed to and outraged about compromise than if they simply offered the compromise on its own. They also found that these people were less opposed to compromise if the deal also stipulated that the opposing party would give up one of their own sacred rights.

These results are important in that they show how radically different sacred values are from instrumental values. Sacred values are, for the most part, non-negotiable, except in the cases mentioned above, and it seems as though the idea of offering something of instrumental value in an attempt to negotiate the non-negotiable only serves as an insult to those who hold these sacred values. It is only when some other sacred value is offered up that we see some willingness to compromise, suggesting that sacred values cannot be compared with instrumental values, but they can be compared to other sacred values. Because of this, one may wonder whether sacred values can really be considered truly uncontestable, as opposed to simply a different type of value that is not comparable with more material principles.

An important side of the psychology of morality concerns how people perceive the moral legitimacy of authority under different circumstances. More specifically, how much of a moral investment do the participants have in the moral issues. The researchers Skitka, et al. (2009) correlated an individual’s general degree of moral conviction with how much they either supported or agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on physician-assisted suicide in 2006 that prevented the Attorney General from prosecuting doctors in Oregon who operated under state law. It was discovered that the degree of moral investment a person had about this decision increased the variance of people’s perception of the legitimacy of authority. More specifically, people who supported the decision with high moral conviction more strongly supported the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction, and people against the decision with high moral conviction more strongly opposed the post-decision legitimacy of the Supreme Court than people with lower moral conviction.

These results are strong evidence for the idea that our perceived legitimacy of authority is intimately tied with our moral conviction on the issues that matter most to us. In other words, if the government made a ruling that we did not agree with, but did not care much about (for example, the ruling that pizza is a vegetable), we wouldn’t have much reason to deny the legitimacy of the government. However, decisions made about issues we have a strong moral standing on tend to either strongly reinforce or strongly undermine the perceived legitimacy of authority in our attempt to reconcile our moral standing versus the decree of authority. Additionally, a study could be run to test the hypothesis that liberals would be more willing to deny the legitimacy of the government, and conservatives would be more willing to affirm the government’s power.

We believe it is moral to care about others and give charity, but what motivates the moral response of giving? Some psychologists are interested in this question. Olivola & Shafir (2011) found that people were willing to give more money to a charity if they were required to run a marathon as opposed to simply attending a picnic. This finding shows that associating donations with self-sacrifice or suffering activates people’s concepts of morality.

How could we measure if having concepts of justice and fairness cause people to strengthen their moral responses as well? An experiment might be set up in this manner: one group of participants would be told that they would be donating to a village in Africa that is suffering from a drought, and as a result, running low on food. The other group would be told that local rebels are constantly raiding the village and taking their food, thus depleting their food supplies. We would then measure how much people would be willing to donate to the village in each situation. The condition of need arising from a natural disaster should not activate concepts of justice and fairness; however, even if some people think suffering from droughts is an inherently unjust event, the second condition – need arising from a military-type attack – should greatly outweigh the first in terms of justice/fairness considerations. Based on the results of the Olivola & Shafir (2011) study, it is reasonable to expect that people would donate more money to the people being raided, since that condition should activate moral concepts such as justice and fairness.

What do these studies tell us about what a truly moral person is? Let’s first look at the five moral foundations again, from Graham, et al. (2009). It appears that a truly moral person bases their judgments primarily on harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. This is because there can be situations where authority or in-group concerns can conflict with harm and fairness considerations, and in these situations the latter set of moral outlooks should prevail. One only needs to consider an example such as this: imagine you are asked to commit atrocities in the name of your country. It should be clear that these atrocities couldn’t be justified in this way. Based on the results of Skitka et al. (2009) such a request may even lead one to deny the legitimacy of whatever authority commanded this action-which is what a truly moral person would and should do in that situation. For reasons like these, harm/care and fairness/reciprocity should be on the forefront of one’s moral concerns.

Harm/care and fairness/reciprocity are also probably closely related to each other, and in many situations, one moral concept is found with the other. Consider an instance where a person beats his wife in an act of drunken violence. It’s clear that harm/care are involved in this situation, but also consider that we could say that what he is doing is an injustice to his wife. Similarly, suppose an example where a banker swindles a client for thousands of dollars. It’s clear this has to do with fairness/reciprocity, but we could also consider this action as a way of harming somebody else in a non-physical manner.

Research further clarifies a truly moral person as one who leads a disciplined life that builds off of the proscriptive, preventing immorality, and subsequently the prescriptive, acting morally. Such a person must be a role model for everyone else to follow. For this reason, a truly moral person is careful not to commit proscribed acts. A person who performs many good deeds, but also many bad deeds, will appear insincere and hypocritical. In other words, a truly moral person does their best to not mix the good with the bad. Once a person has built a strong moral foundation of avoiding proscribed behaviors, he or she can branch out and help others with ever-increasing frequency. Furthermore, with regards to the study on the effects of being watched, a truly moral person acts in every situation as though he or she is being watched or will be judged later on, even if they know that they are alone. This is because they know that any action they do may have consequences at some point, either immediate or distant.

Work in the area of the psychology of morality sheds some light on how a moral person behaves, however an ideally moral person does what is right with 100% accuracy, and no matter what the circumstances. This is an ideal, and very few people can be considered to be ideal moral examples. Prophets are the only people who could be considered to be morally infallible. Prophets like Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, peace be upon them, serve as examples of perfect moral conduct. Even though none of us can hope to attain the rank of a Prophet, every person ought to strive for this ideal and be the best person they can be. If we hope to have any positive impact on the world we must first start by changing ourselves for the better. Only then can we attempt to sincerely help other people around us, starting with our close family and friends, and later on, the larger world.

M. Tarik Ozgur is a graduate of Lehigh University Physiology Department in 2013.

References

• Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology letters, 2(3), 412-414.
• Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred bounds on rational resolution of violent political conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360.
• Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B.A. Liberals and Conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (5), 1029.
• Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The neural bases of cognitive conflict and control in moral judgment. Neuron, 44(2), 389-400.
• Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521-537.
• Olivola, C. Y. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a preference for martyrdom in altruism. The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to Study of Charity, 49-62. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God Is Watching You Priming God Concepts Increases Prosocial Behavior in an Anonymous Economic Game. Psychological Science, 18(9), 803-809.
• Skitka, L. J., Aramovich, N. P., Lytle, B. L., & Sargis, E. G. (2009). Knitting together an elephant: An integrative approach to understanding the psychology of justice reasoning. In The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 1-26).
• Thomson, J.J. (1986). Rights, Restitution, and Risk Essays, in Moral Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 476-491.

Recent advances in science have led to longer lives, better health care, and healthier societies. Science develops through trial and error. However, irreproducibility still remains a problem, with issues related to bias, a high level of competition, a lack of appropriate statistical analysis, and preference to publish novel and positive findings instead of negative or additive results.

Irreproducibility issue

One of the pillars of scientific work is its reproducibility. Repeated proofs with a statistically significant number of experiments that show the finding is true under defined conditions further consolidate its acceptance by the scientific community. Positive findings often need reproducibility from different scientists and laboratories to be accepted as scientific fact. This does not mean, however, that they are completely discredited when they cannot be reproduced. Each bit of research is significant and worth praise by itself.

Scientists often do not find the means to repeat somebody else’s work given that large amounts of effort and money need to be spent. The practical way to test someone else’s findings usually happens through industries that could gain commercially from a certain finding. Unfortunately, this often comes with a price, even if research is found to be irreproducible. Bruce Booth, a venture capitalist, states that at least half of the findings in publications cannot be reproduced in industry settings. This might be an underestimation, given recent reports from different biotech companies.

According to various reports the reproducibility of published articles, in biomedical sciences for instance, is as low as 10-30 percent. Amgen, a biotech company with a team of around 100 scientists, tried to reproduce the results of 53 key cancer research articles in top journals, and found only 6 of them were reproducible (11% reproducibility). Bayer’s scientists found that only 14 of 67 projects related to oncology, cardiovascular medicine, and women’s health were reproducible (21% reproducibility).

Another example is the PsychFileDrawer project related to experimental physiology, which showed only 6 out of 21 articles were reproducible (28% reproducibility). In addition, one study to reproduce findings drawn from 18 articles regarding gene microarray analysis found in Nature Genetics largely failed. Similarly, when protein samples of identical proteins, as shown in article by Bell et al (2009), were sent to different laboratories, those labs failed to reproduce the initial findings. Dr. Asadullah, Vice President and Head of Target Discovery at Bayer, points to the increased trend of failures in Phase III trials, which also suggests a serious problem in the way research is vetted and published.

These numbers regarding the reproducibility raise an important question regarding the system of scientific research. If these alarming findings are true, it could mean that 70-90% of money spent on science does not bring about anything that is reproducible. It is intriguing that although the technologies used for scientific discoveries are now much improved, which would be expected to make date more precise and rigorous, the opposite is happening. This tends to suggest that the issue is not with the technology, but with the attitude and atmosphere of the larger scientific community.

Table 1: Major issues regarding today’s science

Publish or perish

A scientific publication is not only a tool for the transfer of knowledge between scientists, but also the basis for promotion and the awarding of grants. A rule in scientific communities regarding finding money to perform research is “Publish or Perish.” This refers to the cycle of publishing a high impact paper to get a grant, or losing one’s ability to compete with other labs.

The bar for success in the scientific community is set very, very high. This forces fledgling scientists to publish quickly and in high impact papers. Remarkably, in the major science journals, there has been a 10-fold increase in the retraction of articles in the last ten years, while there has only been a 1.4-fold increase in the number of journals published (Fang et al, 2012, Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications, PNAS).

Selective publication issue

Providing the best figures for publication, and selective interpretation of data, can also lead to incorrect results within scientific literature. A lack of blind experiments in basic science also plays a role in these mistakes. Some researchers may design their experiments, know what the control and experimental groups are, and may have biases in terms of wanting their hypothesis to be correct – thus they may interpret their data in favor of their idea.

Dr. Begley, head of global cancer research at Amgen, tells of a case where they tried to reproduce scientific findings in a paper but failed to reproduce the findings, even after 50 trials. Finally, they went to the author of the article and discussed how to solve this issue. Dr. Begley learned that the authors had tried the experiment only 6 times and it worked only once, but they put it in the paper since it made the best story. This might be seen as an extreme case, but similar selective publication of “good data” is not uncommon.

Scientists are under a great deal of pressure to publish the “best story” – both to advance their own careers and to fulfill their own competitive ambitions. This is increasingly becoming an important issue, and it stresses the need for verifying the results of others and publishing findings that negate previous publications.

Lack of incentive for verification

A majority of journals require authors to publish novel and positive findings and disregard negative findings and repetitive studies. There are a few journals that publish negative results, such as the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine, the Journal of Pharmaceutical Negative Results, and the Journal of Interesting Negative Results, etcetera. But publishing negative findings is still a low priority for most publications, which seek new and exciting discoveries to attract more attention. But a renewed focus on verifying existing science, and publishing negative results, will create more reliable scientific literature.

Another issue is the lack of incentives for verification. Since the easiest way to get funding is novelty and publishing in high impact journals in the current hypercompetitive environment, there is almost no room for verification, if any. Under these conditions, many scientists tend to write up their own observations and seek to get published with little concern for reproducibility. Why do they need to find out whether it is wrong or not? If it is wrong, this would make it tougher for them to get funding.

But is this proper scientific conduct? Given these issues within the community, how can we be certain their research and its findings are sound?

Given the potential amount of misinformation in scientific literature, we need a scientific renaissance. We could have a reward system, such as funding or recognition that improves reproducibility, robustness of data, and an increased publicity of data and protocols, as Dr. Ioannidis suggested. Other approaches to increase reliability could be decreasing the requirements for getting grants, and providing a reproducibility parameter in the citation index.

Toprak is a freelance writer, living in Texas, studying Genetics.

References

1. In cancer science, many “discoveries” don’t hold up. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328 on 4/28/13.
2. Reliability of ‘new drug target’ claims called into question. Retrieved from http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/09/reliability_of_new_drug_target.html on 4/28/13.
3. Retrieved from http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/view_article_list.php on 4/28/13.
4. John Arrowsmith. Trial watch: Phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 87; 2011.
5. Ioannidis JPA (2005) Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. PLoS Med 2(8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
6. Ioannidis et al. 2009. Repeatability of published microarray gene expression analyses. Nature Genet. 41, 149–155; 2009
7. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109: 17028–17033. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
8. Bell et al. 2009. A HUPO test sample study reveals common problems in mass spectrometry–based proteomics. Nature Methods 6, 423–430; 2009
9. Bruce Booth. Academic bias & biotech failures. Retrieved from http://lifescivc.com/2011/03/academic-bias-biotech-failures/#0_undefined,0 on 4/28/13.

In recent years, people have been divided by conflicting studies about the risk of cancer posed by cell phone radiation. Does the current conflicting research eradicate or support the cell phone-cancer controversy?

Cell phone use has shown a dramatic increase in the world during the 1990s. The heated controversy today is about whether there is a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of developing malignant and benign brain tumors. This controversy did not exist—at least in the eyes of the public—until accumulating anecdotal evidence began suggesting a link between cell phone use and cancer. Since the first pieces of anecdotal evidence, numerous studies have investigated the cell phone-brain cancer link and a general summary of the findings is, at best, confusing. The substantial room for improvement in the experimental designs of these studies, the appearance of brain cancer after a long period of exposure, and some conflicts of interest among researchers prevented the results from being conclusive. More recent studies provide growing evidence for the link, suggesting there is reason to be suspicious about the studies that refute the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer.

Possible health issues regarding exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy were described in a previous Fountain article (Tombak, 2002). This article also stated that proving or disproving the existence of RF exposure’s biological hazards remains an issue for epidemiology due to relatively low exposure levels, relatively small populations, and a lack of reliable dose estimates. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is now maintaining an up-to-date web page to inform the public on key points that can be drawn from epidemiological studies investigating the cell phone-brain cancer link. It would be advisable that individuals concerned about this potential link become familiar with this web page and visit frequently to check the updates. A regular visitor will notice that the language on this page is evolving in every update in a way that the most recent version is less likely than the previous one to discredit the link as “out of the question”. This is because we are starting to see—albeit still opposed as weak—stronger signs of the alleged link as there is an increase in both the sheer number and the experimental design quality of relevant studies.

The first two key points that NCI draws on concern the type of electromagnetic energy emitted by cell phones, and the factors that determine a users energy exposure level. It would not be surprising if this train of thought followed with a third key point that stated that the cancer risk depended on the amount of energy that each individual was exposed to. However, the third key point quickly draws the conclusion that “studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head and the neck.” It further states “more research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly”.

Regardless of what type of general message one gets from these three key points, I want to emphasize that there is benefit in avoiding a lump-sum conclusion, and in making oneself aware of the results of individual studies. Before I move on to individual studies, however, I will point out how scientifically sound interpretations of statistical power and significance may lead to categorizations as ‘non-existent’ or ‘weak’, but how this scientific reasoning can potentially be misleading for the population at large. In this manner, one would better be able to make sense of why cell phone companies are, on one hand, highlighting the studies that have failed to find a causal link between cell phone use and brain cancer, but on the other hand, are taking all legal precautions necessary to prevent a future litigation by inserting a warning slip in fine print that cautions users not to hold the phone closer than a certain distance against one’s head or body.

The null vs. the alternative

A statistical hypothesis test involves two hypotheses: the null and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis represents the status quo; it assumes that there is no real difference between the two groups under study and the observed difference can be attributed to random chance. Drawing a parallel with legal systems, the presumption that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty can be interpreted as saying that his or her innocence is the null hypothesis. There has to be sufficient evidence on the contrary, i.e showing the guilt, in order to be able to convict the defendant. In a similar fashion, an epidemiological study investigating the presence of a link between cell phone use and brain cancer would have a null hypothesis that states the absence of such a link. The cell phone technology is assumed to be innocent unless the data prove otherwise.

The alternative hypothesis, the latter of the two, represents the claim that there actually is a statistically significant link between cell phone use and brain cancer, and the observed link cannot be attributed to random chance. In our legal analogy, the alternative hypothesis is laying the charges against cell phone technology, thus as the Latin maxim “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” states, the burden of proof lies with the alternative hypothesis.

As a consequence of this construction, a hypothesis test can have only one of two conclusions. If the data shows results that are beyond some predetermined significance level, the null hypothesis is rejected and the researchers believe that there is sufficient evidence to say that the alternative is true. Such a conclusion would establish a link between cell phone use and brain tumors. On the other hand, if the results do not reach the desired significance level, the conclusion is not the confirmation of the null hypothesis, but a failure to conclude that the alternative is true. In other words, when the desired significance level is not reached, the only outcome is a lack of conclusion; the test would not falsify the null hypothesis but would not declare it to be true either. The accused would be vindicated on the basis of insufficient evidence.

News on the innocence of cell phone technology, or any technology for that matter, should be read primarily with this perspective in mind. The conclusions of research studies are reported on the basis of whether the results “reach or fail to reach significance”. However, a more meaningful statistic to report from the study would be the deviation of the results from significance, if they were not significant. Results that are close to statistical significance can still be “meaningful”. After all, the significance level chosen for most studies relies more on traditional scientific habits than anything else. In this perspective, it can even be called arbitrary. In reality, we may not have expertise in today’s world to determine whether a 5% significance level is more meaningful than a 10% when it comes to studying the link between cell phone use and brain cancer. So when the NCI officials mention “lack of a consistent link,” all of what they mean is that the desired significance level has not been reached in most credible and up-to-date studies. Yet, the public is not informed about how significant the results were. Furthermore, as we see in the much-acclaimed Interphone study, failure to reach significance in the entire study may be overshadowing the fact that significance was attained for a subgroup of people, for instance, the top 10% of the population with highest cell phone use (The Interphone study group, 2010).

Perspectives on brain cancer risk

News regarding cell phone tumor risks is plainly confusing because a battle continues among different international panels and interest groups over how to analyze and interpret cell phone tumor data. An article (July 6, 2011) on Microwave News explains why there is no overlap in the conclusions made by the International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the two panels that are supposed to work together, but fell into deep disagreement as the data started showing some link between cell phone use and brain cancer. This piece is a highly suggested read for anyone who would like to be able to make more sense of the past and potentially future news on cell phone tumor risks.

The Interphone study

Much of the current debate on cell phone tumor risks actually revolve around the Interphone study, which was conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries, and is the largest health related case control study of the use of cell phones and head and neck tumors. According to NCI’s summary, “most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One recent analysis showed a statistically significant, albeit modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a reduced risk of brain cancer.”¹

The general message that comes across in NCI’s summary of Interphone results is that we do not have enough reason to believe that cell phones are dangerous. However, it is very important to remember that one can never accept the null hypothesis that “cell phones are safe.” The only conclusion that can be drawn is on the basis of insufficient evidence, which is to say that cell phones are dangerous since the desired significance level has not been reached.

As the Interphone study is the largest of its kind, it has drawn substantial attention from concerned parties, and a significant part of this attention has been in the form of harsh criticisms for the experimental design, data analysis, and stated conclusions. For instance, one of Interphone’s biggest critics, the International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Collaborative, published a paper in May 2010 detailing the flaws of the study. Among other things, these flaws included using data from 2004 and before when cell phone use was much less common, categorizing subjects who used cordless phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults who are more vulnerable.

In August 2009, more than forty leading independent scientists, physicians and other experts from fourteen countries endorsed the white paper “Cell-phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” by US researcher Lloyd Morgan. Investigating the research on cell phone tumor risks including the Interphone study, this paper concluded that “there is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use; telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors; and children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors”. Unlike the Interphone study, some industry funded research also accepts the risks associated with cell phone use. In 1999, Dr. George Carlo, head of a $25m research body funded by the mobile phone industry in the US, said his study showed an increased risk of getting a type of rare brain tumor from using mobile phones. This early in the debate, he was probably one of the first researchers with links to industry who stopped ruling out the tumor risks of cell phones.

A review of other main studies

Hardell et al.

Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, is one of the most adamant leaders in cautioning the world about cell phone tumor risks. In 2007, he and his team reported that cell phone users were at an increased risk of malignant glioma, and that a daily one-hour exposure significantly increased the risk for developing a brain tumor after 10 years (Hardell et al., 2007). In a more recent study also cited by NCI, they found statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before the age of 20 (Hardell et al., 2011). They also published a number of other papers in epidemiological journals pointing to the risks associated with cell phone and cordless phone usage.

The Danish cohort study

A 2011 cohort study in Denmark linked billing information from more than 420,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry (Frei et al., 2011). This study was an update on the 2006-update of a 2001 cohort study (Schüz et al., 2006; Johansen et al., 2001) that has been dogged by controversy and political suspicions since the first results were published ten years ago. NCI cites the study and states that the analyses found no association between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 10 or more years. However, there is no mention of the published or vocal criticisms of the study.

The main criticism for the study is that more than 200,000 corporate mobile subscribers were excluded from the cohort as cell phone bills were not in users’ names. Microwave News states, “In the time period covered in the Danish project—from 1987 through 1995—cell phones were expensive and it’s no stretch to assume that those who did not have to pay their own bills racked up the most talk time.”² Thus, the study designers effectively removed one-third of the population with the heaviest cell phone use. Dr. Lennart Hardell had also criticized the original 2001 paper by publishing on the shortcomings that make the conclusions premature (Hardell and Mild, 2001). Concerning the 2011 update, the Microwave News bluntly suggests, “Don’t believe a word of it”.

It is also interesting to note that the results came just five months after a panel of experts from the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) deemed cell phones a possible cause of cancer—a statement that sparked fear in many of the world’s 5 billion cell phone users.

Conclusion

While there is still no established causal link between cell phone use and cancer, we know as a fact that different research groups have found an increased risk of a rare type of brain cancer among heavy users. Even though children are known to be at a greater risk because of being in earlier stages of neural development, it is unfortunate that data from children were not included in studies until very recently. Concerned citizens of the world need to raise awareness about the behind-the-scenes battle taking place between different international panels and interest groups. This will make a reliable interpretation of conflicting news more possible. Further corroboration for both statistical and anecdotal evidence on the relationship between cell phone use and brain cancer may be necessary to “prove” a link, but this should, by no means, be interpreted as a vindication of cell phones. In the meantime, it is only safe to take precautions oneself, and encourage loved ones to reduce exposure to electromagnetic energy from cell phones by using a hands-free device and by reserving the use of cell phones for shorter conversations.

Notes

1 http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

2 http://www.microwavenews.com/DanishCohort.html#Continued

References

• Frei P, Poulsen AH, Johansen C, et al. 2011. “Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study.” British Medical Journal; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6387.
• Hardell, L., Walker, M. J., Walhjalt, B., Friedman, L. S. and Richter, E. D. 2007. “Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine,; 50: 227–233. doi: 10.1002/ajim.20357.
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, Soderqvist F, Hansson-Mild K, Morgan LL. 2007. “Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: Increased risk associated with use for > or = 10 years.” Occup Environ Med. 64:626–632.
• Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2011. “Pooled analysis of case-control studies on malignant brain tumours and the use of mobile and cordless phones including living and deceased subjects.” International Journal of Oncology; 38(5):1465–1474.
• Hardell L, Mild KH. 2001. “Re: Cellular Telephones and Cancer—a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark”; JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 93(12): 952.
• Johansen C, Boice Jr. JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. 2001. “Cellular telephones and cancer: a nationwide cohort study in Denmark.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute; 93(3):203–207.
• Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. 2006. “Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute; 98(23):1707–1713.
• Tombak, Ali. 2002. “Biological Effects of Cellular Phones.” The Fountain, 37 (1).
• The Interphone Study Group. 2010. “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the Interphone international case-control study.” International Journal of Epidemiology; 39(3):675–694.

Under the influence of these developments, it is highly likely that there will be collective transformations in convictions, ideas, and , scientific thought. When we look back at the recent past, we see that so many things have changed. Just yesterday, commonly accepted “immutable” facts, such as Galileo’s understanding of the cosmos or Newton’s universal gravitation, have been exchanged for relativity and become defunct theories. The view of taking matter as the basis for everything has been doubted for a long time. Today we see that researchers in different fields, particularly quantum physics, are concerned with the non-material world just as much as the material world. It seems that in the near future not just matter or atoms, but anti-matter will become a common subject of research for circles of science; metaphysics will be mentioned wherever physics is considered.

Science tries to explain the realities of our perceptions in the light of results obtained through experience. It does not give credit to knowledge which is not perceived and verified by the senses until their reality is proven through scientific methodology. For example, nobody doubts the reality of those things that we can see, regardless of their nature. Likewise, we can say the same for things we hear, touch or experience with other things perceptible through our sense organs. As for magnetic or electronic fields that we cannot perceive with our sense organs, we detect them with compasses or other tools. Science is able to perceive this much with the means it presently has, but is as yet unable to go further beyond “electrical,” “magnetic,” and “gravitational” fields. As relevant tools and devices that can prove the existence and nature of other fields are invented, scientific research will then be able to start exploring beyond these fields. In this respect, claiming that science encompasses everything and that it has reached its ultimate limits is surely a great mistake and is blind to what the history of science has shown us. As a matter of fact, if we look into the discoveries and inventions science has produced, we realize that what we know is almost nothing in comparison to what we do not know.

Not only does claiming that we know everything contradict reality, it is also a regressive behavior which lacks any zeal for further progress and is about being content with the present achievements. In every era, those who deem the achievements reached by contemporary science as the ultimate limits of progress, have blocked the way to further scientific discoveries and reduced the intellectual life to misery. Therefore, we see it as an obligation to reconsider what we have learned so far with a critical perspective, our previous knowledge needs to be reevaluated in the light of new discoveries, both in terms of correcting our mistakes and finding a way out of today’s dead ends. This includes a thorough study of the outer space and the earth, their relation to one another, night and day flowing in regular cycles, the special conditions of living or non-living beings in their own world, as well as human and animal organisms’ motion, function and purposes. Likewise soil, water, their composition, and their relationship with living beings, all must absolutely be reevaluated and analyzed with modern methods. Only in this way will it be possible to correct those theories that have not been proven according to scientific research methods, and those mistaken rules which are based on wrong judgments.

The dignity of science requires research to be conducted with an appropriate methodology. Those who busy scientific centers with unproven theories both deceive the masses and violate the dignity of science. Scientific methodology in its plainest form consists of: first, scientists determine their subject and clearly define what they want to learn; then they revise the results of previous research related to that subject; and then they determine the results to be derived from the data that they have collected. In order to test the reliability of the previously obtained results properly, a set of new tests is applied. If the new tests do not prove the suggested theory, scientists go back to the drawing board for further research. They collect new data, and by combining it with previous findings, they give new shape to their theory. Thus, they record the experimentally proven findings and then they consider whether the particular fact that they would like to define as an established principle can be generalized or not. If it can be generalized, then they evaluate the relationship with similar phenomena and see the whole of the picture. This method of research, also adopted by modern methodology, is an objective one for scientific evaluation. Therefore, it is absolutely not scientific to claim that something is definitely true or is established without using such scientific methodology, and to object or deny what contradicts that assumption. Suppositions and estimations asserted as established ideas are nothing but suggested theories and the universal principles that are derived from these suggestions are nothing but deception. Scientific conclusions cannot be drawn from such suppositions and estimations, nor can such suppositions be used to reject knowledge affirmed by testimony and reliable reports or proven through proper methodologies.

The theory is simple: Cosmic particles coming from outer space continuously collide with stable carbon-12 atoms in CO2 molecules, which are widespread in the atmosphere. Each carbon-12 atom takes up two neutrons and is converted into a radioactive carbon-14 atom. Radioactive carbon-14 atoms rapidly mix and become uniform throughout the atmosphere. Deep oceans, the biosphere, and carbonate rocks are giant reservoirs of carbon and with the addition of the atmosphere they constitute the carbon cycle of the Earth. Within this cycle, radioactive carbon-14 is continuously created and disintegrated. Both processes are in equilibrium. Since the total amount of carbon on the Earth is constant, a constant ratio is established between the amount of stable and radioactive carbon. This same ratio is valid in all the reservoirs of carbon in this giant cycle. In the biosphere, both carbon-14 and carbon-12 atoms are added to the food chain via assimilation; first by plants through photosynthesis and then by animals through consumption of the plants. For an animal or a plant, a carbon-14 atom is no different from a carbon-12 atom in assimilation. Living beings continuously take up both atoms, so the ratio of both atoms in their bodies remains constant throughout their life. When an organism dies, the uptake of exogenous carbon is terminated. After this point, although the amount of carbon-12 remains constant, carbon-14 continues to disintegrate and the ratio starts to decrease after the body dies. Because the ratio after death is related to the time that has passed since death, it is possible to determine the date of death by measuring the amount of radiocarbon present.

The half-life of radiocarbon is 5,730 years. This means that after 5,730 years half of the total amount of radiocarbon in a dead body disintegrates. The remaining half decays in the following 5,730 years and only a quarter of the first amount remains. This goes on until a very minuscule, undetectable amount remains. In bodies less than 50,000 years in age the amount of radiocarbon can be detected. For an older body, the amount of radiocarbon is so small that the instruments would be unable to measure the amount of radiocarbon present. In addition, such a test obviously works only on the remains of things that were once alive, such as bones or wooden parts of an old structure.

But how accurate is an age determined by this method? How dependable is this technique for enlightening us about the past? Although the theory seems quite consistent from a general outlook, one can see it is not the case when analyzed more rigorously.

Archeologists have tried different ways to test the accuracy of the method. The results have revealed long-term and short-term variations from the actual ages. Long-term variations show systematic deviations of the radiocarbon age from the real age; that is as the date of the sample gets older the deviation increases. On the other hand, short-term variations show irregular fluctuations in the radiocarbon age from the real age. These deviations apparently reveal that the assumptions made concerning the radiocarbon technique were not accurate. The results of these important abnormal conclusions in radiocarbon dating were summarized in the Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology as follows: “for years, it was thought that possible errors could have minor effects, however, recent research shows that the natural concentration of carbon-14 deviates at some certain periods, significantly affecting the calculated ages.”

The method is based on two assumptions that should be examined carefully: Firstly, the method assumes that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has remained constant in the atmosphere from the time the body died to the present. However, recent scientific research has proven that this ratio has not remained constant during geological time.

Secondly, the method also assumes that the carbon supply to the organism was made only by the global carbon cycle and no other source of carbon has affected the system.

Initial concerns about the possible sources of error were focused on the constant ratio assumption. So, why did the constant ratio assumption turn out to be incorrect? Actually, many reasons were found to refute the validity of this assumption. The most important ones are explained below:

Changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are believed to be responsible for long-term deviations in radiocarbon dating. By investigating the orientation of magnetic minerals in ancient rocks, geologists have proven that the magnetic field surrounding the Earth has not been constant throughout the time. Today, it is widely accepted that both the strength and direction of the Earth’s magnetic field has changed. Interestingly, these changes are appreciable even within a century. Changes in the geomagnetism affect the radiocarbon production in the upper atmosphere; cosmic rays are deflected according to the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. If the magnetic field is high, more cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth and the production of radiocarbon falls. If it is low, production rises. When the production rate changes, a new equilibrium concentration in the carbon cycle as a whole can only be established after a considerable amount of time has passed. The likely time scale for achieving the complete new equilibrium level is about 10,000 years. This is about the same as the age of the sample that is to be dated! The bottom line is that anything that affects the density of cosmic rays reaching the atmosphere will affect the rate of radiocarbon production, thus affecting the ratio.

Short-term changes might be the results of different factors. One of these is the variation in sunspot activity. Sunspots appear as dark places on the surface of the Sun for a short period of time and generate strong geomagnetic storms. Sunspot activity increases the Earth’s magnetic field and leads to a decrease in the radiocarbon production rate. Therefore, again, anything that causes a change in the Earth’s magnetic field will affect this ratio.

Other effects for short-term variations are the changes in the Earth’s climate. It is widely accepted that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere during geological time is strongly related to temperature changes on the Earth. This fact is also key in understanding the global greenhouse effect, which occurs with the release of high amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by hydrocarbon combustion. The global sea level has also been affected by these climatic changes. During low temperature seasons (ice ages or glacial periods), large ice sheets covered most of the continents and as a result of this, the sea level dropped appreciably. During these periods, a high amount of carbon (as carbon-dioxide) was kept inside glaciers and they became C-14 depleted (dead carbon). By the end of the Ice Age, large amounts of dead carbon had been released into the system and they had decreased the global ratio of radiocarbon.

Actually, three more resources of dead carbon make a negative contribution to the ratio. One of them is the dead carbon that comes up from deep Earth through volcanic eruptions. Radiocarbon dating of an organism that lived in the vicinity of a volcano gives inaccurate results. Because of the expulsion of dead carbon, samples found close to volcanoes have less radiocarbon in their body than others. Consequently, the age determination of these samples gives significantly incorrect results.

As is obvious from the previous examples, the main problem arises in the lack of knowledge about the history of the sample being dated by this method. Another example is when the sample being tested is wood from the inner part of a tree; the radiocarbon method gives an incorrect result in this case. The reason for this is that the innermost part of a tree finishes the carbon cycle before the tree dies. If a sample was made from this part of the tree (it is impossible to know which part of a tree is being used) then the date produced would be greater than its real age.

Even human activity is an important resource for dead carbon. Although only effective since the last century, a high amount of dead carbon in the carbon dioxide has been released into the atmosphere by the burning of fuel. So the ratio of radiocarbon has decreased. Actually, compared to the factors above, this effect has a more profound influence on the application of radiocarbon dating: No recent organic material can be used as a modern standard. Because of this, the zero point of the timescale chosen is to be 1950 AD, as determined by the US National Bureau of Standards for quoting radiocarbon results.

Consequently, the ages determined by the radiocarbon method are not taken seriously by archeologists because of the problems in the basic assumptions upon which the method was established. Occasionally, the radiocarbon method is used to roughly determine whether an object is modern or of considerable antiquity; in essence, it is used as an authenticity test. Even then the answer may not be clear-cut; for example, an old piece of timber could have been carved to produce an authentic looking sculpture!

Radiocarbon dating is an example of how scientific tools should be used carefully to unfold the reality around us. Scientific theories are only poor models of what is happening in reality. The history of science is full of such examples, which sometimes may be misleading if not handled carefully.

Reference

Radiocarbon Dating, Sheridan Bowman, University of California Press, 1990

Programs and documents on the computer are held in two areas: software and hardware. For scientists, one of many goals is to make the processors or chips, which are like the human brain that consists of nerves, much smaller, but still powerful enough to process many more calculations. There are many differences between the current chips and earlier ones. Chips which will be produced in the future will be smaller and probably process more calculations more quickly.

Programs, which can be seen as being the mechanical counterpart of the human mind, bring the above-mentioned improvements into daily life. New programs boost the capability of the computer in parallel with the capability of their chips. Without these programs, computers would be no more than ordinary electronic machines.

Developed technologies in fields like industry, communication, or the military bring us face to face with new developments and have made the computer an undeniable part of our lives. Mobile phones equipped with new features, medical machines which can easily make a large number of analyses and provide ease in diagnosis and treatment, robots that can operate with minimum error and have a low cost when used in production, and weapons that automatically focus on the target are all part of this progress.

With time, software and hi-tech sensors have enabled computers to communicate with people; there are now systems that are controlled by the voice, which are able to recognize a person from their iris or fingerprints, control systems which are carried out by touching a screen, etc. Such systems are operated with the help of special sensors or by some signals that carry messages from the person or the environment to the computer. The most important feature of these sensors is that the signals produced at the output are very weak and there are few differences between them. An ATM can recognize a particular person’s iris, thanks to the ability of its computer to compare the signals from the ATM’s iris scanner with previously recorded data. In this process, the computer uses the small differences that one person’s iris has to another’s. In this or similar systems, complicated programs are used, called “expert systems” or “artificial intelligence”. These programs imitate human senses, but they aim to operate with an even keener sensitivity and clearer criteria.

A question that is a subject of fiction comes to mind; “Will computers vie with or even fight with human beings?” In the mid-term, the rapid development of technology will create computers which can communicate with humans, which can understand them, and put forward ideas. A negative outcome of such a situation depends, once again, on man. Such a horrific situation could be the result of technology that can cause environmental disasters; this technology is almost identical to the one that we have described above. If we are able to establish an understanding of “civilization” which does not ignore human values for the sake of technological development, then such fears will be groundless.

Artificial Nervous Systems

As we all know, people have imitated nature in many of their inventions. In a way, artificial nervous systems imitate how a nerve cell learns and how it works. Fuzzy systems however imitate how the judgment of a human being works, rather than the nerve cells of the brain. In these systems people try to form a decision making criterion by assuming that there are endless grey tones between white and black or by assuming that there are infinite values between zero and one.

The purpose of the research on artificial nervous systems is to understand how the brain operates, then to make a system that imitates it and carries out the same operations. Artificial nervous systems are made of simple nerve cells which are bound in parallel, called process elements; these allow for real objects to be seen as if they were biological systems.

Here, the program that resembles the nerve cell operates in the same way as a nerve cell. The main part of a nerve cell is formed from the body, called a “soma”, an “axon” that is bound to the body and many “dendrites”. There are many “roots”, or synapses, on the dendrite of a cell which make contact with the dendrites of other cells. A nerve cell either transmits the electrical stimulus that comes through the axon to the other nerve cells through the synapse, or it does not transmit it, depending on whether or not the signal is over or below the threshold value. So a nerve works by itself, but its activity becomes meaningful when working as a part of a nervous system. It would be useful if we consider how the learning process occurs here. It is thought that the required data are stored in the memory center and this fact is taken as a model for some artificial nervous system software that has been successfully developed to date.

A nerve cell and the process of transporting signals from one cell to another can be written as software. It is clear that a natural nerve cell is more complex and that it is bound to more cells than an artificial one can be. The number of communication ports (synapses) of a natural nerve can vary from between 1,000 to 10,000.

An artificial cell produces output if the input value is over the cell’s threshold value; if this is not the case then there is no production. If there is output – as in natural cells – then this output is transported to the next cell group. Each cell produces its output as an input for the next cell.

A cell is separated into three groups: input, the hidden layer and output. Each group is considered to be made up of one layer, while the hidden layer can consist of more than one, according to the complexity of the job. As can be seen, the placement of the layers is similar in the process of the human body. We can compare the cells on the input layer with human senses. In this way we can teach a robot to avoid heat and cold, we can make them see and act according to this information. (Do not forget that a robot is in fact a computer.) It is natural that some sensors must be bound to the cells on the input layer. For instance, a sensor which is sensitive to heat can make the robot react to heat when the temperature is over the limit value or when the temperature is dramatically low it can move closer to a heat source. Or if pictures received from a video-camera are similar to an object that has been fed into the robot such data input can cause the robot to move to that object.

Artificial nervous systems are not only used in robot applications. They are commonly used in making clinical diagnoses, determining market-customer profiles, recognizing voices or pictures, classifications such as determining micro-structures, like germs and cell materials, economic profiles, energy sources, the futures of market shares, some predictive sciences, such as weather forecast, zipping data for computers, process control in industry, checking resources and some other matters in technological areas. As can be seen, there are many application areas for artificial nervous systems, all of which differ from one another.

The Basic Features of Artificial Nervous Systems

The features of artificial nervous systems can be simplified as follows: firstly, they can learn how to solve problems. In order to do this they use sample data and learning styles and while doing this they do not require any special help. Secondly, they can recognize important features and relations to help them distinguish different data forms.

When an artificial nervous system is operated, the first thing to be carried out is the training process. In order to do this, the program needs to have two alternating operations. It may obtain information concerning some results to be achieved, using results that come from the user, or the program is itself asked to produce some results. These two types of learning are not very different from how a human learns. One shows a young child an animal, and repeats the name. Now the child has learned the name of the animal and correlates it with the picture of the same. If no one teaches a child what a bird is, the child will all the same classify all animals that have wings and beaks and that have a certain physical shape, maybe even creating a name for the animal by him/herself. The difference between the computer and the human in this process is that a human has the ability to judge, while computers classify the animals according to their shapes and groups them thus. Naming and giving a naming feature to the computer is again a decision that a human will make. When the training process is finished, the data can be entered into the computer and the desired results can be attained.

Artificial nervous systems are changing and developing day by day. With each new development they become closer to the human nervous system; they are able to recognize different characteristics of different people and they are learning to make sorting decisions, even limited judgments. Whether or not these machines may one day enact a nightmare scenario, taking over from us is not a great threat, as whatever they are capable of doing is up to us to decide, as their “masters”. We should not fear these systems, but try to develop more of them; such systems help us in every day tasks, from drawing money out of the bank to our annual check-up at the doctor’s.

The creation of evil is in no way evil, it is the committing of evil that is evil. Man is endowed with free will and God enables man’s willed actions. Therefore, it is man’s willing and committing evil that is evil and ugly, not God’s giving objective existence to evil. If God were not to create what man wills, then human free will would be annulled.

Secondly, none of God’s creations are merely one-dimensional, they pertain to the whole universe; therefore any creation should be evaluated according to its aggregate results, not merely to the act itself. To give an example, the results of rain falling are manifold, almost all being useful to mankind. If some people sustain damage from the rain due to their own miscalculation, it is not possible for them to argue that the creation of rain is not a blessing, nor can they claim that its creation is evil. Perhaps rain seems evil to them due to their personal experience. Similarly, there are numerous benefits for mankind in the creation of fire. If some people are harmed by fire due to their failure to use it appropriately they cannot say that the creation of fire is evil. Fire was not created to burn only their hands; perhaps they brought their hands too close to the fire while cooking and made a thing that normally serves us bring them harm.

As a result, a lesser evil is acceptable for the greater good. If an evil which will lead to a greater good is abandoned so that the lesser evil is eliminated, a greater evil will then have been perpetrated. For example, there is certainly some minor material and physical harm and discomfort in the drafting of soldiers to create an army to defend one’s homeland, but in this there is a greater benefit in that the whole country is saved from invasion. If the defense of a country is abandoned in order to avoid such minor discomforts then the greater benefit will be lost and a greater evil will follow. This is most definitely a mistake. Likewise, to amputate a finger that is gangrenous is good and right, although it is ostensibly evil. Yet, if the finger is not amputated then the entire hand will be lost; this is a greater evil.

Thus, the making and the creation of evil, harm, trouble, devils, and other harmful things is not evil or bad; these have been created in order to obtain many important results. For example, devils are not allowed to pester the angels and the angels can therefore not make any advance. Their ranks, although high, are fixed and can never change. Animals cannot make progress either, for the same reason; they maintain their low rank throughout their lives. On the other hand, for human beings there is no end to the ranks to which they can attain, in both directions, high or low. There are countless levels for humans to progress through, from the ranks of the Nimrods and the Pharaohs to the ranks of the saints and the prophets.

Therefore, in order to differentiate and separate those souls which are like coal in their deficiency from those that are like diamonds in being distinguished, an arena of trial, examination, strife, and competition has been established, using the creation of the devils, and the assigning of prophets, thus making humanity accountable for its actions. Were there no struggle and no competition, the coal-like and diamond-like aptitudes in mankind’s disposition would have remained equal. The soul of Abu Bakr the Veracious, who was the highest of the high, would have remained level with that of Abu Jahl, the lowest of the low. As a result, the creation of the devils and evil is neither evil nor ugly as it pertains to grand and cumulative results. Evil and ugly results that arise from individual acts, and perhaps from miscalculations and abuses, should be attributed to man’s acquisition, not to Divine creation.

The following question may come to mind: The majority of humanity has become disbelievers due to the existence of Satan, and hence suffer harm, despite the fact that prophets have been sent. If we judge the state of affairs according to the situation of the majority we must then conclude that the creation of evil is evil as the majority of people are suffering due its existence. We may even be drawn to the conclusion that the sending of prophets was not a blessing after all. Is this not so?

The first thing to say in answer to this question is, quantity is of no significance; we must look at quality. The true majority lies in those of quality. For example, if there are a hundred date-palm seeds that are planted, but not watered and hence they cannot undergo the necessary chemical transformations and demonstrate the struggle for life, then we only have a hundred seeds that have virtually no value. But if instead these seeds are watered and they then partake in the struggle for life, but still eighty out of the hundred rot due to the imperfections inherent in their nature, with only twenty becoming fruit-bearing trees, can we then claim that “watering the seeds was evil because most of them rotted”? Of course we cannot do so, for those twenty seeds will yield twenty thousand more seeds. Therefore, what has caused a loss of eighty and a profit of twenty thousand is not harmful and cannot be called evil.

To give another example, consider a peahen that lays a hundred eggs, each being worth five dollars. If the hen were to incubate those hundred eggs and eighty were to spoil, that would mean that twenty hatch into adults. Can we say that there was a high loss caused by a harmful process, and that therefore incubating is bad by its very nature? No, on the contrary, it is profitable, for these birds lost eighty eggs, worth five dollars each, but gained twenty peacocks worth eighty dollars.

It is in just this way that mankind, by being raised up by the prophets, and by fighting against Satan and their evil-commanding souls, have lost the animal-like members of their race, the disbelievers and hypocrites, who are greater in number but poorer in quality, in exchange for hundreds of thousands of prophets, millions of saints, and billions of men of wisdom and sincerity, who are the suns, moons, and stars of the human world.

Another question that one might want to ask, is that God Almighty sends catastrophes and inflicts us with trials and tribulations; is this not unfair, particularly toward the innocent, even the animals?

The answer to this question is, the sovereignty is His; therefore He reigns over this creation of His as He wishes. Here is a simple example in order to better understand this statement: Imagine that a skilful craftsman hires you as a model. He has you put on a beautiful garment that he has made and in order to demonstrate his skills on it he starts cutting, trimming, shortening, lengthening it and making you sit down or stand as he wishes. Can you tell him that he is making the garment that looks so beautiful on you appear ugly, or that he is tiring you out by making you move all the time? Of course not, he has hired you. Likewise your Maker, All-Glorious, has you put on this fine looking body of yours, which is ornamented with senses, such as hearing, seeing, speaking, etc., and in order to demonstrate the gilding of His various names, He sometimes makes you ill, hungry, thirsty, worried, or sometimes he satisfies you; your life revolves around different states like these. In order to strengthen the essence of life and display the manifestation of His Names, He makes you journey through numerous such conditions. If you say: “Why do you inflict these calamities on me?”, there are several instances of wisdom that will silence you, as in the above analogy.

Another point is that tranquility, stillness, idleness, and monotony are forms of non-existence, and thus are not good states. Action and constant change on the other hand are signs of existence; therefore these are good states. Life finds its perfection through action and it evolves through tribulations. Life encounters various actions through the manifestations of Divine Names and so it becomes purified and fortified; this is how it evolves, expands and becomes the pen with which the determination of its own fate is written, and so deserves to be rewarded in the afterlife.

As human beings, we experience many situations that we do not expect and in which we do not feel comfortable. Sometimes we are criticized by others, caught by illness, exposed to unjust treatment, abandoned, imprisoned, or subjected to other unpleasant experiences. Some people may even lose everything they have. Most people become annoyed, depressed, or frustrated under such circumstances. Others, who have managed to look at life and events from a different perspective, can meet such incidents with patience, tolerance, and courage. They consider these events as warning signs that help them to stay on the right track, or they take on these situations to help them hone their skills and to help resist any current or future problems that they may encounter. As a matter of fact, the interpretation of incidents is a context related issue, and it is up to us to define the borders of the context.

Everything in the Universe is Beautiful

Everything, even things which appear ugly, has a beautiful aspect. In the universe, every incident is beautiful either by itself or because of its results. Although some occurrences seem unattractive and confusing, behind these appearances lie a hidden cause and a covert beauty. Who can point at a futile, unnecessary and unintentional creation in the Universe? Look inside the atom, examine the structure of the cell, study the human body, think about the ecosystem, the solar system, and the infinite space that we live in and ask yourself: Which one of these is futile, accidental or unintentional? We all know that a beautiful spring will follow a cold and blustery winter. For that reason, without merely looking at its cold face, we try to see the beauty inside winter and we try to imagine the beauty that will come after winter. If we cannot see that aspect, then winter is indeed a miserable season. Have you ever encountered people swearing at the wind and the rain? Without thinking about their real functions and benefits, such people get angry with the rain and the wind and swear at these wonderful phenomena because of the trifling harm they cause to their personal comfort. They draw the borders of the context according to their interests only, and interpret events from that narrow and shallow context.

Actually, bad results may follow a good event, while good results may occur after a bad incident. In the Quran, God states, œSomething that you do not like might be good for you, or something that you like might be bad for you. You are not able to know this; however, God knows.(2/216) Many times we have heard from others or we have personal experience that something that we wish to happen does not materialize; however, we eventually realize that the result was the most beneficial for us. Likewise, our memories are full of events which, at the beginning, we did not want to occur, but afterwards we came to understand that they were, ultimately, for the good.

We should not forget that we can obtain good results from our personal perception of events, i.e., from our perspective, our prayers, and our consciousness. Destiny looks at the true causes, yet we humans base our decision-making process on visible, tangible reasons. This divergence is the main reason why we at times can find it difficult to comprehend the justice of destiny.

Do Not Judge a Book by its Cover

History is full of great successes that followed desperate events. One example is the Hudaybiya Agreement that was signed between the first Muslims living in

Madina and the people of Makka, who hated the Muslims and who did not want them to visit Makka for pilgrimage. The signing of this agreement happened six years after the emigration from Makka to Madina. At the time of the agreement the Muslims were resting at Hudaybiya on their way to Makka to visit the Ka’ba. Those who had not accepted Islam did not want the Muslims to visit Makka. After several talks between representatives from both sides, the Hudaybiya Agreement was signed and the Prophet of the Muslims and the people around him had to return to Madina.

According to the agreement, those displaced Muslims who had moved from Madina to Makka and who were living in Makka at that time would not be released while the displaced people who had moved from Makka to Madina would be returned, even if they had become Muslims. Abu Jandal, a young Muslim who had left Makka to escape the torture his father had inflicted on him for choosing Islam appealed to the Prophet not to send him back to Makka. His father was the signatory of the agreement, representing the people of Makka. He said, œThis is the first person that you will return to us in accord with the agreement. It was a very hard decision for the Prophet to make. Umar, one of his closest friends and the second caliph after him, asked the Prophet why, if he was the genuine Prophet sent by God, did Abu Jandal have to be returned to Makka. Abu Jandal was crying and pleading: œAre you sending me back to be hurt and tortured? The Prophet was sure that God would never harm them and whispered to him, œBe patient for a while. Try to endure what you will be exposed to and ask God to be rewarded in return. It is certain that God will create a way out for you and the other Muslims who have no protector there. We can not break our promise given in the Agreement.

After the signing of the agreement, many Muslims from Makka, including Abu Basir, wanted to come to Madina. However, the Prophet did not allow them to, saying œA prophet never refutes his promise! Abu Basir found a place named Iss to live in after being denied entry to Madina. Other Muslims who had fled Makka also moved to Iss. The people of Makka were worried about this development and after a while they asked the Prophet to accept the Muslims in Iss. Thus, these Muslims, who were not to have been allowed to go join the other Muslims in Madina were finally given permission to do as they had wished, and the most irritating article of the Hudaybiya Agreement had now been nullified at the request of the very people who had created it, the disbelievers of Makka.

At the beginning, the Hudaybiya Agreement was perceived as being against the interests of the Muslims. On the other hand, this agreement stipulated that both sides would not fight for the following ten years. They put down their swords and enjoyed an environment that was conducive to dialogue. This situation helped the Muslims to express their beliefs. The people of Makka found an opportunity to learn about Islam and to closely monitor the Muslims and their daily practices, and to become aware of their honesty and righteousness. Important persons, like Khalid ibn Walid, a successful military leader, and Amr ibn al-˜As, a political mastermind, accepted Islam, in which they had earlier refused to believe, perceiving acceptance of this religion as capitulation to the force of the sword. Two years following the agreement, the number of the people who had accepted Islam outnumbered the Muslims that had accepted Islam in the first 20 years of Islam.

As can be seen from the above example from Islamic history, an event or situation that appears to be negative or destructive can result in a positive outcome. The Muslims of Makka were forbidden from joining the Prophet in Madina, but taking the situation in their own hands they changed their fate. The ultimate outcome was that, due to the ten years peace that followed the agreement, the number of people who came to believe in Islam increased more than it would have done had conflict continued. When one finds oneself in a negative or unpromising situation one should not despair; the result is never certain. This is a great part of faith “ we should not judge a situation and give up hope, we must always have faith in God, for He has our best interests at heart.