There are only 20-something, while there should have been twenty thousands. (The first paper is scanned here.) Why so little? The answer is: science went bad, not just wrong, but really bad after Second World War. Then, many nuclear physicists went into biology. On one side, they gave a physical background to the scholastic biology, but on the other side they taught, and with great insistence, a completely wrong idea that everything in nature is a result of a stochastic processes. The idea, of course, was the old masonic maxim: Order Out Of Chaos, and it was designed to fight God and His creative role. It was fine with the physics of, say, molecules in gas, where the physical laws come as a result of the presence of huge numbers of particles. But it was essentially wrong with biology, where we see a microscopic organism containing a hundred of cells and several organs, identical in all individuals. Of course, it is dead wrong in humans also, where minute differences in body shape are inherited in generations. In biology we deal with deterministic, not stochastic, laws and processes.
Yet, the scientists went ahead with thousands, if not millions, of papers based on the idiotic masonic philosophy; anything contrary is politically incorrect. Moreover, and that, probably, was the main reason – equations look sophisticated and “scientific” in a biological paper. And then – another blow to biology – the computer capabilities. Biologists now rape the keyboard instead of looking in microscope. The third reason is that a biologist, a second class scientist, cannot check your paper with formulas. The next reason: the paper with equations and formulas don’t need to end in a definite biological conclusions, and moreover, even if such conclusions are given, nobody can check this. That is now called theoretical biology.
It became much worse when clinical research, drug testing, etc. made statistical “proof” necessary. I ain’t going into this area, but just the fact tells it all: most of the research in biomedicine is either not reproducible or just a fraud. Scientists have no idea how to get it right. The critical piece by the editor of Lancet said that may be adopting much higher standard of statistical confidence will make the research better. I don’t think so. I think taking four rats, as it used to be done, and see the result is the best way, simply because 15% probability of a usually barely seen success does not count. You don’t need a flu vaccine to shorten your flu symptoms by one day.
Now, back to my papers. I went a different way. I supposed that I should build a model of cell proliferation in a tissue that will work with 100% certainty using minimal necessary assumptions. I did not care how many cells do not obey my rules in a real tissue. It was a deterministic model. And it met with a smashing negative comment from one author who said that I took only a narrow case in a theory (where he was a specialist), that allowed many possible solutions, in fact – an indefinite number of them. Of course, I laughed. I found a principle, a law which resulted in a perfectly functioning tissue. I found the simple, in fact – the simplest rule, which makes cells to divide in a tissue in such way that dividing cells replace the dying cells without changing the shape of this tissue, i. e. preserving the steady state indefinitely. I didn’t care about statistical noise which can introduce deviations from that law. I did not believe that we should start with a noisy model describing all possible situations and then never come to the principle. Newton did not consider the cases when an apple remains to rot on the tree, the cases which undoubtedly would be considered in a modern theory.
My critic, for instance, described cell divisions with the lattices (Voronoy polygons) that can have three-, four- (or more) rayed vertices. I made my cells to have only three-rayed vertices, because I thought that a four-rayed vertice can be represented as two three-rayed vertices, etc. I accepted that all cell sides in a lattice are equal in length. That immediately allowed me to build 3-D models that visually, geometrically reflected their essential topological properties. I considered only pentagonal, hexagonal and heptagonal cells in the lattice, because only these cells could appear as the result of the simplest and uniform cell division.
Many years later, I, purely accidentally, found that my (they now say – minimalistic) representation was a wise one. I found a paper by a Spanish mathematician (M. Vosmediano) who worked with the topology of carbon nanotubes and in one of her presentations she showed the pictures of my models, saying those are “a living curiosity”. Indeed, the atoms of carbon in graphene form lattices with these simplest and uniform, as in my models, parameters. And the nanotubes not only look the same, but they grow by the same topological rules as did my cells. The differences, of course are that 1) carbon atoms are brought into the lattice from surrounding medium, while new cells arise by the division of the existing cells, and 2) carbon atoms are represented by vertices in the lattice, while cells are represented by the bodies of the polygons. The discovery of the topological principles of growth of the nanotubes was made 12 years after my paper was published. At least, I did not plagiarise them! And I am sure they did not. That nature has topological laws working on different levels of the organisation of matter, that was a surprise.
Below: Isolated intestinal crypt (nuclei stained), and the crypt model with its bottom.