Klaus Rohde

Roger Penrose and Peer review, why does a Nobel prize winner publish in a ‘dubious’ journal?

March 6, 2021

In my post “Stephen Wolframs A New Kind of Science and The Theory of Everything, and Peer review (https://krohde.wordpress.com/2021/03/06/stephen-wolframs-a-new-kind-of-science-and-theory-of-everything-and-peer-review/) I quoted Wolfram’s view on peer review. Here I briefly point out that such a sceptical view is not unique. For example, Roger Penrose, the latest Nobel prize Winner in physics for his theoretical work on black holes, also did not find it below his dignity to publish in a fringe, sometimes referred to as ‘predatory’ journal. He is well known to the wider public for his Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Jointly with Stuart Hameroff, Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, Director, Center for Consciousness Studies, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA, he published a stimulating but apparently very controversial paper on consciousness in the Journal of Cosmology. http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html.

The Abstract of the paper here:

‘The nature of consciousness, its occurrence in the brain, and its ultimate place in the universe are unknown. We proposed in the mid 1990’s that consciousness depends on biologically ‘orchestrated’ quantum computations in collections of microtubules within brain neurons, that these quantum computations correlate with and regulate neuronal activity, and that the continuous Schrödinger evolution of each quantum computation terminates in accordance with the specific Diósi–Penrose (DP) scheme of ‘objective reduction’ of the quantum state (OR). This orchestrated OR activity (Orch OR) is taken to result in a moment of conscious awareness and/or choice. This particular (DP) form of OR is taken to be a quantum-gravity process related to the fundamentals of spacetime geometry, so Orch OR suggests a connection between brain biomolecular processes and fine-scale structure of the universe. Here we review and update Orch OR in light of criticisms and developments in quantum biology, neuroscience, physics and cosmology. We conclude that consciousness plays an intrinsic role in the universe.’

The Journal of Cosmology publishes highly controversial and provocative papers, many not supported by accepted evidence. The quality of its peer reviews has been questioned (https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Journal_of_Cosmology). Consequently it has been referred to as a predatory journal.

And why did Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, two highly respected scientists, publish in it? I do not know. But is it possible that they did not expect to find sympathetic editors/reviewers in more conventional journals? And should a stimulating hypothesis not been published because empirical evidence does not yet exist? It may lead to fruitful discussions and work, even if it should finally been proven to be wrong. Do we need journals like the Journal of Cosmology? After all, Albert Einstein was never awarded a Nobelprize for his theory of relativity, likely because no empirical evidence for it had yet been found. He found an equally ingenious and sympathetic editor (of the Annalen der Physik) in Max Planck. Had Planck sent the paper to Philipp Lennard and/or Johannes Stark, both Nobelprize winnners in physics, they would almost certainly have rejected it. Both were later prominent in promoting “Deutsche Physik”, much more empirical orientated.- Alternatively, Penrose and Hameroff may simply have been taken for a ride by a clever marketing team. I am not aware of any evidence that academics are less vulnerable to fall for fakes than other mortals.

REFERENCES

  • Roger Penrose (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  • Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff (2011). Consciousnes in the Universe: neuroscience, quantum space-time geometry and Orch OR Theory. Journal of Cosmology 2011, vol. 14.

I asked Professor Hameroff for his views on my post and here it is. He gave me permission to paste his response into this post:

Dear Professor Rohde
That was my mistake. Please refer to this version, published shortly thererafter. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

Roger and I are completing chapters for a book on quantum mechanics and consciousness OUP, and Orch OR is being tested experimentally.

Best

Stuart Hameroff

From: Klaus Rohde <krohde@une.edu.au>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2021 12:57 PM
To: Hameroff, Stuart R – (hameroff) <SHameroff@anesth.arizona.edu>
Subject: [EXT]CONSCIOUSNESS 

Dear Professor Hameroff

I am a Professor emeritus of Zoology, University of New England, Armidale, Australia, and have published extensively in evolutionary ecology, parasitology and marine biology. But I have always kept a strong interest in philosophy, particularly Kant and Schopenhauer, and published a number of posts on aspects of their philosophy on my wordpress-blog.  Consciousness is of course a (if not the) central problem in philosophy. Therefore my keen interest in your work and that of Roger Penrose. I read your article in Journal of Cosmology and found it very stimulating indeed.

The reason I am writing to you is as follows: there has been much discussion in the Australian press about so-called predatory/parasitic journals. Checking up about it I came to the Journal of Cosmology. I found it intriguing that two eminent scientists, Roger Penrose and you, have published such an important article in a journal of doubtful reputation (see: https://krohde.wordpress.com/2021/03/06/roger-penrose-and-peer-review-why-does-a-nobelprize-winner-publish-in-a-parasitic-journal/)

I would be very grateful if you would give me your views on this. 

Thank you and looking forward to hearing from you

With best wishes

Klaus Rohde

References