Dan Oren, MD

See, for example, our recent work described at <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-020-0766-1>.

See, for example, our recent work described at <nature.com/articles/s41398-020-0766-1>.

I do not understand why you are attacking me once again, more than a year after this entire project was posted and completed on this site? I will not debate you on the science at this date and in this forum, but would be happy to engage in thoughtful discussion at a scientific meeting.

Gabriel: Even though I think you are wrong about me and the science, I welcome your comment, and wish to respond. I would be delighted to discuss this further with you at a scientific meeting. For now, let me respond to a few of your points. I never proposed that chlorophyll and hemoglobin worked identically. I proposed that hemoglobin can be a photoreceptor. This (and other) studies are designed to test aspects of that proposal. Your comment about coal is irrelevant to a meaningful discussion. You acknowledge that hemoglobin absorbs light. I propose that this physiological fact is structurally and physiologically important to our well-being and behavior. The reference article that you cite, while important, does not test the model proposed in terms of light. (In the context of this fund-raising effort, I did not cite this article, so you are setting up a "straw man" to argue against.) The theoretical model I proposed goes well beyond carbon monoxide and you are welcome to read the articles that I cited. For the purpose of this limited crowd-sourcing effort, I focused my discussion here on carbon monoxide. While you fear that I am distorting real science by making up what you call a "fringe" theory, I wish to point out that no one, nobody, has proven, even remotely, the identity of the photoreceptor(s) that mediate light's antidepressant and energizing effects in Seasonal Affective Disorder (winter depression). Until those photoreceptors are identified and proven, it is the obligation of inquisitive scientists to investigate that critical window into the brain. I hope you might number yourself among that group. The idea might be wrong. I accept that, as any model may be wrong. That is the obligation of science (and the philosophy of scientific experiment): to prove a hypothesis wrong. In the context of the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of dollars and euros and other currencies being spent on more conventional biological models of psychiatric illness, it is hard to think that the generous support by the other backers of this project of up to $6000 (about €4600) is going to take away from government and foundational support for conventional research. I applaud and am grateful for the open-mindedness of the backers of this project, and hope that you, too, will join in this effort. As scientists do, prove the idea wrong with data, not with attacks. With best wishes, Dan

Gabriel: Even though I think you are wrong about me and the science, I welcome your comment, and wish to respond. I would be delighted to discuss this further with you at a scientific meeting. For now, let me respond to a few of your points. I never proposed that chlorophyll and hemoglobin worked identically. I proposed that hemoglobin can be a photoreceptor. This (and other) studies are designed to test aspects of that proposal. Your comment about coal is irrelevant to a meaningful discussion. You acknowledge that chlorophyll absorbs light. I propose that this physiological fact is structurally and physiologically important to our behavior. The reference article that you cite, while important, does not test the model proposed in terms of light. (In the context of this fund-raising effort, I did not cite this article, so you are setting up a "straw man" to argue against.) The theoretical model I proposed goes well beyond carbon monoxide and you are welcome to read the articles that I cited. For the purpose of this limited crowd-sourcing effort, I focused my discussion here on carbon monoxide. While you fear that I am distorting real science by making up what you call a "fringe" theory, I wish to point out that no one, nobody, has proven, even remotely, the identity of the photoreceptor(s) that mediate light's antidepressant and energizing effects in Seasonal Affective Disorder (winter depression). Until those photoreceptors are identified and proven, it is the obligation of inquisitive scientists to investigate that critical window into the brain. I hope you might number yourself among that group. The idea might be wrong. I accept that, as any model may be wrong. That is the obligation of science (and the philosophy of scientific experiment): to prove a hypothesis wrong. In the context of the hundreds of millions (perhaps billions) of dollars and euros and other currencies being spent on more conventional biological models of psychiatric illness, it is hard to think that the generous support by the other backers of this project of up to $6000 (about €4600) is going to take away from government and foundational support for conventional research. I applaud and am grateful for the open-mindedness of the backers of this project, and hope that you, too, will join in this effort. As scientists do, prove the idea wrong with data, not with attacks. With best wishes, Dan

Pleased to be mutually supportive!!! Make it happen! -Dan

Good luck, Tim and Nico!