Morphogenetic fields / morphic resonance
Explanation
The theory of morphogenetic fields and morphic resonance was formulated by Rupert Sheldrake, British biologist, from the 1980s onwards. Sheldrake proposes that the inheritance and development of biological forms and behaviours is not explained only by genes and biochemical reactions, but also by the influence of non-physical fields called morphogenetic, encoding patterns of organisation. These fields would resonate through time (morphic resonance) between past and present members of the same species.
Sheldrake's argument starts from problems he considers unresolved by molecular biology: how embryos arrive at complex forms from local genetic instructions, how stable forms are conserved over generations, how species learn (phenomena such as certain behaviours that seem to spread globally without direct contact between populations). Sheldrake proposes that morphogenetic fields guide organisation, and that resonance with previous patterns facilitates learning.
Applied to consciousness and cognition, the idea suggests that mind is not reducible to the individual brain, but is coupled to collective fields shared by the species. Memory, learning, cultural habits and, in stronger versions, telepathy or collective intuitions, would be partially explainable by morphic resonance. This re-positions the brain as a receiver-transmitter of information in a network of fields, rather than a solitary producer of thought.
Sheldrake has tried to test his hypotheses empirically with experiments on learning (if a rat learns something in one country, do rats learn it more quickly in another?), everyday telepathy, the sense of being stared at from behind, and so on. He reports positive results in several studies; critics question the methodology, replicability and selection of variables, and note that most independent studies do not confirm the effects.
Reception in the scientific community has been predominantly critical. His book A New Science of Life (1981) was described by the journal Nature as a candidate for burning, one of the harshest criticisms possible. Biologists hold that the problems Sheldrake raises (morphogenesis, inheritance of patterns) have available explanations within molecular biology and systems dynamics, without any need for non-physical fields.
Despite academic marginality, Sheldrake's ideas have had cultural echo in circles of spirituality, deep ecology and holistic theories. Their value, even for those who reject the details, is to insist on questions that mainstream biology often relegates: are genes sufficient to explain forms and behaviours?, what role does the collective play in the individual?, how are complex patterns transmitted over time? His answers are controversial; his questions, legitimate.
Strengths
- Hypothesis testable in principle.
- Addresses difficult collective phenomena.
- Provokes reflection on the limits of the standard biological model.
- Sheldrake has sought experimental verification.
Main critiques
- Largely rejected in biology.
- Physical mechanism of morphic resonance unclear.
- Empirical replications problematic.
- Accusation of pseudoscience by much of the field.