Conference Agenda

Not available

Ambiguity is defined as the state of having more than one meaning resulting in possible confusion. In science, there are numerous examples of ambiguous interpretations of data. Noteworthy among these are discoveries that were initially met with scepticism, such as Alfred Wegener's proposal of the theory of continental drift, or with strong opposition, such as Semmelweis and hand-washing procedures as a form of disinfection. Barry Marshall and Robin Warren provided evidence that Helicobacter pylori causes inflammation and ulcers in the stomach; they encountered opposition from a medical-industrial complex rooted in the belief that psychological stress was the cause. Raymond_Damadian invented magnetic resonance imaging to demonstrate that the cell behaves like a membrane-less biological ion exchange resin. He became known only for magnetic resonance imaging. Albert Einstein, thought that certain predictions followed by direct observations were needed to describe reality. But individual quantum interactions cannot be directly observed and quantum physicists have no choice but to predict the probability of events occurring. Challenging Einstein, physicist Niels Bohr championed quantum theory. He argued that the mere act of indirectly observing the atomic realm changes the outcome of quantum interactions. According to Bohr, quantum predictions based on probability accurately describe reality. On the topic more related to this congress, several ambiguous situations have occurred in bioenergetics. Examples include Mitchell and chemiosmotics versus chemical hypothesis, the ambiguities of Complex II-FADH2 noticed by Erich Gnaiger's in the mitochondrial electron transfer system, the vitamin E controversy and the real existence of oxidative stress. There are cases of ambiguities caused by insufficiently precise data that stimulated further research. Confusion has instead arisen when non-scientific arguments have been used with the aim of maintaining academic, personal or industrial positions.

Why was the chemiosmotic hypothesis of energy transformation in mitochondria and chloroplasts so difficult to accept? After the pioneering work of Otto Meyerhof on the energy source for muscle contraction and thermogenesis in the 1920s, the identification of the respiratory system, the discovery of high-energy phosphates with full clarification of glycolysis by Embden and Meyerhof in the 1930s and the definition of the citric acid cycle by Hans Krebs in the 1940-50s, a key discovery was the existence of high-energy intermediates in substrate-level phosphorylation by Fritz Lipmann. This finding had a major impact, and probably inspired the idea that high-energy intermediate(s) linked respiration to ATP synthesis, as suggested by Britton Chance. Such intermediates were never found, however, for the simple reason that they do not exist. A giant step forward was the chemiosmotic theory of Peter Mitchell, first formulated in 1961 and fully developed in 1966. Initially met by great skepticism, it was confirmed by key experiments performed in the 1960s and 1970s, and finally accepted by the scientific community. And yet, a paradoxical consequence of this major scientific achievement was the belief that mitochondria could not possess cation channels, a dogma that survived well into the early 1990s. It is remarkable, however, that the most recent advances have fully reconciled the work of the pioneers of Bioenergetics with modern biochemistry, physiology and structural biology.