Sirs:
Allow me to correct an error in your cover article of May 20, “Resonance and harmonics in woods of North America.” In ref. #20 to my 2007 paper, “Dissonance between chromosomal and mitochrondrial DNA;” the wood under discussion was Picea sitchensis, not Picea engelmanni.
Also, the article refers to the “late” author and Nobel laureate, reiterating a persistent rumor of my death. The rumor, though utterly unfounded, arose from the blanket removal of my name from all U.S. publications after 2008. In fact, your footnote is the first publication of my name since that date, and I welcome this opportunity to explain this long absence to American readers.
What I’m about to tell you here is a ghost story. Yes, a Nobel laureate telling a ghost story. Don’t laugh yet! First, think on the role of ghosts throughout history and literature. The word ghost comes from an Anglo-Saxon word for spirit, soul or breath. Most if not all religions past and present are based on some form of ghost phenomena — ancestor worship or nature spirits or holy ghost – that promise or imply immortality. Shakespeare is unashamedly full of ghosts, and even that prince of skeptics, Mark Twain, gave more than lip service to them, tongue in cheek nothwithstanding. Ghost armies have haunted battle grounds from ancient Assyria to Gallipoli and Vietnam. Indeed, people have been seeing ghosts since humans invented themselves. Whether or not this reflects a genetic predisposition to lurid imaginings has long been an open question for those bold enough to ask.
Science, of course, has never countenanced the existence of ghosts; e.g., how do you replicate a ghost manifestation? Scientifically, therefore, ghosts were dismissed and scorned as superstition, hysteria, paranormal phenomena, hallucinations, spiritualism, indigestion, etc. The last thing a reputable scientist would ever do is explore the possible existence of ghosts, much less admit an interest in them. Some of us, however, had that interest thrust upon us.