Biogenesis by Tatsuaki Ishiguro Read Free Book Online Page A

his death, the fact that he had seconded Dr. Akedera’s proposal to conduct a certain experiment in secret. Dr. Akedera had been unambiguous and persistent. He wished for a breeding experiment with Ai and Ponta in the same cage. Various types of evidence supported Dr. Akedera’s calculations for pairing them at a heretofore-neglected time of year. At first, in order to encourage estrous while eliminating the risk of infection, a special plastic divider would be employed to block bacteria and viruses, but not light and smells, so that the two animals could become aware of each other. Though the center’s director, it would have been difficult even for Dr. Sakakibara to acquire the committee and the city council’s consent to restart a breeding plan that had been discontinued after recognized authorities had failed. What ultimately persuaded Dr. Sakakibara was Dr. Akedera’s reasoning that if the previous simultaneous deaths had been caused by something other than an infectious disease, the experiment would confirm that. Yet, a possibly fatal experiment involving the two extant specimens of an endangered animal was obviously inappropriate. “I should have opposed it,” Dr. Sakakibarawrote on his hospital bed.
    At the time, Drs. Sakakibara and Akedera were intensely at odds over the hypothesis of “a catching death.” Dr. Sakakibara asserted that “a hypothesis arrived at via inference starting from another hypothesis” held no credibility for him. While Dr. Sakakibara criticized the hypothesis’ lack of physical evidence, Dr. Akedera blamed Dr. Sakakibara for not permitting the experiments that might yield such evidence.
    Dr. Sakakibara’s journal includes a suggestive passage from around that time: “Positions that are finally wholly antithetical are, not uncommonly, both correct at the process stage.”
    As for the experiments, as I indicated at the outset I will be relying on a modified version of Dr. Sakakibara’s detailed account.
    At 11:30 p.m. on September 1, 1989, “the simplest and most startling experiment of all those I have ever performed” (Dr. Sakakibara) began unbeknownstto any but the two. The security guard made his final rounds and locked the doors to go home at 11:00 p.m. Thirty minutes later, Drs. Sakakibara and Akedera removed the winged mice from their booth. Transferring Ponta and Ai to transparent mobile cages and placing them in proximity to each other was a simple enough operation, but even the center’s director should not have been taking the winged mice out of their booth without permission. To prevent anyone from finding out, they did so in the dark using only a flashlight. Moreover, to keep any light from spilling outside, the actual experiment was conducted in the director’s office, under a single lamp. The two winged mice were made to face each other across a plastic divider. Their behavior was observed until the security guard’s return at six in the morning. It was a simple experiment that required a lot of patience. Apparently, to avoid raising any suspicions, they made sure to get some work done in the morning before taking a nap, and thus they continued their allnight vigils.
    “At first, the two seemed indifferent to each other.True, winged mice are animals with very little movement to begin with, and little is known about their emotive displays. Indifference may be a subjective expression on the observer’s part.”
    “It may have been because it was so dark, but the two appeared to sleep for nearly the entire time.”
    “For the first three days, no changes have been observed” (Dr. Sakakibara).
    An important discovery, however, graced the fourth day. As Dr. Sakakibara rose from his seat to go to the bathroom, he accidentally pulled the lamp’s plug from its outlet. The room was suddenly thrown into complete darkness. The next moment, Dr. Akedera noticed a faint light coming from the two animals’ wings.
    “All of our prior observations had occurred under a