Meteorite or gemstone? Dreaming as one end of a continuum of functioning: Implications for research and for the use of dreams in therapy and self-knowledge.

Is a dream a meteorite—a bit of material arriving from a distant place that needs to be carefully analyzed to give us knowledge about that place (outside or inside us)? Is it a strange text which has come to us in a foreign language, that needs to be translated into our own? This “meteorite view” is held by some religious and spiritual persons, by many orthodox psychoanalysts and other therapists, and implicitly by many researchers. They all see the dream as something alien, something totally different from our ordinary mental functioning. This paper presents a great deal of research favoring an alternate view—that the dream is an earth-stone, not an alien stone. It may be impressive and beautiful (gemstone), but it's still an earth-stone. The dream is part of our mental functioning. It is one end of a continuum, running from focused waking thought, through looser thought, fantasy, daydreaming, reverie and dreaming. We review reasons why dreams are often considered “totally different”: they're perceptual, not conceptual; they're bizarre; they are “so real”; they're so easily forgotten; they're involuntary; they occur in REM sleep—a totally different state. We demonstrate that none of these reasons are persuasive. In each sense, there is overlap between dreams and other forms of functioning. The continuum view leads to different kinds of research and a different style of dreamwork. It also helps answer questions the field has long struggled with including: Should we study “a dream” or “dreaming”? Are dreams meaningful or meaningless? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. ICPEMC publication No. 19. The classification of carcinogens identified in the rodent bioassay as potential risks to humans: what type of substance should be tested next?

The relevance of rodent cancer bioassay data to humans is discussed in relation to the needs of regulatory agencies. The usefulness of in vivo and in vitro genotoxicity testing in this connection is also discussed. In the case of rodent carcinogens that do not elicit genotoxicity, it is suggested that homeostatic imbalance, cell proliferation, and other processes may play a major role in tumor development and its importance to the possible ability of the test agent to induce human cancer. These possibilities need to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The methods by which chemicals are selected for the rodent cancer bioassay are also discussed and it is pointed out that naturally-occurring constituents of human foods should in future receive greater priority as a consequence of anticipated changes resulting from biotechnology.