Andrew Marino on Robert Becker, Bioelectromagnetics, and the Death of Scientific Freedom

Keith’s interview with Andrew A. Marino, PhD, JD

Last month, I had the unique opportunity to interview Andrew A. Marino — scientist, attorney, former research associate of Robert Becker, author of The Body Electric, and longtime researcher in bioelectromagnetics — regarding the scientific, historical, and institutional forces surrounding electromagnetic field research.

Marino reflected that from 1964 through 2008 he occupied what he considered the two best scientific positions imaginable—roles that gave him unusual freedom, substantial funding, and the ability to independently design and pursue experiments. But he also emphasized that such scientific independence has effectively vanished. In his view, the kind of open-ended, exploratory bioelectromagnetics research he and Becker conducted has become financially impossible in the modern era. “It’ll never be duplicated again,” he said. “It was a creature of the time.”

Here is a synopsis of that interview, followed by a link to the full video.

Working With Robert Becker

In 1964, Robert Becker hired Andrew A. Marino as his first PhD-level non-medical research associate. Becker believed that while biochemistry was valuable insofar as it went, it was ultimately insufficient to explain healing, growth, regeneration, and the effects of environmental influences on living systems. He viewed reductionist biochemical experimentation as too limited to fully account for these phenomena, and saw physics—and specifically electromagnetism—as the only viable path toward a deeper understanding of biological regulation.

Marino explains that Becker already had evidence suggesting organisms possess measurable electromagnetic activity and wanted someone with stronger physics training to help experimentally investigate these ideas.

The Body’s Electromagnetic Basis

Marino states that living organisms possess both biochemical and electromagnetic dimensions. Becker had measured low-frequency electrical signals across salamanders and humans, referring to them as “DC” signals, though Marino clarifies they were not literal battery-like DC currents but low-frequency electromagnetic phenomena.

The major unanswered questions were:
• What generates these signals?
• What biological purpose do they serve?

Marino says their origin remains unknown largely because the field has been chronically underfunded and insufficiently studied.

Natural Electromagnetic Control Systems

Becker proposed that humans possess an electromagnetic control system capable of interacting with environmental electromagnetic influences, especially natural geomagnetic fluctuations. He believed experimental findings strongly supported that view, though the concept remained controversial and was never fully integrated into mainstream biological science.

Initially, Becker focused more on naturally occurring geomagnetic effects than anthropogenic fields. The early work attempted to explain how Earth’s magnetic field could influence biological behavior through an internal electromagnetic regulatory mechanism.

Navy ELF Research and Biological Effects

A major turning point occurred in 1973 after Becker attended a conference where a Navy representative approached him about research related to extremely low frequency (ELF) submarine communications.

The Navy planned an enormous ELF antenna system covering large portions of Wisconsin and had already funded studies examining biological effects of simulated ELF exposure.

Marino explains that Becker was shocked by the Navy’s own findings:
• Numerous biological systems appeared affected by ELF exposure.
• The field strengths involved were far lower than those emitted near high-voltage power lines.

This led Becker and Marino to begin studying potential biological effects from anthropogenic electromagnetic exposure.

Power Line Hearings and Legal Battles

After learning the Navy’s exposure findings, Becker noticed New York was considering major high-voltage transmission lines with vastly stronger AC electric field levels.

Becker testified that there was credible uncertainty and possible health risk associated with power-line exposure. Marino testified regarding their laboratory animal research and scientific literature.

The hearing became highly adversarial:
• Becker endured 4–5 days of cross-examination.
• Marino testified for 13 days.
• Marino also spent years helping prepare cross-examinations against industry experts.

Outcome:
• One proposed line was denied.
• Another state-owned line was allowed with mitigation measures and additional study requirements.

Suppression and “Deplatforming” of Becker

Marino describes how Becker’s public popularity increased dramatically while institutional support collapsed.

He attributes this largely to Philip Handler, whom Marino claims helped cut Becker off from federal funding sources including:
• NIH
• NSF
• Veterans Administration funding

According to Marino, Becker’s grants were systematically terminated, forcing him into retirement at age 56 despite being at the height of his scientific career.

Marino’s View of Modern Science

Marino contrasts his youthful idealism about science with his later conclusions.

As a young man inspired by Sputnik 1 launch, he viewed science as a free search for truth.

Later, he concluded that:
• Science operates largely as a tool of industry and government.
• Research funding determines what science is pursued.
• Independent inquiry without institutional alignment is increasingly difficult.

He argues that science today is shaped primarily by whoever pays for it.

Scientific Publishing and Gatekeeping

Marino explains that early electromagnetic field research was extremely difficult to publish. Becker helped break through this resistance by publishing in prestigious journals.

Later, Marino founded a journal devoted to bioelectromagnetics research, eventually becoming:

Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine

He argues that publishing has now shifted in the opposite direction:
• Publication is easier than before.
• Many journals will publish work for payment.
• Prestige journals matter less than they once did.

However, he also believes that large-scale funding disparities allow industry-backed research to overwhelm smaller independent findings.

Manipulation of Research Outcomes

Marino describes alleged manipulation of federally funded research intended to refute his own findings involving simulated power-line exposures in animals.

He claims:
• Researchers repeatedly modified experiments until they produced “non-X” results.
• Freedom of Information Act requests revealed correspondence documenting efforts to counter his findings.
• Government-funded institutions selectively reported results favorable to prevailing narratives.

His broader point is that enough money can produce large volumes of conflicting studies, making it difficult for the public to determine truth.

The “Non-Thermal” Debate

A major theme is criticism of the assumption:

“If it doesn’t heat tissue, it cannot harm.”

Marino argues this framework dominates modern exposure standards.

He explains:
• Weak RF exposures may produce extremely small temperature changes around neurons.
• These changes may still be biologically detectable without causing “cooking.”
• Current safety standards focus primarily on preventing tissue heating rather than broader biological responses.

He believes governments continue to frame safety around thermal injury while ignoring subtler biological interactions.

Electromagnetic Detection by the Human Body

Marino states that both his research and others’ suggest the body can detect weak electromagnetic fields.

He divides electromagnetic interactions into three broad biological categories:
• Very weak signals involved in biological regulation and control.
• Anthropogenic signals from technologies like cell phones and power lines.
• Very high-energy radiation (such as X-rays) capable of directly affecting DNA.

“Every human being reacts to electromagnetic energy being made by human beings. And I showed that clearly by showing that the brain waves in individuals that are exposed changes”.

He emphasizes that the existence of biological detection mechanisms is the foundational issue, even before determining what is “safe.”

Nonlinearity and “Window Effects”

Marino explains that biological systems are nonlinear:
• Tiny stimuli can produce disproportionately large responses.
• Responses may vary from one exposure to another.
• Biological systems are highly sensitive to weak signals.

He rejects simplistic linear dose assumptions where doubling exposure mearly doubles effect.

Electromagnetic Sensitivity

Marino distinguishes between:
• People who consciously perceive electromagnetic exposure.
• People whose bodies respond without conscious awareness.

He argues both groups physiologically detect fields, but subjective awareness thresholds differ.

Personal Protection Devices and Practical Protection

The discussion ends with personal protection products such as:
• harmonizers
• pendants
• scalar devices
• stickers
• blockers

Marino’s position is cautious and reduction-oriented:
• Any truly protective device would need to reduce exposure reaching the body.
• He says he has not seen evidence supporting alternative “energy balancing” explanations.
• He uses a metallic enclosure as an extreme example of genuine exposure reduction.

Both participants ultimately agree that meaningful protection involves:
• removing the source,
• increasing distance,
• or shielding that measurably reduces exposure.

Professor Marino’s Website:

https://andrewamarino.com/

Video of the interview: