Obituary: Sen. Graham, GOP Stalwart, Dies at 71 --- Trump ally backed tough action against Iran, had longtime support for Israel

“LINDSEY GRAHAM

 

1955-2026

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a foreign-policy hawk who transformed from a fierce critic of President Trump into one of his closest allies in Congress, has died. He was 71.

 

The Republican senator, who was the chief congressional proponent of the months-old war with Iran and a staunch supporter of Israel and Ukraine, died after a brief and sudden illness, his office said on Sunday. He had been in Ukraine on Friday to meet with President Volodymyr Zelensky and had returned home to Washington.

 

Graham was "one of the greatest people and Senators I have ever known," Trump posted on social media on Sunday. The president ordered flags flown at half-staff until Saturday evening. Graham's family said it appreciated prayers and asked for privacy.

 

Emergency personnel responded to a medical emergency for a person suffering from cardiac arrest at Graham's address on Capitol Hill on Saturday evening, according to a recording of police-scanner traffic reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

 

A Graham spokeswoman said the District of Columbia medical examiner in preliminary findings said the senator died following a tear in his aorta because of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

 

The spokeswoman said the death certificate will be pending until all toxicological and microscopic testing is finalized.

 

The death of one of the most influential GOP senators stunned Washington.

 

"Total shock and disbelief at the loss of a great American," said Sen. Bernie Moreno (R., Ohio). "My heart is heavy this morning," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R., S.D.).

 

Graham's death temporarily leaves the GOP Senate majority at 52-47, and Republicans are also missing Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is out amid health problems. South Carolina's Republican governor, Henry McMaster, is expected to fill the Graham seat with a Republican soon.

 

Graham, who was first elected to the House in 1994, was elected to the Senate in 2002 and held the seat since then, forming close ties on both sides of the aisle. Since running against Trump for the 2016 presidential nomination, he has become one of the president's top surrogates as well as a golf partner and frequent adviser.

 

He had unusual access to the president and pressed him to take a hard line against Iran and remain firmly aligned with Israel, for which he was one of the Senate's strongest backers.

 

"They say if you break it, you own it. I don't buy that. You break it when it's a threat," Graham said in an interview with the Journal this year regarding Tehran.

 

Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill had criticized Graham for what they saw as his role in goading Trump into the Iran conflict. Graham's effort to get Trump and his MAGA movement to back regime change was "the quintessential political maneuvering beyond all political maneuvering," Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said this year.

 

Graham "was a very strong military person. So am I," Trump said in an interview on Sunday on CNN. "But I think we used it a little bit differently. We probably had a little bit of a different attitude. But we got along on it." Trump said he had spoken to Graham several hours before his death.

 

 The president said Graham told him he was tired from the overseas trip but seemed fine otherwise.

 

Even those who opposed some of Graham's policies saw in him an astute politician. He had so many good relationships both on Capitol Hill and around the world that he came to be viewed as something of an indispensable figure in Washington because he was so often at the center of conversations.

 

"I fought with him like a brother," said Sen. Chris Coons (D., Del.), a political partner who had dinner with Graham last week in Ankara, Turkey. "But we also came together and worked really hard on things we both cared deeply about."

 

A major piece of unfinished business for Graham was durable peace in the Middle East. A congressional delegation that Graham helped lead after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel was part of his broader plan to arrange for recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia, a defense pact with the Saudis and an avenue toward Palestinians' control over their own country. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel has no better friend than the senator.

 

Lindsey Olin Graham was born in Central, S.C., on July 9, 1955, and grew up in the backroom of his family's bar, where he worked to help them make ends meet -- as well as developing his skills as a pool player and a sharp sense of humor. After his parents died while he was in college, Graham frequently traveled back home to care for his younger sister, eventually becoming her legal guardian.

 

He earned his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of South Carolina. He later served as a military lawyer in the U.S. Air Force and briefly worked in private practice before winning office in the state House.

 

He played a prominent role early in his congressional career when he was named one of the managers of Democratic President Bill Clinton's impeachment trial.

 

For more than two decades, initially as a close partner of then-Sen. John McCain, Graham was among the Senate's most persistent advocates of U.S. military power, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Graham served in the Air Force Reserve until his retirement in 2015 at age 60 with the rank of colonel. He was awarded a Bronze Star Medal for his "exceptionally meritorious service."

 

Graham ran for president in the 2016 cycle, advocating a major military offensive in the Middle East. He called Trump, who was mounting his own campaign, a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot." He tweeted that if Republicans nominated Trump, "we will get destroyed, and we will deserve it."

 

Graham was relegated to undercard debates with other low-polling candidates -- where he showcased his wit but made little impact with voters. "I wasn't the best law student. By the end of this debate, it would be the most time I've ever spent in any library," he said at a debate held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. "I've got a lot of friends. We'll have a rotating first lady," the lifelong bachelor said in an interview with the Daily Mail about his possible presidency. He suggested his sister could fill the role.

 

Graham "was always the person you hoped you sat next to at a dinner party. Charming, very, very, very funny -- like so funny he truly could have had a career in stand up comedy," said Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Arizona senator and 2008 GOP presidential nominee.

 

Graham carried his views about the use of U.S. power into the Trump era, even as a wing of his Republican Party grew deeply skeptical of U.S. involvement in conflicts overseas.

 

In an interview with the Journal late last year, he credited Trump with making the U.S. safer, citing his decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, take on narcotics traffickers and press NATO allies to spend more on the common defense.

 

It was an example of Graham's ability to steer public policy by using flattery and handing out credit to powerful people. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who was close to Graham, once joked that the South Carolina senator was able to get Trump to listen to him because "he consistently loses at golf when he plays the president."

 

Graham had a moderate streak on immigration, joining a bipartisan effort in 2013 on a broad overhaul that passed the Senate but failed to gain support in the more conservative House. He tried repeatedly to effect policies giving Dreamers -- the immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- a pathway to citizenship, and almost succeeded during Trump's first term before hard-liners helped blow up the effort in a dramatic meeting at the White House.

 

But Graham also staked out increasingly partisan positions as Trump's MAGA movement gained a firmer grip. In 2018, while serving as Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Graham launched a fiery defense of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who faced an allegation of sexual misconduct during his confirmation process. He later said the episode caused him to abandon a practice of supporting Democratic nominees.

 

The senator appeared to break with Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters, declaring on the Senate floor, "Count me out. Enough is enough." But the rupture was short-lived. Four months later, he acknowledged Trump's continued hold over the Republican Party.

 

"Can we move forward without President Trump? The answer is no," Graham said. "I've determined we can't grow without him."

 

Even after he rebuilt ties to Trump, some MAGA voters remained skeptical of Graham, and he was regularly booed at events with the president. Some critics said he simply realized he needed to back Trump to remain relevant in GOP circles. Yet senior administration officials cared about Graham's views -- as a gauge of how their positions were being received by the hawkish Republican contingent in Congress, and as a signal of the advice the senator was giving Trump.

 

At the time of his death, Graham chaired the Senate Budget Committee and remained a regular presence on news programs. He had been scheduled to appear Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

 

Graham criticized Zelensky after the Ukrainian leader's tough meeting at the White House early in Trump's second term. But he had been a relatively consistent supporter of the country's fight against Russia and an advocate of tougher pressure on Moscow -- through a period in which some high-ranking U.S. officials, including Trump himself, have questioned support for Kyiv.

 

On Friday, Graham was in the Ukrainian capital, where he met with Zelensky on his 10th visit to the country. The senator pressed for stronger air defenses and said the White House had agreed to support a version of his Russia sanctions legislation.

 

Graham was up for re-election this year for a seat that has been solidly Republican for years. Last month, he defeated Republican primary challengers.

 

Former President Joe Biden had been close to Graham while serving in the Senate before a public break in 2021 over Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan. Biden said on Sunday that while they "disagreed often, and sometimes loudly," he and Graham "did agree on the profound importance of public service."” [1]

 

As a rule, splitting aorta happens when stress causes sudden jump of blood pressure. It is tough to try to pull both Israel and Mr. Zelensky out of the predicament.

 

1. Obituary: Sen. Graham, GOP Stalwart, Dies at 71 --- Trump ally backed tough action against Iran, had longtime support for Israel. Hughes, Siobhan; Bergengruen, Vera; Leary, Alex.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 13 July 2026: A1.  

„Tiek Jungtinės Valstijos, tiek Irano Islamo Respublika mano laimėjusios šį karą“: Iranas žaidžia ilgą žaidimą naujų kovų metu

 

Pasirodo, kad radioaktyvios dulkės buvo tik tas šaukštas medaus, kuris įviliojo Izraelio-JAV mešką į šio karo spąstus.

 

„DUBAJUS. Irano režimui išlaikyti kontrolę Hormūzo sąsiauryje pasirodė esąs svarbesnis už dešimtis milijardų dolerių sankcijų sušvelninimo, kurį skyrė Trumpo administracija.

 

Taip yra todėl, kad Teheranas žaidžia ilgą žaidimą. Irano pareigūnai mano, kad šalis pagaliau tapo regioniniu hegemonu, po to, kai JAV ir Izraelis nepasiekė savo pagrindinių tikslų kare, kurį pradėjo vasario mėnesį. Ir kol Teheranas įtvirtins šį naują statusą, užsitikrindamas nuolatinius susitarimus dėl gyvybiškai svarbaus vandens kelio kontrolės – ir kartu dominuodamas Persijos įlankos ekonomikoje – tol visa kita, įskaitant Amerikos sankcijų sušvelninimą, galiausiai seks paskui.

 

„Tai vienintelis būdas: pripažinti naują Irano tvarką Hormūzo sąsiauryje“, – perspėjo Irano parlamento nacionalinio saugumo komisijos vadovas Ebrahimas Azizi. „Hormūzo sąsiauris atsidarys tik su „Irano susitarimais“, o ne su Amerikos grasinimais“, – pridūrė parlamento pirmininkas ir pagrindinis derybininkas su JAV Mohammadas Bagheris Ghalibafas.

 

Toks požiūris pranašauja neaiškią ateitį su reguliariais smurto protrūkiais, nuolatiniu neapibrėžtumu pasaulinėse energijos rinkose ir atnaujintų smūgių Damoklo kardu, kabančiu virš Persijos įlankos monarchijų.

 

„Islamo Respublika taps dar labiau gangsterių režimu.“ „Karo išvada yra ta, kad nuolaidos pasiekiamos prievarta – puolant kaimynines šalis, grasinant Hormūzo sąsiauriui ir didinant naftos kainą“, – sakė Karimas Sadjadpouras, Irano ekspertas Carnegie tarptautinės taikos fonde. „Islamo Respublika mano, kad jos saugumas priklauso ne nuo jos žmonių gerovės, o nuo kaimynų nesaugumo.“

 

O Irano režimas naftos turtingas Persijos įlankos monarchijas laiko priklausančiomis savo natūraliai įtakos sferai – sferai, kurios jam neleidžia Amerikos kišimasis nuo 1979 m. Islamo revoliucijos.

 

Dabar, kai Amerika nesugebėjo apsaugoti šių Persijos įlankos valstybių nuo Irano išpuolių, Teherano siekis institucionalizuoti Irano kontrolę Hormūzo sąsiauryje atspindi jo ambicijas sukurti naują „Pax Iranica“ Artimuosiuose Rytuose.

 

Juk Persijos įlankos šalys, skirtingu mastu, priklauso nuo sąsiaurio ne tik dėl naftos ir dujų eksporto, bet ir dėl kitų gyvybiškai svarbių prekių – nuo ​​vartojimo prekių iki maisto.

 

Besikeičiančių santykių užuominų jau buvo galima pamatyti Teherane per neseniai vykusias Aukščiausiojo Vadovo Ali laidotuves. Chamenėjaus laidotuvėse dalyvavo pareigūnai iš trijų iš šešių Persijos įlankos valstybių, kurias praėjusį pavasarį smogė Irano raketos ir dronai: Saudo Arabijos, Kataro ir Omano.

 

Saudo Arabijos delegacija buvo priversta išklausyti tai, ką daugelis regione suprato kaip sąmoningai įžeidžiančią Korano eilutę, kurioje kalbama apie kovą tarp netikinčiųjų ir dieviškai remiamos pusės, užsimenant, kad saudai priklauso pirmajai stovyklai. Likusios Persijos įlankos valstybės, kurios nedalyvavo Chamenėjaus laidotuvėse, įskaitant Jungtinius Arabų Emyratus, vis dėlto palaiko tiesioginius ryšius su Teheranu.

 

„Jie priėjo prie išvados, kad susiduria su geografijos tironija – Islamo Respublika vis dar egzistuoja, prezidentas Trumpas nebus Jungtinių Valstijų prezidentas amžinai, ir jie turi gyventi kartu su iraniečiais“, – sakė Razas Zimmtas, Irano ir šiitų ašies programos direktorius Nacionalinio saugumo studijų institute Tel Avive. „Jie turi susidurti su realybe.“

 

Naujausias smurto protrūkis regione paskatino Vašingtoną atšaukti praėjusį mėnesį išduotą Iždo departamento išimtį, kuri leido parduoti Irano naftą tarptautinėse rinkose. Ši išimtis iškėlė kritinį gelbėjimo ratą sankcijų smaugiamai Irano ekonomikai, kol dar vyksta derybos dėl Irano branduolinių ambicijų, kurios buvo pirminė karo priežastis.

 

Dabartinę JAV ir Irano smūgių seriją išprovokavo Irano išpuoliai prieš laivus, bandančius perplaukti Hormūzo sąsiaurį per Omano teritorinius vandenis, apeidami mokesčių rinkimo punktą Irano vandens kelio pusėje.

 

Teheranas teigė, kad jo veiksmai buvo pateisinami, nes praėjusį mėnesį su Trumpo administracija pasirašytame susitarimo memorandume nurodoma, kad jūrų eismas per sąsiaurį, nors ir nereikalaujant mokesčių, vyks pagal „Irano susitarimus“.

 

Amerikos pareigūnai nesutiko su šiuo aiškinimu ir penktadienį pareiškė, kad Iranas turėtų paskelbti pareiškimą, kuriame būtų teigiama, kad Hormūzo sąsiauris yra atviras ir kad jis nustos šaudyti į laivus, užsimindamas apie rimtas pasekmes, jei to nepadarys. Po dienos Iranas apšaudė laivą netoli sąsiaurio ir paskelbė vandens kelią uždarytą. JAV atsakė tolesniais smūgiais prieš Irano taikinius.

 

Nesutarimai dėl Hormūzo kyla dėl to, kad visavertis konflikto etapas, trukęs 40 dienų nuo vasario iki balandžio, nebuvo galutinai užbaigtas.

 

„Tiek Jungtinės Valstijos, tiek Irano Islamo Respublika mano, kad laimėjo šį karą,” – sakė Holly Dagres, vyresnioji mokslinė bendradarbis Vašingtono Artimųjų Rytų politikos institute.

 

„Šiuo metu Irano politika griežta, nes jie bando daryti spaudimą prezidentui Trumpui, suprasdami, kad karas nepopuliarus JAV ir kad Hormūzo sąsiauris pasmaugė pasaulio ekonomiką. Jie bando stumti kaktos kraštą, nes, regis, veikia manydami, kad turi pranašumą.“

 

Irano suvokimas apie save, kaip naują regioninį hegemoną yra klaidingas, atsižvelgiant į tai, kiek sumenkinta jo kariuomenė, kiek susilpnėjo jo įgaliotinių tinklas Artimuosiuose Rytuose ir kiek pastaraisiais mėnesiais buvo dusinama jo ekonomika, sakė Saudo Arabijos geopolitinis analitikas Salmanas Al-Ansari. „Jam liko tik patyčios, piratavimas, triukšmas ir gebėjimas veikti, kaip spoileriui.“ [1]

 

Iraniečiai naudoja tikslių raketų ir dronų spiečius. To jiems tereikia šiuolaikiniame kare.

 

 

1. Iran Plays Long Game Amid New Fighting. Trofimov, Yaroslav.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 13 July 2026: A1.  

"Both the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran Think They Won this War": Iran Plays Long Game Amid New Fighting

 

It turns out that the radioactive dust was just the spoonful of honey that lured the Israeli-US bear into the trap of this war. 

 

“DUBAI -- For the Iranian regime, keeping a chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz has turned out to be more important than the tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief from the Trump administration.

 

That is because Tehran is playing a long game. Iranian officials believe the country has finally emerged as a regional hegemon, after the U.S. and Israel failed to achieve their main goals in the war they unleashed in February. And, as long as Tehran cements this new status by securing permanent arrangements to control the vital waterway -- and dominating the Persian Gulf economies along with it -- then the rest, including American sanctions relief, will eventually follow.

 

"This is the only way: recognize the new Iranian order in the Strait of Hormuz," warned Ebrahim Azizi, the head of the Iranian parliament's national security commission. "The Strait of Hormuz will only open with 'Iranian arrangements,' not American threats," added the parliament's speaker and the lead negotiator with the U.S., Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf.

 

This attitude heralds a rocky future, with regular bouts of violence, continuing uncertainty for global energy markets and a Damoclean Sword of renewed strikes hanging over the Gulf monarchies.

 

"The Islamic Republic will become even more of a gangster regime. Its takeaway from the war is that concessions are won through coercion -- by attacking its neighbors, threatening the Strait of Hormuz and driving up the price of oil," said Karim Sadjadpour, Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "The Islamic Republic believes that its security depends not on the prosperity of its people, but on the insecurity of its neighbors."

 

And the Iranian regime views the oil-rich Gulf monarchies as belonging to its own natural sphere of influence -- a sphere denied to it by American meddling ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

 

Now that America has failed to protect these Gulf states from Iranian attacks, Tehran's drive to institutionalize Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz reflects its ambition to establish a new Pax Iranica in the Middle East.

 

After all, the Gulf countries, to a varying extent, rely on the strait not just for their oil and gas exports, but also for other vital supplies, from consumer items to food.

 

Glimpses of the changing relationship could already be seen in Tehran during the recent funeral of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, attended by officials from three of the six Gulf states that were struck by Iranian missiles and drones last spring: Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman.

 

The Saudi delegation was made to listen to what many in the region perceived as a deliberately insulting verse from the Quran, which spoke about a battle between the disbelievers and the divinely-backed side, with the implication that the Saudis belonged to the former camp. The remaining Gulf states that stayed away from Khamenei's funeral, including the United Arab Emirates, are nevertheless engaging in direct contacts with Tehran.

 

"They have reached the conclusion that they are facing the tyranny of geography -- the Islamic Republic is still there, President Trump is not going to be president of the United States forever, and they have to live side by side with the Iranians," said Raz Zimmt, director of the Iran and Shiite Axis program at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. "They have to face the reality."

 

The latest round of violence in the region led Washington to withdraw the Treasury Department waiver, issued last month, that allowed the sale of Iranian oil on international markets. That waiver had thrown a critical lifeline to the sanctions-strangled Iranian economy pending negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions, the original reason for the war.

 

The current series of strikes by the U.S. and Iran was sparked by Iranian attacks on vessels trying to transit the Strait of Hormuz via Omani territorial waters, bypassing the toll booth on the Iranian side of the waterway.

 

Tehran argued that it was justified in its actions because the memorandum of understanding it signed with the Trump administration last month specifies that maritime traffic through the strait, while not requiring fees, will flow via "Iranian arrangements."

 

American officials disagreed with this interpretation, and on Friday said Iran should release a statement declaring that the Strait of Hormuz was open and that it would stop shooting at ships, suggesting serious consequences if it didn't. A day later, Iran fired on a ship near the strait and declared the waterway closed. The U.S. responded with further strikes on Iranian targets.

 

The disagreement over Hormuz is rooted in the inconclusive nature of the full-scale phase of the conflict that lasted for 40 days between February and April.

 

 "Both the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran think they won this war," said Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

 

"The reason the Iranians are playing hardball at the moment is because they are trying to put pressure on President Trump, understanding that the war is unpopular in the U.S. and that the Strait of Hormuz has strangled the world economy. They're going for brinkmanship because they seem to be operating from the perspective that they've got the upper hand."

 

Iran's perception of itself as a new regional hegemon is delusional given how much its military has been degraded, how much its network of proxy forces in the Middle East has been weakened, and how much its economy has been suffocated in recent months, said Salman Al-Ansari, a Saudi geopolitical analyst. "All it has left is bullying, piracy, noise and the ability to act as a spoiler."” [1]

 

Iranians use the swarms of precise missiles and drones. This is all they need in contemporary war.

 

1. Iran Plays Long Game Amid New Fighting. Trofimov, Yaroslav.  Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 13 July 2026: A1.  

Didysis biologas Craigas Venteris

„Niekada nemačiau Franciso Cricko kuklios nuotaikos.“ Taigi Jamesas Watsonas savo knygos apie šias paieškas „Dviguba spiralė“ įžanginiuose žodžiuose apibūdino savo bendradarbį, padėjusį išnarplioti DNR struktūrą. Į šį sakinį įrašykite „Craigą Venterį“ ir susidarysite vaizdą apie žmogų, kuris, nors ir nebuvo lygus Crickui kaip mokslininkas, savo paties nuomone, buvo tik vienu ar dviem laipteliais žemiau mokslinės nuopelnų kopėčių. Tačiau jis taip pat manė, kad jo vertė niekada nebuvo iki galo pripažinta, nes jis niekada nebuvo tikras klubo narys.

 

 

Turbūt tai yra tai, ką gauni užaugęs ne toje bėgių pusėje (arba, jo atveju, ant San Francisko oro uosto pakilimo takų). Jam ne tokia puiki pradžia kaip daktaro disertacija Kembridže ar Jeilyje, kokia mėgavosi jo konkurentai Johnas Sulstonas ir Francisas Collinsas, vadovavę britų ir amerikiečių „oficialaus“ Žmogaus genomo projekto padaliniams. Vidurinėje mokykloje tinginys, jis buvo pašauktas į karinį jūrų laivyną kaip ligoninės lavoninės darbuotojas Vietnamo karo metu. Tik po Damasko įžvalgos, bandydamas nusiskandinti prie Da Nango krantų, kad išvengtų to konflikto siaubų,  jis suprato savo pašaukimą: jei nori nemirtingumo, nuveik ką nors prasmingo savo gyvenime? Illegitimi non carborundum.

 

Niekšai bandė. Pavėluotas diplomas ir daktaro laipsnis atvedė jį į Nacionalinius sveikatos institutus (NIH) kaip tyrėją genomo projekto pakraščiuose, kuris, Watsono akylai stebint, buvo pradėtas 1990 m. Kitais metais jis paskelbė puikią idėją, kaip paspartinti projektą, žymint genų vietą chromosomose – tokią puikią, kad NIH norėjo patentuoti rezultatus, kol po viešos audros, kurios metu Watsonas sukritikavo ir dr. Venterio technologiją, ir visą žmogaus genų patentavimo idėją, jie to nepadarė.

 

Po to jis suprato, kad vienintelės institucijos, kuriose jis ateityje galėtų patogiai dirbti, bus tos, kurias jis pats sukūrė. Taigi jis jas sukūrė. Pirmiausia, Genomikos tyrimų institutas, kuriame, tuometinių valdžių nusivylimui, jis sugalvojo būdą, kaip dar labiau paspartinti procesą, iš naujo įsivaizduodamas DNR sekoskaitos procesą, kuris buvo genomo projekto pagrindas. Tada atsirado „Celera Genomics“ – komercinė įmonė, kuri siekė panaudoti šią idėją lenktynėms su oficialiu Žmogaus genomo projektu ir jį aplenkti dėl pergalės. O tada, kai genomas buvo baigtas ir nuvalytas dulkėmis, o Celera nebereikėjo jo paslaugų, o jis pats – kukliai pavadinto J. Craigo Venterio instituto (JCVI).

 

2000-ųjų pradžioje, Celeros klestėjimo laikotarpiu, jis buvo šimtimilijonierius. Tačiau tikrasis traukos objektas buvo ne turtas, o pripažinimas. Iš platesnio pasaulio jis to gavo su kaupu: gausybę straipsnių, įskaitant „The Economist“, ir jo nuotrauką ant „Time“ ir „BusinessWeek“ viršelių, visa tai išdidžiai puikavosi ant JCVI sienų. Tačiau Nobelio premijos negavo. Jo kolegos mokslininkai per dažnai buvo tarp nelegalių asmenų, kad tai įvyktų.

 

Už nuopelnus įšventintas į riterius Sulstonas apkaltino jį noru įtvirtinti žmogaus genomo monopoliją ir sakė, kad jis „moraliai suklydo“. Tai buvo turtas, turint omenyje, kad tik pritaikius jo metodus, oficialus projektas galėjo pasivyti dr. Venterio privatų projektą ir taip šiose lenktynėse pasiekė, politiškai tarpininkaujantį, „lygųjį rezultatą“.

 

Dr. Collinsas, su kuriuo jis dalijosi šlove 2000 m. birželį, kai prezidentas Billas Clintonas paskelbė apie šį lygiąjį Baltuosiuose rūmuose rytinėje salėje, buvo santūresnis. Tačiau apie savo varžovą jis pastebėjo: „Mes niekada neisime išgerti alaus penktadienio vakarais šiaip sau. Mes esame kitaip suprogramuoti.“

 

Iš esmės, šio pasaulio Sulstonų ir Collinsų galvose, tas sumanymas paskatino dr. Venterį parduoti savo sielą komercijos velniams. Jis, priešingai, Celeros sukūrimą vertino pragmatiškai, kaip vienintelę priemonę pasiekti trokštamą tikslą. Kalbant apie turtus, lengviausias būdas užsidirbti nedidelį turtą buvo pradėti nuo didelio. O geras būdas įgyvendinti šį perėjimą buvo turėti brangų hobį. Ką jis ir turėjo. Jachtas. Dvi, nors ir ne vienu metu. Abi jis vadino burtininkėmis. Kaip pasakė jo antroji žmona Claire Fraser – pati ne prastas mikrobiologas – „Būtume turtingi, jei ne ta valtis“.

 

Su „Burtininku“ jis kovojo ir su audromis, ir su lenktynininkais. Tačiau būtent „Burtininkas II“ iš tikrųjų atskleidė vyrą, nes ji buvo labiau skirta mokslui, o ne buriavimo varžyboms. Leisdama jam neskubius transokeaninius kruizus, imdama mėginius iš vandenyse gyvenančių gyvūnų DNR, ji derino darbą su malonumu – prabangiai atkartodama XIX a. HMS „Beagle“ ir HMS „Challenger“ keliones aplink Žemę.

 

Sekė daugiau mokslo: pirmasis sintetinis bakterijų genomas; supaprastintas „minimalus“ genomas, kuris yra mažiausias, su kuriuo mikrobas gali išsisukti ir išlikti gyvas; ir daugybė, nors galiausiai nepelningų, ekskursijų į sunkiai aptinkamą sintetinės biologijos sritį, kurioje gyvi organizmai bus atkuriami, kad geriau atitiktų žmonių poreikius.

 

Ironiška, bet apreiškimo Pietų Kinijos jūroje, jo paskutinė Didžioji Idėja buvo gyvenimo pratęsimas – tikrasis, o ne reputacijos. Pirmiausia, 2013 m., jis padėjo įkurti įmonę „Human Longevity“, kuri siūlė prailginti žmonių gyvenimo trukmę suprantant ir keičiant biologinius senėjimo procesus. Tai truko penkerius metus, kol jis su ja pasitraukė (priklausomai nuo to, su kuo kalbate) pasitraukdamas arba būdamas atleistas.

 

Tada, šių metų sausį, jis vėl pabandė įkurti įmonę pavadinimu „Diploid Genomics“, kurios tema – suporuotos žmogaus ląstelių chromosomos, kuriose, jo manymu, slypi ilgaamžiškumo paslaptys. Tačiau, nors dirbdamas „Human Longevity“ jis pats buvo baksnojamas, baksnojamas ir skenuojamas iki n-tojo laipsnio – ir sakė, kad toks dėmesys detalėms išgelbėjo jį nuo neaptikto prostatos vėžio – galiausiai tai buvo bergždžia. Vis dėlto jis iš tiesų nuveikė kažką prasmingo savo gyvenime. Ir tie niekšai jo tikrai nesutriuškino.“ [1]

 

1. Craig Venter. The Economist; London Vol. 459, Iss. 9498,  (May 9, 2026): 78.

Great Biologist Craig Venter

““I have never seen Francis Crick in a modest mood.” Thus James Watson described his collaborator in the unravelling of DNA’s structure in the opening words of his book on that quest, “The Double Helix”. Substitute “Craig Venter” into this sentence and you have the measure of a man who, though not Crick’s equal as a scientist, was in his own opinion only a rung or two below him on the ladder of scientific merit. But he was also one who felt that his worth was never fully recognised, because he was never quite a member of the club.

 

That, perhaps, is what you get for growing up on the wrong side of the tracks (or, in his case, of the runways at San Francisco airport). Not for him the glittering starts of a PhD at Cambridge or Yale enjoyed by his rivals, John Sulston and Francis Collins, who headed the British and American arms of the “official” Human Genome Project. A beach-bum slacker at high school, he was drafted into the navy as a hospital corpsman during the Vietnam war. Only after a Damascene insight while attempting to drown himself off the coast of Da Nang to escape that conflict’s horrors, did he realise his vocation: if you want immortality, do something meaningful with your life. Illegitimi non carborundum.

 

The bastards tried. A belated degree and PhD got him into the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a researcher at the outer fringes of the genome project, which had started, under Watson’s watchful eye, in 1990. The next year he published a neat idea for speeding the project up by tagging where genes sat on chromosomes—so neat that the NIH wanted to patent the results until, after a public storm during which Watson excoriated both Dr Venter’s technology and the whole idea of patenting human genes, they didn’t.

 

After this, he realised that the only institutions in which he could comfortably operate in future would be those he created himself. So create them he did. First, the Institute for Genomic Research, where, to the chagrin of the powers-that-then-were, he worked out a way to speed things up even more by re-imagining the process of DNA sequencing that lay at the genome project’s heart. Then Celera Genomics, a commercial outfit which sought to use that idea to race, and beat, the official Human Genome Project to the winning post. And then, after the genome was done and dusted and Celera no longer had need of his services, or he of its, the modestly named J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI).

 

At Celera’s high point in early 2000 he was a centimillionaire. The real draw, though, was not riches but recognition. From the wider world he got that in spades: feature articles galore, including in The Economist, and his picture on the covers of Time and BusinessWeek, all proudly displayed on the walls of JCVI. But no Nobel prize. His fellow scientists were too frequently among the illegitimi for that to happen.

 

Sulston, knighted for his services, accused him of wanting to establish a monopoly over the human genome and said he had gone “morally wrong”. This was rich, considering that it was only by adopting his methods that the official project was able to catch up with Dr Venter’s private one, and thus arrive at a politically brokered “tie” in the resulting race.

 

Dr Collins, with whom he shared the glory in June 2000 when President Bill Clinton announced that tie in the East Room of the White House, was more measured. But he did observe of his rival, “We’ll never find ourselves going out for a beer on Friday nights just for the heck of it...We’re wired in a different way.”

 

At bottom, in the minds of the Sulstons and Collinses of this world, that wiring had led Dr Venter to sell his soul to the devils of commerce. He, by contrast, regarded Celera’s creation pragmatically, as the only means available to achieve his desired end. As to riches, the easiest way to make a small fortune was to start off with a large one. And a good way to effect that transition was to have an expensive hobby. Which he did. Yachts. Two of them, though not at the same time. He called both Sorcerer. As his second wife, Claire Fraser—herself no mean microbiologist—put it, “We’d be rich, if it weren’t for that boat.”

 

With Sorcerer the first, he battled both storms and racing competitors. But it was Sorcerer II that truly revealed the man, for she was fitted out for science rather than sailing competitions. By permitting him leisurely transoceanic cruises, sampling the DNA of what was living in the waters she traversed, she combined business with pleasure—recapitulating, in luxurious style, the 19th-century circumnavigations of HMS Beagle and HMS Challenger.

 

More science followed: the first synthetic bacterial genome; a stripped-down “minimal” genome that is the smallest a microbe can get away with and remain alive; and numerous, though ultimately unprofitable, excursions into the elusive field of synthetic biology, in which living organisms will be rebuilt, the better to serve human needs.

 

Ironically, considering his epiphany in the South China Sea, his last Big Idea was life extension—the real sort, not the reputational. First, in 2013, he helped found Human Longevity, a firm that proposed to extend human lifespans by understanding and subverting the biological processes of ageing. That lasted five years before he parted company with it, either (depending on who you talk to) by storming out or being fired.

 

Then, this January, he had another go with a venture called Diploid Genomics, after the paired chromosomes of human cells in which he felt the secrets of longevity lay. However, though he himself was prodded, poked and scanned to the nth degree during his time at Human Longevity—and said such attention to detail had saved him from undetected prostate cancer—in the end it was to no avail. Still, he had indeed done something meaningful with his life. And the bastards had certainly not ground him down.” [1]

 

1. Craig Venter. The Economist; London Vol. 459, Iss. 9498,  (May 9, 2026): 78.

Yra senovinis sprendimas mūsų šiuolaikinei dėmesio krizei

„Maždaug prieš 2000 metų romėnų filosofas Seneka perspėjo apie dėmesio krizę. Problemą sukėlė ne išmanieji telefonai ar „TikTok“; ją sukėlė papiruso prieinamumas. Dėl to ritinių tapo gausu, o turtingi skaitytojai turėjo prieigą prie daugiau tekstų nei bet kada anksčiau.

 

Seneka pastebėjo, kad tų, kurie perskaitė per daug ritinių, protai tapo neramūs ir nestabilūs. Toks protas, anot jo, mažiau gebėjo „išlikti vienoje vietoje ir skirti laiko sau“.

 

Pamoka anuomet buvo ne mažiau teisinga nei dabar, mūsų amžinai išsiblaškiusiame, prie ekranų prikaustytame ir daugiafunkciniame amžiuje. Kai leidžiame idėjoms greitai kilti ir išeiti, pernelyg užimti savo protus ir juos išvarginti. Niekas neprilimpa. „Tas, kuris yra visur, niekur nėra“, – perspėjo Seneka.

 

Seneka neturėjo prieigos prie šiuolaikinių mokslinių tyrimų ar apklausų duomenų, tačiau mūsų padėtis jo nebūtų nustebinusi. Profesoriai teigia, kad studentams dabar sunku žiūrėti pilnametražius filmus, jau nekalbant apie knygų pabaigą. Vidutiniškai el. paštą tikriname 77 kartus per dieną, ir dažnai tai ne dėl pranešimo – mes patys save pertraukiame. Mes net negalime sutelkti dėmesio į savo įrenginius: prieš du dešimtmečius tam tikra užduotis galėjo išlaikyti mūsų dėmesį dvi su puse minutės; šiandien, kaip rodo tyrimai, viename ekrane praleidžiame tik 47 sekundes, kol pasiduodame norui perjungti ekraną.

 

Mūsų visuomenė linkusi tai vertinti kaip technologinę problemą, kuriai reikia technologinių atsakomųjų priemonių: dėmesio blaškymą slopinančių programėlių, kurios veikia kaip skaitmeniniai sargybiniai ir užrakina mus nuo kitų programėlių; plastikinių telefonų kalėjimų, aprūpintų virtuvės laikmačiais; 500 dolerių kainuojantys, minimalistiniai telefonai, turintys revoliucinę funkciją – neturėti jokių funkcijų.

 

Tačiau mes pernelyg komplikuojame labai seną iššūkį, kuris yra labiau moralinis nei skaitmeninis. Seneka teisingai laikė išsiblaškymą charakterio nesėkme. Mums nereikia dar vieno algoritmo ar įtaiso, kad sustabdytume savo protus nuo lakstymo kaip nepaklusniems vaikams, būtų teigęs jis. Turime iš naujo išmokti ramiai sėdėti su savo mintimis.

 

Kaip tiksliai tai padaryti? Seneka turėjo keletą praktinių patarimų, kuriuos jis išdėstė savo „Laiškuose iš stoiko“: kasdien skirkite savo dėmesį vienai idėjai.

 

Pastaruosius 20 metų praktikavau paprastą discipliną, įkvėptą šio patarimo. Pirmas rytas ieškau knygoje savo vienos idėjos. Paprastai jai rasti reikia maždaug trijų ar keturių puslapių (mažiau nei 10 minučių). Neieškau įsimintinos citatos ar aforizmo; ieškau ištraukos, kuri mestų iššūkį arba geriau apšviestų mano požiūrį į pasaulį.

 

Pavyzdžiui, neseniai mane ištiko tragiškas įvykis suvokimas Tolstojaus apysakos „Ivano Iljičiaus mirtis“ pabaigoje. Ant mirties slenksčio Ivanas negali atsikratyti jausmo, kad gyvenimas jį prabėgo pro šalį. Ir vis dėlto jis pasiekė visus „teisingus“ dalykus – gerą darbą, gražų namą, prabangius draugus. Tai rimtas priminimas, kad socialinė padėtis ir žemiškos gėrybės yra trumpalaikės. Draugystė, meilė, gilus tikslo jausmas, pranokstantis save, ryšys su transcendentiniu: galiausiai tai yra svarbiausia.

 

Radęs savo idėją, žengiau kitą žingsnį, kurį pataria Seneka: „apmąstyti tą dieną ir įsisavinti“. Taigi, gerdama rytinę kavą, pasiėmiau Ivano suvokimą. Tris gurkšnius pradėjau permąstyti savo prioritetus. Pastebėjau, kad svarstau: kaip puoselėjau santykius, kurie mane palaiko? Išmokti geriau mylėti žmones buvo iššūkis, su kuriuo turėjau susidurti. Pasiryžau tą savaitę susisiekti su trimis draugais, su kuriais buvau praradusi ryšį.

 

Per pietus ir vėl per popietinę kavos pertraukėlę apmąsčiau Ivano klausimą ir nukreipiau dėmesį į mane supantį gyvenimą. Vėliau, vedžiodama savo šunį, sustojau ant tilto per Kolorado upę ir klausiausi paukščių čiulbėjimo. Prieš miegą nebesijaudinau dėl žinučių, susikaupusių mano gautuosiuose.

 

Seneka gilaus apmąstymo naudą palygino su alchemija, kurios metu bitės nektarą paverčia medumi. Avilyje bitės pakartotinai perduoda surinktą nektarą viena kitai, sumaišydamos jį su fermentais, kurie keičia jo cheminę sudėtį. Įsivaizduokite nektarą kaip informaciją, o medų – kaip išmintį. Nors nektaras per kelias dienas surūgsta, medus nesugenda – net ir po to, kai tūkstančius metų yra palaidotas Egipto kape.

 

Senekos medaus metafora atitinka tai, ką psichologai vadina giliuoju apdorojimu: nuolat grįždami prie tos pačios idėjos, mes signalizuojame savo smegenims, kad idėja verta perkėlimo į ilgalaikės atminties architektūrą. Kiekvieną kartą, kai iš atminties atkuriame idėją, mes ją taip pat apvyniojame naujomis asociacijomis (procesas, vadinamas pakartotiniu konsolidavimu), kuris užtikrina, kad tos idėjos išliktų aktualios mūsų gyvenime laikui bėgant.

 

Būtent tai ir vyko, kai visą dieną mintyse sukau Ivaną Iljičių. Mano paties patirtis ir mintys pavertė Tolstojaus perspėjimą asmeniniu įsitikinimu, kuris pradėjo formuotis mano charakterio dalimi.

 

Vargu ar esu pirmasis žmogus, vertinantis Senekos matymą, kad perpildyta biblioteka neprilygsta kruopščiai atrinktai giliai įsisavintos išminties kolekcijai. Markas Aurelijus kasdien išbandydavo po vieną stoikų principą, kovodamas su karo chaosu. Elžbieta I sėmėsi kruopščiai įsisavintos Senekos ir Cicerono išminties, kad susidorotų su valdymo spaudimu. Abraomas Linkolnas turėjo nedaug knygų, bet jas visas įvaldė. Jaunystėje garsiai skaitydamas ir kramtydamas tokias knygas kaip Ezopas ir Šekspyras, jis sukūrė protą, kurį lygino su plienu: „labai sunku ką nors įbrėžti“, bet „beveik neįmanoma, kai jau turi, ištrinti“.

 

Kitą dieną pagalvojau apie Linkolną, svarstydamas apie personažą, vadinamą Autodidaktu Jean-Paul Sartre romane „Pykinimas“. Šis keistas vyrukas vaikšto po vietinę biblioteką, siekdamas perskaityti kiekvieną knygą abėcėlės tvarka. Prikimštas faktų, bet ištroškęs prasmės, jis įkūnija įsitikinimą, kad informacijos kiekis yra supratimo gylio pakaitalas.

 

Kiekvieną dieną įtvirtindamas vienoje idėjoje, 20 metų bandžiau išvengti Autodidakto tuščiavidurio likimo. „Nebenoriu vytis be galo tolstančio informacijos horizonto. Seklumų nerimą iškeičiau į neišnaudotą gilių vandenų išmintį.

 

Dažnai sakoma, kad atsakymas yra daugiau informacijos, bet Seneka žinojo geriau. Išmintis slypi ne nektare, kurį renkame, o meduje, kuriam skiriame laiko.“ [1]

 

1. There’s an Ancient Solution to Our Modern Crisis of Attention: Guest Essay. Murray, S J.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Jul 12, 2026.

There’s an Ancient Solution to Our Modern Crisis of Attention

“About 2,000 years ago, the Roman philosopher Seneca warned of a crisis of attention. The problem wasn’t caused by smartphones or TikTok; it was because papyrus had become more widely available. As a result, scrolls became plentiful and wealthy readers had access to more texts than ever before.

 

Seneca observed that the minds of those who read too many scrolls too quickly became restless and unsteady. This kind of mind was less able, he noted, to “stay in one place and spend time with itself.”

 

The lesson then was no less true than it is now, in our perpetually distracted, screen-addled, multitasking age. When we allow ideas to come and go in rapid succession, we keep our minds too busy and wear them out. Nothing sticks. “One who is everywhere is nowhere,” Seneca cautioned.

 

Seneca did not have access to modern scientific studies or survey data, but he would not have been surprised by our plight. Professors report that students now have difficulty watching feature-length films, let alone finishing books. On average, we check email 77 times a day, and often it’s not because of a notification — we interrupt ourselves. We’re not even able to focus on our devices: Two decades ago, a given task could hold our attention for two and a half minutes; today, research shows, we make it only 47 seconds on one screen before succumbing to the itch to switch.

 

Our society tends to view this as a technological problem that demands technological countermeasures: anti-distraction apps that act like digital wardens and lock us out of our other apps; plastic phone jails equipped with kitchen timers; $500 minimalist phones that have the revolutionary feature of having no features at all.

 

But we’re overcomplicating a very old challenge that is more moral than digital. Seneca rightly saw distraction as a failure of character. We don’t need another algorithm or gadget to stop our minds from running around like unruly children, he would have argued. We need to relearn how to sit still with our own thoughts.

 

How exactly do you do this? Seneca had some practical advice, which he outlined in his “Letters From a Stoic”: Devote your attention to one idea a day.

 

For the past 20 years, I’ve practiced a simple discipline inspired by this advice. First thing in the morning, I forage in a book for my one idea. Typically, it takes about three to four pages (less than 10 minutes) to find one. I’m not looking for a memorable quotation or aphorism; I’m looking for a passage that challenges or better illuminates how I see the world.

 

Recently, for example, I was struck by a tragic realization near the end of Tolstoy’s novella “The Death of Ivan Ilyich.” On the brink of death, Ivan cannot escape the feeling that life has passed him by. And yet he had achieved all the “right” things — the good job, the nice house, the fancy friends. It’s a sobering reminder that social standing and worldly goods are fleeting. Friendship, love, a deep sense of purpose beyond oneself, a connection to the transcendent: These are what matter in the end.

 

Having found my idea, I took the next step Seneca advises: “to ponder that day and digest.” So I took Ivan’s realization with me while I drank my morning coffee. Three sips in, I began auditing my own priorities. I found myself wondering: How was I nurturing the relationships that sustain me? Learning to love people better was a challenge I needed to face. I committed to reaching out that week to three friends with whom I’d fallen out of touch.

 

At lunchtime and again during my afternoon coffee break, I pondered Ivan’s question and directed my attention to the life around me. Walking my dog later, I stopped on a bridge over the Colorado River and listened to the birds sing. By bedtime, I wasn’t fretting about the messages piled up in my inbox.

 

Seneca compared the benefits of deep reflection to the alchemy by which bees transform nectar into honey. In the hive, bees repeatedly pass the nectar they gather among themselves, mixing it with enzymes that alter its chemical composition. Think of the nectar as information and the honey as wisdom. Whereas nectar sours within a matter of days, honey doesn’t spoil — not even after being buried for thousands of years in an Egyptian tomb.

 

Seneca’s honey metaphor corresponds to what psychologists call deep processing: By returning to the same idea repeatedly, we signal to our brain that the idea is worth moving into the architecture of long-term memory. Each time we retrieve an idea from memory, we also wrap it in new associations (a process known as reconsolidation), which ensures that those ideas remain relevant to our life as time goes on.

 

That is what was happening as I churned Ivan Ilyich over in my mind throughout my day. My own experiences and thoughts alchemized Tolstoy’s warning into a personal conviction that would start to form part of my character.

 

I am hardly the first person to appreciate Seneca’s insight that a crowded library is no match for a curated portfolio of deeply assimilated wisdom. Marcus Aurelius tested one Stoic principle a day against the chaos of war. Elizabeth I drew on a well of carefully digested wisdom from Seneca and Cicero to handle the pressures of ruling. Abraham Lincoln owned few books but mastered them all. By reading aloud and chewing on the likes of Aesop and Shakespeare as a young man, he forged a mind he compared to steel: “very hard to scratch anything on” but “almost impossible, after you get it there, to rub it out.”

 

I thought of Lincoln the other day as I pondered the character called the Autodidact in Jean-Paul Sartre’s novel “Nausea.” This strange fellow haunts the local library with the goal of reading every book in alphabetical order. Stuffed with facts but starved for meaning, he embodies the belief that volume of information is a substitute for depth of understanding.

 

By anchoring each day in a single idea, I’ve spent 20 years trying to avoid the Autodidact’s hollow fate. I no longer chase the endlessly receding horizon of staying informed. I’ve traded the anxiety of the shallows for the untapped wisdom of deep waters.

 

We are often told that more information is the answer, but Seneca knew better. Wisdom is found not in the nectar we gather, but in the honey we take the time to make with it.” [1]

 

1. There’s an Ancient Solution to Our Modern Crisis of Attention: Guest Essay. Murray, S J.  New York Times (Online) New York Times Company. Jul 12, 2026.