I fail to understand how a reader (“Letters,” Oct. 27) could conclude that Dr. B.M. Hegde was “ridiculing medical science” in his article “Unlearning to relearn...” (Open Page, Oct.26). Criticism is not ridicule. And scepticism is at the heart of good science. Peer review and sharing of study data are examples of essential scientific practices that encourage criticism, critical inquiry and re-evaluation of scientific studies.
The letter writer wants that “the layman does not get the wrong message,” but I am afraid it is he who has got the wrong message. John Ioannidis, who Atlantic magazine calls as “one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research”, says that 90 per cent of the information relied upon for clinical decisions by doctors is either wrong or misleading. And Dr. Ioannidis has evidence. Dr. Ben Goldacre, author of Bad Pharma , puts it thus: “We like to imagine that medicine is based on evidence and the results of fair tests. In reality, those tests are often profoundly flawed. We like to imagine that doctors are familiar with the research literature, when in reality much of it is hidden from them by drug companies …. ”
Good science need not fear harsh words. Science is not a religion to be taken on blind faith. Laymen like Gregory Mendel contributed to some of its significant advances. Science thrives on criticism and review. As one science channel put it, “Question everything!”
Tim Heineman,Bangalore
