Antariksh Bothale of the linguistrix blog, pointed this op-ed piece in The Hindu today. The author is a cardiologist, former faculty member of a medical school in UK and former vice chancellor of India's oldest (and probably one of the better) private universities.
What: Thats the fun. I read the article twice but I am still not able to get past all the negative opinions of the author and extract something which is positive.
Why its here: What is he trying to say? Science is bad, but then, at least according to him, what is good? For first part, I thought he is disgruntled about one of his "out of the box" paper was rejected by some medical journal referee. Then, for some part I thought he is like many science hot shots in India who start losing perspective on reality after a certain age and start drifting towards crazy theories. His last para, where he extensively quotes Dawkins and then calls it arrogant makes a possible case for supporting creationism. But funnily enough, he never tells us what is it he is in favour of.
What: Thats the fun. I read the article twice but I am still not able to get past all the negative opinions of the author and extract something which is positive.
- He says, science, in the way it is practice today, is a failed system. Fair enough. He is entitled to his opinion.
- The supposed "checks and balances" within the system like peer-review process are compromised and manipulated, especially in the medical field. I would give him that.
- He claims that various ancient cultures were treasure troves of wisdom we can still consider useful, including alternate systems of medicines. Fine. Even I trust Ayurvedic (Indian book of herbal medicine) cough syrups over modern chemical ones. But certainly, I don't want that "ancient wisdom" argument to extend to right-wing wet-dreams like "Vedic people knew how to build aeroplanes" and "Ayurveda has cure for HIV / cancer" and others like that. So tread bit carefully there.
- Then he goes on and on about how higher state spending in US does not necessarily translate in good healthcare ("Sicko" already tells us that), how modern medicines cannot take credit for increased life expectancy, how Nightingale and Semmelweiss simply used common sense to bring about drastic improvements in healthcare (in 19th Century mind you).
- At the end he selectively quotes cautionary notes of several scientists, which warn that science can have its problems.
Why its here: What is he trying to say? Science is bad, but then, at least according to him, what is good? For first part, I thought he is disgruntled about one of his "out of the box" paper was rejected by some medical journal referee. Then, for some part I thought he is like many science hot shots in India who start losing perspective on reality after a certain age and start drifting towards crazy theories. His last para, where he extensively quotes Dawkins and then calls it arrogant makes a possible case for supporting creationism. But funnily enough, he never tells us what is it he is in favour of.
No comments:
Post a Comment