part0015

Science and religion have in common the fact that they represent methodologies, or systems, for interpreting and understanding or making sense of the world around us; but that is about all they have in common. The religious way is based on a fixed belief system where the holy books do not change. In contrast, science seeks to establish knowledge about our world that is informed by observations and experiments that can be used to establish various models that constitute universal laws or theories. In a hard science such as physics, these models should be, whenever possible, quantitative rather than just qualitative. Measurements can often provide more precision than descriptions. For example, if you go online and buy a garment of a certain waist size, it is more likely to fit you than if it just has a description such as ‘Large’ – since, in my experience, the description means different things for different retailers - either that, or I am getting fatter!

The important thing about scientific models is that they are always subject to alteration and refinement depending upon the level of understanding at any given time. For example, at one time it was thought that the Sun orbited the Earth, then it was realised that, in fact, the planets orbit the Sun and finally, observations showed that each planet actually follows an elliptical path around the Sun. While we are on this subject, did you know that Holmes was, or claimed to be, unaware that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Not only this, but once he was informed of the fact, he said: “Now that I do know it, I shall do my best to forget it.” His explanation for this was as follows: ““You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skilful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it, there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.””

But what of the dogma of science? Well, it does seem that there is a modern trend towards a dogmatic attitude in the existing scientific establishment. Since a dogma is defined as a set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true, this scientific dogma may well be viewed as a religion, which cherishes a set of models that are considered immutable. Even the scientific establishment itself seems to approve of this approach. An example that may help to illustrate this concerns Rupert Sheldrake, the English biologist and author, who proposed the concept of ‘morphic resonance’. This phenomenon may or may not be real, but it certainly does not fit in with the modern mechanistic approach to science. After Sheldrake claimed to have data to support his theory, the editor of the famous journal Nature described him as a ‘heretic’. Interestingly then, the editor has cast himself in the role of the high priest for a form of religion that can also be called scientific dogma. The truly scientific approach, of course, is not to reject a concept simply because we feel it might be categorised as parapsychology or that it does not seem to fit conveniently within the current structures of modern science; but instead to analyse the data and, if they can be shown to be significant, objective, and so convincing, to admit that our existing theories may need some modification or addition.

Other examples of data being ignored in the favour of accepted current belief are provided by intravenous vitamin C – there is considerable evidence that this can be beneficial in fighting cancer – even for patients in the late stages of the disease; however, it is not available as a treatment option for cancer sufferers. Even more surprising is that, the last time I checked, there were no funded research studies being conducted in the UK into the beneficial effects of intravenous vitamin C for cancer sufferers. It is also true that there is considerable experimental evidence that taking aspirin can provide significant benefits in fighting cancer, but again it is not prescribed for the purpose nor is it being investigated as an anti-cancer drug (treatments for cancer, including the effects of intravenous vitamin C and aspirin, are discussed in more detail in a later section). It is, in fact, a remarkable drug with few serious side effects, in contrast to many other drugs. An example of the latter is the painkiller ibuprofen which has been linked to heart attacks in a number of scientific studies, but which is still widely prescribed and even commonly available on supermarket shelves. In case you are interested in this, in one study researchers analysed data from 446,763 people and found evidence that linked ibuprofen use to increased risk of heart attack, and that the risk rises in the first week of use, being highest with higher doses. The work was funded by McGill University and undertaken by researchers from McGill University and the Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montreal, both in Canada, the Hospital District of Helsinki in Finland, and the Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology in Germany. The increased risk of heart attack for any dose of ibuprofen in the first week of use, compared to no use in the past year, was 48%. It is important to note that the risk increased by 48% not to 48% - there is an important difference. Suppose you were unfortunate enough to have a 40% chance of a heart attack – for you taking the drug would increase this likelihood to 59% - not good. However, if you only had a 1% chance then it would only increase this to around 1.5% - which some might consider acceptable. Not me, however - I would not take ibuprofen unless I was in real agony. I would normally advise anyone who has concerns about any drug to consult a doctor but having actually done so it seems to me that doctors are generally overly keen on Ibuprofen. So, my strictly non-medical opinion is that it’s best not to take Ibuprofen if you for any reason believe you have a raised risk of heart attack. If you want to read more about the study, you can find out more for free by searching for it online in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal (BMJ).

Another more historical example of the medical profession being biased against a simple solution is that of Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian physician whose work demonstrated that handwashing could drastically reduce the number of women dying after childbirth. Despite his evidence, he was largely ignored by other doctors which led to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of women over a number of years. The lesson that modern science can draw from these and other cases is that data are always paramount, and if we have data that are not consistent with current theory, we need to consider modifications/additions to that theory. In contrast to this, however, modern dogmatic science tends to simply ignore data that do not fit in with current or traditional scientific approaches. But worse than this is the often-observed tendency to vilify and insult those who suggest that accepted approaches may be wrong. Such ill treatment of colleagues has now reached the point where people who may have a dissenting view will not publish for fear of their careers being ruined. It is almost as if science has transgressed from a free-thinking, data-driven progressive analysis of our world to a dogmatic, hyper-conservative construct where accepted theory cannot be challenged.

Therefore, to some extent science does seem to have transmorphed into a religion; and if so, it is not surprising that scientific dissenters are now branded heretics. Having said this, there is still less dogma in science than in other areas of life; as that champion of science Carl Sagan observed: “In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human, and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” And I think Carl was right (as usual) – particularly about the ‘doesn't happen as often as it should’ bit!