Home ~ About us ~ Ahead of print ~ Current Issue ~ Back Issues ~ Search ~ Instructions ~ Subscription ~ Advertise ~ Feedback ~ Login  
  Mens Sana Monographs
A Monograph Series Devoted To The Understanding Of Medicine, Mental Health, Man, Mind, Music And Their Matrix
 Why MSM | Acknowledgement | Call for papers... | Forthcoming MSM...  Users online: 432  Home Email this article Print this Article Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size 

 Table of Contents     
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 71-74
Some Answers

The Editor, Mens Sana Monographs, Mumbai, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajai R Singh
The Editor, Mens Sana Monographs, Mumbai
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

PMID: 22815608

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

(Page 70, raised a few questions which one of the authors (A.R.S.) attempts to answer. Take them for whatever they are worth. Hope they excite you to search for

your own answers.)

Q.1. What should governing bodies and funding agencies do to encourage original research?

. Stop funding replicative research to the extent being done now. Make it 50 : 50, for original and replicative research, then 75:25 over a five year period. And have original researchers on panels which select research projects for grants also in the same proportion. Let us just hope that's not a tall order.

And if funds lie unused let them not lapse. Let them be carried forward to the next year, and the next if need be. Let them not be sanctioned hurriedly at the end of the year, for that makes it eminently suitable for manipulation.

Q.2 . How can Indians graduate to original research from replicative research?

. By encouraging original thinking at every level, starting from childhood itself: by motivating them to ask questions, even though embarrassing to adults. Also, by appreciating those who want to set new trends, to chart new seas and cross new frontiers in their respective fields. By creating a climate conducive to questioning and enterprise rather than conformity and obedience. And by being ready to absorb the turmoil that results during this transition.

Q.3. In which fields is original research taking place in this country? And to what extent?

. This is a question for individual specialists to answer. But nuclear science, biotechnology, indigenous systems, pharmaceuticals, computer applications, agriculture and agro-based industries hold the greatest promise. It is to a minor to modest degree at present, but can change in a decade or two.

.4. What changes in educational pattern in schools/colleges will ensure that Indians take to original research in a big way?

. i) Stop emphasis on rote learning; ii) encourage students to ask questions, howsoever embarrassing to elders, and seek answers rather than accept ready made solutions (and we curb our eagerness to supply them); iii) allow students to understand and formulate concepts rather than mouth empty phrases learnt by heart from insipid textbooks; iv) learn to wonder at phenomena, to observe nature and

society, to question established beliefs, opinions, dogmas; v) reduce society's emphasis on conformity, traditionalism, by first of all teachers and parents becoming such; vi) Spot out exceptional merit for creativity / originality (and not just for scoring more marks) and develop concrete programmes to hone and further it; vii) appreciation and recognition of originality / creativity in school/college students by teachers, parents and educational governing bodies and absorbing them into a programme to see to it that it does not get snubbed by conformity seeking curricula or pedagogy (which will always remain, and do serve their own purpose for sure).

Q.5. Will science ever answer questions like: Is there God? Is there an afterlife? Are miracles for real? etc. etc.

Ans Science will always ask for verifiable evidence of everything. As at present, it doesn't have the necessary tools to verify these phenomena. So it should withhold comment. The possibility that it will develop such tools in the near future are remote. But one thing is certain. Anyone who attempts to answer these questions will be able to succeed with a large number of people and for a longer time if he has the scientist's mind and the mystic's intuition. The example of Narendra's questions to his guru, Swami Ramakrishna, and the latter's answers come to the mind here. These will never be a final or only answer. It will be a fusion of sorts. Unsatisfactory for the purists of both sides. True. But that's how it is.

Q.6. How can scientific temper and religious belief coexist? On this planet? In an individual?

Ans Neither scientific temper nor religious belief are complete methods in themselves to explain all phenomena. Scientific temper gives supremacy to evidence and reason, religious belief gives supremacy to introspection and intuitive experiences. For holistic understanding of phenomena, both approaches are necessary. A healthy interaction between them, and their fusion are necessary both at the social and the individual level. They are not only competing but complementary approaches.

Q.7. Will scientific progress ultimately lead to mankind's annihilation? Is there an antidote?

Ans. Yes, I believe that scientific progress will be responsible for mankind's annihilation as and when it occurs. But that will only happen when man forgets science is just a method and an approach, to be necessarily regulated by ethical-moral principles of truth, justice, compassion, universal welfare and fair-play which converts it into a system and, though battered beyond recognition by man's ulterior motives, are still recognised as legitimate aspirations by all right thinking men everywhere.

The antidote, if any, will come from a scientific religiosity. This will involve not just a fusion of intellect and emotion, but of reason and devotion.

Q.8. If evidence is so important, what happens to belief and devotion? Should they be discarded, although they are useful to mankind at every step?

Ans. Certain beliefs and devotions are eternal, certain situational. Belief in God for example, is eternal, belief in a God is situational; so with many other such entities. The eternal will remain, the situational will get modified, may even get discarded. Belief and devotion as methods, however, will always remain to help mankind understand both the external world and calm internal turbulences.

Q.9. The clinician believes the research evidences presented to him in conferences and journals. Should he discard this belief and trust only his own evidence? Is that a practicable method of working?

Ans Yes and No.

Yes. The clinician believes the research evidence presented in conferences, journals etc. because that belief is backed by verifiable evidence which is the hallmark of the scientific method. And it is replicable by another researchers, and also refutable. And undergoes self-correction as well. As and when this belief is found unverifiable or unreplicable, he will and must give it up. So an evidence-based belief is integral to scientific progress, as well as necessary for its application to people's welfare, especially so in the field of the medical sciences.

No, he cannot discard this belief in research evidence, but this evidence must be corroborated by his own clinical experience. If the researcher says, for example, Venlafaxine is three times more potent than Fluoxetine and the clinician finds they are only equally good, if at all, he must trust his own clinical experience rather than the researcher's proclamations. So, if, and when, the researcher's conclusions do not get corroborated by his own clinical findings, he must question this belief and reject it. For the research evidence's credibility stands to question, at least for him. And he must exercise his clinical judgement for the patient's welfare as of overriding value, even if contrary to current research and trends. For what is current today may get refuted tomorrow. And this is one of the ways it may get refuted.

Q.10. 'Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.' So said the great Albert Einstein. Is that sufficient enough resolution of the divide between religion and science?

Ans. Yes, it is a beautiful resolution as it goes. Science without

religion is lame because it will not lead very far. Religion without science is blind, because it will not be able to show the way if not backed by reason and observation. So a lame science can ride a blind Religion and both can complete the journey. However if the converse occurs, then we are in for a big, big problem. If a blind religion rides a lame science then it will spell disaster for mankind. Not possible? Well what were the dark ages but that, when scientists were tortured by fanatical religionists? Lame science and blind religion are being used today as well: weapons of mass destruction are supplied by a lame science, powerless before ulterior men's machinations. Fanatical followers use blind religion to fuel discord and raise terrorist squads to carry out self proclaimed jehads. And the future holds no less a menace.

So Einstein does make sense. And it is useful to think of the fusion of science and religion, as it is to think of their divide. Their division is important for their individual welfare, their fusion is important for mankind's welfare. Both are equally important. So they must remain good neighbours, knowing their boundaries alright, but ready to collaborate for collective welfare.

Q.11. 'Every genuine scientist must be... A metaphysician', said George Bernard Shaw. Does this not have the danger of making him a poor scientist?

Ans. Yes, it does entail the danger of making him a poor scientist. But it also entails the possibility of making him a great scientist. A poor scientist runs a definite risk by dabbling in metaphysics. A great scientist actualises himself by indulging in it, becoming great only if and when he does so.

Why? A poor scientist may take the shelter of metaphysics to explain ill-understood phenomena and conveniently escape answering embarrassing questions. A great scientist will take the vision of metaphysics and seek direction from it to understand and further science and scientific theories.

Q.12. How do you like the proposition: howsoever thin you slice a

cake, there are always two sides? Ans Yes, I like it. I like the cake and its sides as well. And I would

like it even if it had no sides. And I would like it even if had

four sides.

And, come to think of it, a cake actually has six sides.

And that's a usual rectangular cake we are talking of. You calculate how many sides a hexagonal cake will have.

As with cakes, so with perspectives.


Print this article  Email this article
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (133 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded82    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal