Challenge to orthodoxy is important

THE EDITOR: It is fascinating to engage in scientific debate, discussing the latest discoveries and developments of the modern scientific era, and the pros and cons of the various theories. Such debate must however take place with dignity and decorum. Those involved must behave rationally using reasoned argument to make their case, sometimes becoming passionate, perhaps even agitated, but never disrespectful. Therefore while members of the local medical fraternity are to be commended for the important information they disseminate on public health issues, their general intolerance of those who disagree with them on the issue of AIDS is unbecoming. I listened recently to a discussion on this topic involving Mr David Mohammed of the Nation of Islam, a local medical doctor whose name I missed, and Mr Jones P Madeira of Carec. I was disappointed with the testy reaction to Mr Mohammed’s claims about an alternate treatment for AIDS based on a drug alpha interferon and the unwillingness of the other panelists to even consider what he had to say.

I recall the hostility directed to Donna Yawching, a newspaper columnist, when she questioned the safety of the AIDS vaccine development programme, which was then about to start. While I do not support unwarranted objections or destructive criticism, I am of the view that in general, challenges to orthodoxy are an important part of the learning and development process and should be directly addressed in the public interest. An article by Professor Bartholomew entitled “The Alpha Interferon Hoax” (Express February 3, 2003) is another case in point. The issue again concerned the use of the drug alpha interferon in the treatment of AIDS by Dr Alim Mohammed.  Because of the importance of the AIDS issue in Trinidad and Tobago and in the spirit of scientific discussion and debate, it was quite appropriate that Professor Bartholomew present his views as a specialist on Dr Mohammed’s claims and provide information to the public on the drug, as he did.  What was not appropriate was the abrasive manner in which this was done and the general lack of respect displayed in the article. One can disagree as strenuously as one chooses, but there ought to be a minimum level of professional courtesy.

I have had my own experiences on matters of scientific disagreement. Recently, for example, I criticised points raised by a retired professor on the subject of evolution and his response was to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty while not convincingly answering any of the points of objection I advanced. On another occasion, I questioned the accepted age of the Earth and a senior professor in an unpublished letter to the newspaper made quite unsavoury comments about me, while not addressing a single one of the issues I raised. Such behaviour is improper regardless of how strongly one may disagree with a point of view. Open debate, especially on important issues, is healthy and stimulating but ought to be conducted in a manner consistent with the accepted norms of civil society. In this regard, I cite the writings of Professor John Spence and Professor Selwyn Ryan, two newspaper columnists who in my opinion write in a reasonable and reasoned manner, stating their arguments with sobriety and good taste, sometimes (particularly in the case of Professor Ryan) in the face of the most hostile reader reaction.

Thus, rather than refer to citizens of our country as “dotish and chupid” as Professor Bartholomew did in his article (how could he have done such a thing?), I wish to commend those who took the time to attend the public lecture on AIDS delivered by Dr Mohammed at the Town Hall. We justifiably criticise our citizens for sometimes engaging in irresponsible behaviour or showing a lack of seriousness but must applaud and not denigrate them when they seek to inform themselves on a matter of great public importance. I attended the lecture and found it both interesting and stimulating. Members of the audience asked what I consider to be sensible and in some instances penetrating questions. Of course several points of view should be heard before drawing any conclusions.

I have briefly checked the literature and have seen some documentary evidence of the claimed efficacy of the alpha interferon AIDS treatment. In the interests of the many AIDS victims in Trinidad and Tobago, I therefore strongly urge the Ministry of Health to carefully and thoroughly investigate this drug in order to determine if the claims are valid and to reject it only on the basis of sound scientific reasons. I stand ready to make a financial contribution towards any authorised medical trials of this treatment, a treatment which Dr Mohammed claimed to be effective, cheap and non-toxic. In this the 21st century of scientific enlightenment, we must reject the demonstrably false 1951 dictum of Laurence Lafleur that “the odds favour the assumption that anyone proposing a revolutionary doctrine is a crank rather than a scientist,” and embrace the open-minded outlook of the 19th century’s greatest experimental physicist Michael Faraday which I have previously cited: “Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature.”

Dr Stephan Gift
Faculty of Engineering, UWI