Retorts

Research, Proof and Popperism

You are probably right in drawing attention to my rather careless use of the phrase "conclusively proved" in our press release on shark cartilage [GIGO, April]; "shown" or "demonstrated" would have been much fairer. However, if you read further down you will see that we say such proof is likely to be elusive.

Where I would take serious issue with you is the implied link between project based funding and proving of pet theories. This particular project simply asked the question "Does eating shark cartilage have any effect on new blood vessel formation, its likely mode of action against tumours?". So we fed the stuff to rats and counted blood vessels (by computer, so as objectively as we could) and we did see an activity in comparison to a control group of rats who didn't eat shark cartilage. Very much to our own surprise, as it happens. The next question is then "What is doing it?" and the point of the press release was simply to say we were looking. To use this as an example of the failings of science in the CRIs seems unfair.

Let us say that everything goes to plan. Of the several choices of possible active ingredient mentioned in the article we pick the right one and fractionate the cartilage until only that remains, still demonstrating activity with our rats. If we then synthesise that from scratch in the lab and still see the activity, have we not "proven" that that is the source of activity to all but the most abstruse of philosophical standards? And if things don't work out, the active ingredient turns out to be a mixture of compounds, what then? We still know the ingredients, if you like, and can sell those too. Which is not a bad thing.

I would guess, and now it is perhaps my turn to be unfair, that this project was chosen as an example of poor science because of the laughable notion that eating shark cartilage can be useful against cancer. We thought it was fairly amusing as well, but if you don't ask the questions you don't know the answer. One of the criticisms of the scientific community is that it dismisses popular notions that go against its own wisdom without looking seriously at them. So we looked, and we got the answer we didn't expect -- quite the reverse of proving a pet theory.

What does it matter if your science fair student does set out to prove their pet theory in their project? If they ask the right questions, make the right hypothesis, choose a testable null, to use a Popperism, do the work carefully then they have done what science asks of them. What you have to do is keep an open mind and ask the right questions; do the experiment before you dismiss the theory.

Dr George Slim, Industrial Research Ltd, Lower Hutt