top of page

By:

Subhash Kaushik and Kishore Paknikar

21 August 2024 at 11:16:39 am

Let Science Be the Referee

While Homoeopathy should face rigorous scientific scrutiny, neither its critics nor its proponents should decide the answer before the evidence is in. Our previous article, “Homoeopathy, As We Know It,” received both bouquets and brickbats. That was not surprising. Homoeopathy has had a long history of practice and research, yet continues to generate sharply divided opinions. What surprised us was the nature of some of the criticism. Homoeopathy has more than two centuries of clinical...

Let Science Be the Referee

While Homoeopathy should face rigorous scientific scrutiny, neither its critics nor its proponents should decide the answer before the evidence is in. Our previous article, “Homoeopathy, As We Know It,” received both bouquets and brickbats. That was not surprising. Homoeopathy has had a long history of practice and research, yet continues to generate sharply divided opinions. What surprised us was the nature of some of the criticism. Homoeopathy has more than two centuries of clinical experience and a growing body of research. Modern science now gives us an opportunity to investigate its underlying phenomena more deeply than ever before. Today, science has tools far more powerful than those available even a few decades ago. Why not use them to examine homoeopathy more deeply? What happens in highly diluted preparations? Are the observed effects reproducible? Do they produce measurable changes in biological systems? What could these findings mean for patients? Such questions require rigorous, independently verified evidence. Yet, some critics responded that homoeopathy was “quackery,” that the matter was already settled and that further research was unnecessary. Some went further, predicting that research sponsored by the Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH) would inevitably be biased and poorly designed. This raises a basic question. Can we render a verdict before conducting the experiment? Scepticism or Prejudgment? Science cannot progress without scepticism. Every scientific claim must remain open to scrutiny. But scepticism and prejudgment are not the same. A true sceptic asks for evidence. Yet some critics seem to have already decided that homoeopathy cannot work and therefore see no reason to investigate it further. Is that really scientific scepticism? Science should neither begin with belief nor disbelief. It should ask the right questions, conduct sound experiments and accept what the evidence shows. A study should be judged by how it is conducted and whether its findings can be reproduced, not by the label attached to the system under study. Criticizing research after examining it is science. Predicting its failure before it begins is prejudgment. There is also a misconception that research in homoeopathy means homoeopathic practitioners working among themselves to prove what they already believe. The reality is quite different. CCRH is already investigating high dilutions through physicochemical, biological and nanotechnology-based studies in collaboration with leading institutions, including IITs, ICMR, NIMHANS, Delhi University, the University of Calcutta, ICAR institutes and other centres of scientific excellence. These collaborations bring contemporary science directly into homoeopathy research. They use approaches ranging from nanoscience and molecular biology to omics, artificial intelligence, computational analysis and advanced analytical techniques. These are mainstream scientific tools used across biomedical research. What ultimately matters is whether the research is rigorous, reproducible and independently verifiable. CCRH’s scientific responsibility is to strengthen the evidence base for homoeopathy through such rigorous laboratory research, well-designed clinical studies and collaboration with leading scientific institutions. This builds directly on the multidisciplinary approach described in the attached draft. Revisiting Assumptions A common argument is that homoeopathy has already been studied, so why “reinvent the wheel”? But revisiting a question is not reinventing the wheel when instruments become more sensitive, methods improve and new questions become possible. This does not mean simply repeating earlier studies. New research must advance the subject with better tools, stronger controls or questions that earlier studies could not adequately address. We should not revisit a question because we dislike an earlier answer. We should revisit it when we can ask the question more effectively. Scientific knowledge is not a collection of conclusions permanently carved in stone. It advances because earlier observations are revisited, explanations are challenged and accepted ideas are retested when new methods become available. Re-examination is not a weakness of science but one of its greatest strengths. One critic made an extraordinary suggestion: people who use homoeopathy should avoid modern medicine altogether. But why should healthcare demand such loyalty? A patient does not have to “belong” to homoeopathy, modern medicine or any other system. The real question is simpler. What does reliable evidence tell us about a treatment for a particular patient and condition? Ultimately, neither the patient nor the physician should be loyal to a medical system. Both should be loyal to evidence. During COVID-19, early studies suggested that remdesivir could shorten recovery time, while the much larger WHO Solidarity trial later found little to no effect on mortality among hospitalised patients. As more evidence emerged, recommendations evolved. That was not a failure of modern medicine. It was science working as it should. When evidence changes, conclusions must be allowed to change too. Confirmation bias is a concern in all research, not something unique to homoeopathy. Researchers in every field can be influenced by what they expect or hope to find. Biomedical research must also guard against selective reporting, conflicts of interest and commercial pressures. Science has ways of addressing such risks: proper controls, disclosure of conflicts, peer review and independent replication. We do not reject a pharmaceutical study simply because the company sponsoring it has a commercial interest in a positive result. Why should the principle be different for research in homoeopathy? Homoeopathy should face rigorous scientific scrutiny without being prejudged. Its critics must be equally willing to accept reproducible evidence, including findings that challenge current understanding. Science demands this openness from both sides. Neither side gets to decide the answer in advance. Let the experiment be the referee. (Dr. Kaushik is Director General, Central Council for Research in Homoeopathy (CCRH), Ministry of Ayush, New Delhi. Dr. Paknikar is a Member of the Scientific Advisory Board, CCRH, New Delhi, and ANRF Prime Minister Professor, COEP Technological University, Pune. Views personal.)

Indian Shipbuilding A Must Win Marathon

Shipbuilding

With a coastline of 7500 KM, it is hard to imagine, that for the first 20 years (1947-1967) India had no ‘shipping ministry’. In 1967 a Shipping ministry “coupled” with ROAD transport was established. Since then, this ministry has been on a name changing ride, not once, not twice but six times. In 2009 the “ROAD Transport and Highways” was de-coupled and ‘Shipping’ ministry was formed. Turning point came in 2015 with a clear maritime vision for 2030 and 2047. Ministry was re-christened, aptly to Ministry of “Ports, Shipping and Waterways” in 2020.


Why is Shipbuilding important for a country?

a. A Shipyard becomes an opportunity hub and like a queen bee requires the support of an industrial colony to manufacture machinery and equipment.

b. National Shipyards support fleet renewal needs of the Navy.

c. Contributes to national GDP, increases inflow of FOREX.


Korea shipbuilding is 8% of GDP. Japan’s automobile industry is 2.9% of GDP. India’s shipbuilding a meagre 0.000578% of GDP. In context, India’s pharmaceutical industry, ranked third largest in the world is 1.72% of India’s GDP.


International Shipbuilding Market

The market is estimated to reach around USD 200 billion by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 4.84%. While India is at bottom with 0.07% of world share, behind Philippines 1.5% and Vietnam 1%, however on the positive side, India has done well in taking care of its defence needs, with 37 of 39 Naval ships being built in India yards. Rear Admiral S Shrikhande researching on maritime as a Fellow at Wollongong University, Australia, says “Shipbuilding in India needs both, serious incentivisation and dogged determination and not harping on being a big ship breaking country. That Garden Reach shipyard has a $54 million order for merchant ships from a German owner, is a good sign.”


Were Shipyards of 20th century in Flight mode?

Prominent shipyards in India were built in the colonial period. Mazagon Dock 1774, Garden reach 1884, Hindustan shipyard 1941 to cater to British navy and merchant fleet needs. Cochin shipyard 1972, Adani Katupalli 2013, Reliance Naval and Engineering, Rajula Gujarat 1997 and others have limited capacity, hence a lot more work to do. Capt. Subhangshu Dutt (Singapore) a mariner and now a shipowner, says “GOI should hold hands in any collaboration till the marriage with the foreign entity is reasonably stable. He also suggests that “new shipbuilding sites should be given to existing successful shipyards since they have decades of experience and talent. Consortium of 3 or more parties may also be good idea”.


Shipbuilding GOLD

As per SPLASH report the demand for LCO2 carriers could reach 2,500 ships by 2050. As per other estimates, 40% of global fleet of ships could have wind propulsion by 2050. A surge in such vessels is due to an unparallel waves of decarbonization in the shipping industry. Demand for ships with ‘carbon neutral’ badges, such as Dual fuel, Wind assisted, Nuclear fuel ships, Hydrogen powered ships, Liquified CO2 (LCO2) carrier, is outstripping supply. A must in the ‘bucket list’ of every Shipyard. Pinning down a standard ROI in shipbuilding is not easy, but experts suggest it could range from 4% to 15% for the high demand ‘carbon neutral’ ships. While an LNG new build vessel could cost US$ 250 million upwards.


International collaboration

On China’s shipbuilding success story, Manoj Pandalanghat (Singapore) a mariner and ship owner believes that “China has around 50 active Shipyards. Each have a few large dry docks. In each dock two or more large vessels are built simultaneously. Thus, a single yard is able to roll out 2/3 vessels/month, 36 vessels/year and 50 shipyards roll out 1800 vessels/year”.


China could be a jaldi-5, but India needs a sturdy Mount Fiji. Besides technology, Japanese bring the most important hand baggage of soft-skills and culture, essential for success from keel laying to delivery. Maruti’s is a standing example.


Food for thought for New Delhi

a. Expertise: Hire Naval Architects and shipbuilding experts with current international experience.

b. Government assistance: Land, Financial support, subsidies and timebound clearances.

c. Monitoring: PMO should monitor the first 5 to 10 years till Shipbuilding takes-off on this long-haul flight to destination 2047.


India’s Shipbuilding is expected to grow to $237 billion by year 2047. On a back of the envelope calculations this works out to about 4% of India’s 2047 projected GDP of $ 5 trillion. While cars are driven on roads, however the Ministry of roads and transport has little to do with “Automobile manufacturing”. On a similar note, ‘Shipbuilding’ as an industry has little to do with Ports, Shipping and Waterways, thus it may be worthwhile to consider a separate ‘Ship-building’ wing in the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways headed by a dynamic cabinet rank minister. Since 2047 targets are stiff and an uphill task, so in all probabilities, the officials in Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways are likely to push beneath the carpet, delays and failures of Shipbuilding with sweet success stories of “Ports, Shipping and Waterways” and if this does happen then India will not only miss the Shipbuilding bus of 21st century but a lot more from a national security and strategic perspective.


(The author is a Shipping and Marine consultant. Member Singapore Shipping Association and empaneled with IMO as a specialist consultant. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page