From idea to genuine progress

Abstract

On 9 March 1497, a 24-year-old humanities student was recording the motion of the moon relative to a bright star called Aldebaran, in the Taurus constellation. His observations reinforced the doubts he had about the prevailing wisdom that the Earth was the centre of the universe. In 1501, the student moved back to where he was born, in Warmia, North-Eastern Poland, to study medicine. He continued his astronomical observations and sometime around 1514 he produced a 40-page outline of his revolutionary new theory, which he handed only to his friends. This ‘little commentary’ was never printed and its existence was only confirmed around 1880 when a copy was discovered in Stockholm. Nearly 20 years, and more than 60 registered astronomical observations later, in 1532, Nicolaus Copernicus had virtually completed his work on the heliocentric model, which placed the Sun, not the Earth, near to the centre of the Universe; however, despite the urging of his closest friends, his book De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) was not published until 1543 just before his death at the age of 70 years. This is now considered to be the beginning of modern astronomy and the Scientific Revolution, but few astronomers at the time took his theories seriously until about 1700. We now know that the Sun is not the centre of the Universe and the geometry of space is predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity; however, the principle that the Earth moves around the Sun is a well established fact. This is a good example of how scientific knowledge usually advances by a series of slow incremental steps, involving thoughtful individuals, undertaking careful observations. The explosion in the opportunities to publish ideas before they have been fully tested and the pressure on academics to justify their positions by publishing extensively and widely, means that the expounding of theory often outpaces the ability of individuals and groups to undertake the observations and experimentation needed to support those theories. There are some well-known and embarrassing mishaps when scientists have been tempted into announcing their results prematurely. In 1989, two electrochemists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons submitted a paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry and 12 days later, held a press conference announcing to the world that they had managed to achieve nuclear fusion of atoms at room temperature. This was hugely significant, as the discovery could have led to the production of virtually unlimited supplies of cheap energy. After the initial excitement, it soon became apparent that few other research teams could replicate their results. Rumours spread that the researchers might have been pressurized into publishing early in order to benefit from any potentially extremely lucrative patents that might have ensued. A recent example in the field of medicine is the controversial suggestion that there might be a link between the mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine and the development of autism. This claim was raised in a 1998 paper published in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. Subsequent reviews of epidemiological and other research, including one in the Cochrane Library, have concluded that no such link exists. Ten out of the 12 co-authors subsequently retracted their support for the original publication and The Lancet has recently withdrawn it from the published literature. As Editor I frequently receive submissions that present theory as fact. I have no problem with individuals observing an event or behaviour and seeking to explain it; however, without additional careful observation and experimentation to collect information, which either confirms or denies that suggestion, then an idea remains just that, an idea or theory. The difference between those theories supported by data and those requiring further testing needs to be clearly stated. As an academic I remain sceptical about new developments that claim to make revolutionary changes. I believe in the slow, incremental progress in scientific advancement; however, I do sincerely hope that those theories leading to genuine improvements in orthodontic treatment are confirmed more quickly than the basic premise of Copernicus’ heliocentric theory.