Is the Semmelweis reflex the worst obstacle of scientific progress? This is when new and real evidence or truth is rejected because it contradicts recognized scientific norms or rules. Have you ever experienced a similar phenomenon in your country?
Dear All,
„The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.
The term originated from the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that childbed fever mortality rates reduced ten-fold when doctors washed their hands with a chlorine solution between patients and, most in particular, after an autopsy (the institution where Semmelweis worked, a university hospital, performed autopsies on every deceased patient). Semmelweis's decision stopped the ongoing contamination of patients—mostly pregnant women—with "cadaverous particles".[1] His hand-washing suggestions were rejected by his contemporaries, often for non-medical reasons. For instance, some doctors refused to believe that a gentleman's hands could transmit disease (see Contemporary reaction to Ignaz Semmelweis).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
In addition, Ignac Semmelweis, the professor of maternity department at the University of Budapest was treated by many Hungarian and European colleagues as a madman, even his enemies could manage that he was lured and closed in a mental hospital in Vienna where he was beaten by the male nurses and guards that he died in two weeks. He became actually a martyr of medical science.
What about similar cases in your country or elsewhere?
Dear András
An interesting and valuable question.
My immediate reaction is of course to say yes!! What terrible obstruction to science all these events were!
But think about it - they are now part of the bread and butter of teaching at both secondary and tertiary educational levels. So, when we talk about the "obstruction", it is clearly not an insurmountable one for the concept, although the associated human tragedy can be enormous.
Also, what about the "great discoveries" or theories that turned out to be bunk (the phlogiston theory, and spontaneous generation come to mind) or even fraudulent (e.g the donation of Constance, Piltdown man).
We tend to remember the outrageous theories that turned out to be true and the accepted theories that turned out to be false. We live amongst the humdrum acceptable true theories and forget the rejected false theories.
At the centre of all this is confirmation bias.
We have a tendency to quietly accept all reasonably sounding results that fit into our world view. This is the greater danger to contemporary science in my view. While in the past new ideas were judged "heretical" or "unsoviet" or "not the way a gentleman should behave, woof woof", today the most outrageous proposition gets air time, and chance to be considered. Its the findings that aren't outrageous (or at least not unexpected) that worry me.
Other dangers that are of greater concern (some are hypothetical ;-)):
1. multi-national pharmaceutical funding of drug trials, particularly of the "non-inferiority" variety
2. university competition to be in the "top x % of research institutions in the world"
3. "publish or perish"
4. that Human Resources is the only department to have expanded in your university in the last 15 years
5. HR director that decides to blow thousands of dollars of university funds on an interdepartmental retreat to define what it is to be an "academic clinician", presumably because he doesn't know and considers it undignified to ask one of his staff.
Dear András: Thanks for sharing this question with me. In my opinion, the worst obstacles to scientific progress are ignorance, uncontrolled ambition, and greed, but sincerely I do not know exactly the ordering. Unfortunately, it looks that there are several (many) bad examples.
Dear António,
Thanks for your comment. Actually, I have meant obstacles in the scientific community that is inner circle barriers.
Dear Cecilia,
These are really “fine” examples of scientific barriers. The negation of evolution is widely known even it became quasi-official policy in some countries.
Dear András and RG felloes,
In my country (Italy) the most famous case is that of Galileo Galilei. Because of his eliocentric theory he was comdamned by the church and practically restrained not to leave his house in Arcetri (Florence).
Goid night and golden dreams
Ting Fa Marg
This is a very good question with many possible answers, depending on the local circumstances.
The short answer is: A good scientist is by nature just a wee bit skeptical about reported results that either bypass or that appear to contradict what has already been found. Without this scepticism, where would we be? Being skeptical about seemingly absurd claims is quite natural and definitely a good thing. This is especially true of new theories or new results that demonstrate something quite different from what is considered the norm.
Dear Andras,
Very good question. Indeed it is the history of science and scientists to reject things that are new to it and new to them respectively. There were scientists who were given bad names as a living evil, bad, etc, because they had a new perspective and new understanding and out of the existing space of scientific discourse. Mathematician Georg Cantor was among the many people who suffered humiliation and not only rejection but abuse and name calling from colleagues, who died presumably from mental illness because of that.
The dislike by the prominent mathematics faculty members was because of his outlandish idea about indefiniteness and their many types, which were completely beyond the traditions of the then existing and practiced mathematics.
Dear Andras,
Thanks for the question and the very interesting example which I hadn't ever heard about.
I don't remeber such a case in my country, but we have a whole set of such reflexions in modern Physics, since, after Einstein and Feynman, almost the majority of Physicists tend to believe that we have reached the 'End of Physics' (aka The End of History. Francis Fukuyama (1992)).
Of course lab experiments and nature observations do not agree with theoretical predictions, but this 'is being fixed' by using several tricks...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
Dear Jim,
To be sceptical towards his own results is natural mainly in the beginning of the investigations. In the case of Semmelweis and other model situations like that of Galilei the results were proven often even statistically proven. My trouble is that what kind of thinking inability – or mass psychosis – was necessary that scientists ignored results, facts even elementary rules of their profession in order to suit the mainstream idea.
Dear András
An interesting and valuable question.
My immediate reaction is of course to say yes!! What terrible obstruction to science all these events were!
But think about it - they are now part of the bread and butter of teaching at both secondary and tertiary educational levels. So, when we talk about the "obstruction", it is clearly not an insurmountable one for the concept, although the associated human tragedy can be enormous.
Also, what about the "great discoveries" or theories that turned out to be bunk (the phlogiston theory, and spontaneous generation come to mind) or even fraudulent (e.g the donation of Constance, Piltdown man).
We tend to remember the outrageous theories that turned out to be true and the accepted theories that turned out to be false. We live amongst the humdrum acceptable true theories and forget the rejected false theories.
At the centre of all this is confirmation bias.
We have a tendency to quietly accept all reasonably sounding results that fit into our world view. This is the greater danger to contemporary science in my view. While in the past new ideas were judged "heretical" or "unsoviet" or "not the way a gentleman should behave, woof woof", today the most outrageous proposition gets air time, and chance to be considered. Its the findings that aren't outrageous (or at least not unexpected) that worry me.
Other dangers that are of greater concern (some are hypothetical ;-)):
1. multi-national pharmaceutical funding of drug trials, particularly of the "non-inferiority" variety
2. university competition to be in the "top x % of research institutions in the world"
3. "publish or perish"
4. that Human Resources is the only department to have expanded in your university in the last 15 years
5. HR director that decides to blow thousands of dollars of university funds on an interdepartmental retreat to define what it is to be an "academic clinician", presumably because he doesn't know and considers it undignified to ask one of his staff.
Dear Christopher,
Thanks for widening the subjects of scientific obstructions. You pointed true to the contradiction that discoveries and inventions at last have found their merited place in the structure of science but the inventors’ tragedy remained an unchangeable personnel fate. Regarding discussion opportunities on outrageous theories and subjects, this phenomenon can be characteristic only for some parts of the world. Where I live similar subjects – even those with reasonable possibility to be acceptable – cannot appear on the agenda. As to your other propositions of concern, 2,3,4,5 points are real troubles. Points 4 and 5 clearly show how the splendour of HR departments at some universities.
Dear Iolanda,
I stressed cases on rejection of really merited discoveries/inventions that later were proven right and true. The expressions "misunderstood geniuses" or "inventors" are used subjectively and often belong to the second category of scientific myths.
Dear Andras
Thank you for this discussion and all the information. At the same time I greatly appreciate the contribution of christ R - it took several readings to understand the implications. Yet it surprises me to know that you are unhappy about the environment you live in. If that is the case may be you will feel better to know the it is better to face criticism rather than ignorance. How would an hungarian mathematician feel with a somalian dictator. Much of the rest of the world lives in scientific darkness. However, I feel it is not so bad. Today we have many places to contribute and consult. It is only when we wait for somebody to give a recognition , does this feeling become painful and an obstacle. May be because you are so close to sweden that you think of recognition. I would rather suggest - that to continue to work if we are convinced maybe more productive and satisfying. As for me 'Semmelweis reflex' was always there and will continue to be there and it can never be an obstacle to true science.
Dear Pratyush,
Thanks for your comment. Criticism is no problem. Criticism is natural. Criticism is a necessary factor of progression. What I do not like are the injustice, ignorance and unnecessary waste of human time and energy. I would like you to visit some countries in East-Europe. Direct experiences matter and not some chatting phrases in a forum. As to the Somalian dictator, everybody should tolerate his/her dictator or political leaders. Situations are difficult to compare with each other and relativism of not connected phenomena is often not appropriate. I do not understand what wanted you express with mentioning Sweden? Regarding the negative effects of the Semmelweis reflex, I consider it wrong for both, the community and the individual.
The story of the advance of science is certainly so, dear András. That is, indeed, the case in m cow try, too.
However, I'd like to mention one more issue. The "fathers" of science in Colombia were measured with rather qualitative standards. My own generation, however, does play a different game, for we are being measured quantitatively. The h-index is but one good example. I am sure such is the situation in other countries, as well.
I work on non-classical logics (NCL) as one of my fields of interest. In NCL, the circumstance is known as the monotonicity versus non-monotonicity logics. Non-monotonic logics are the ones that learn and where new information modifies previous acquired information. Classical logic is monotonic. NCL are non-monotonic.
Dear András,
Yes, I see what you mean. Many thanks for your observations.
Dear Pratyush
I am not unhappy with the environment in which I live, and it was not my intention to give that impression. My post should have been more about the caution we should take in our interpretation of scientific publications and at the same time as not being too ready to resist findings that conflict with our world view, we should also be very circumspect about findings that appear to confirm that view. The rather flippant and hypothetical examples I gave were to exemplify the daily distractions and possible conflicts of interest we have to deal with that , while far from making us unhappy, perhaps prevent our achieving ataraxia!
The issues of competition either on a personal (publish or perish), institutional (rankings) or commercial (pharmaceutical) level are ones to which we need to be particularly sensitive. For example, I insist that my Masters students always include in the publication's "conflict of interest statement" that the work was in fulfilment of University degree requirements. For several years now, the first section of a paper that I read is the conflict of interests statement. There are aspects of scientific publication that inevitably lead to personal "rewards" for the authors.
I must apologise for insensitivity in my implied assumption that religious and political censorship of ideas are things of the past. For some among the scientific/academic community they are still a reality. The free exchange of ideas afforded by vehicles such as the internet can mislead those of us who are privileged by freedom of speech to assume that all are so empowered.
- Badges
- Science topic