This need was felt as way back as 1990-1992 by two leading researchers / scientists, one of whom was the then Chief-Editor for the journal Headache.

As is very common in human endeavour, nobody wants to acknowledge error or going up the wrong road or the wrong tree, whether it is a military or civil matter, legal or non-legal, within or outside marriage or live-in or teen-crush... The best that might come through is settlement with a large wad of cash, as is common with the Industry, without admitting to anything. Acknowledging error is fatal to the the ego of the individual, the Organisation, or the Country or The World, as we know it.. Equally appropriate is the fact that scientific or any other wisdom will not slide into your own persona unless you make space for it by shedding your ego, your extant understanding, and your shame.

Well, scientific research is a bit different. It requires you to be honest, it is frustating (Jerome P. Kassirer, N Engl J Med 1993, 328: 1634-1636), it requires a clearly preconceived idea (Claude Bernard (mid-1800s), careful phrasing of the research question (Medawar, 1979), no divorce from logic (Popper), academic freedom and integrity (Lancet 342 (8879): 1993:1063-1064), BMJ 306, 17th April, 1076), freedom to pursue truth without regard to cost or immediate utility (James McCormick)...

Nothing like this has been done for migraine research. All the moneys spent on research grants has produced scientific literature -- sideways progress, that I call lateral progress not lateral thinking -- but no advance in our comprehension of migraine as an entity. Such thinking creates foresight to see through the haze that envelops migraine research.  

But what is the truth? Data do not lie, but in the absence of an integrating theoretical matrix, they create several versions of the truth in true democratic fashion. Medicine and medical research, however, is not democratic -- ultimately, there is only version of the truth. Is it statistical or something that can gleaned with high-technology -- both having been applied freely without any restraint in migraine research, and, without any success.

Or is it jettisoning of the big ideas of the past that are now entrenched  and non-performing and are holding up progress (see attachment)?

Or is it imagination--that can, if applied properly, conquer all worlds (see attachment)? 

Or is it more reflection and contemplation ( a la Sir Francis Bacon: "...the human understanding, when it has once adopted an opinion...either neglects or despises or else by some distinction sets aside (...the contrary opinion)."

Or is it an act of creativity that is sustained over decades of hammering by new ideas and new evidences, and, simply keeps growing in scientific stature and in the underlying science (Rolex Awards, 1989)(see attachment)?

More Vinod Kumar Gupta's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions