IN one of Tan Sri P. Ramlee’s Do Re Mi trilogy, there is a take when the three heroes decide to go into the medicine-selling business.
They bottle some mud gathered from the drain, set up a makeshift stall and play a catchy tune that describes the “benefits” of the so-calledmedicine.
It is touted as a cure for a range of illnesses, from tuberculosis to influenza. Sure enough, for a while the “medicine” becomes a hit.
But lady luck does not smile on Do, Re and Mi for long. Soon, their pranks are discovered and, if not for running helter-skelter, it is possible they would have had their heads chopped off.
Ramlee was no ordinary filmmaker. He did not include a scene without a purpose. The medicine-peddling incident is very much part of our society, not only then but even now.
Basically there are two issues he was trying to highlight. First, when the going gets tough the bluff gets going.
Under pressure to earn an income or standing in society, people may lower their ethical threshold to a bare minimum. Some may forego morality altogether.
In the field of science, this is manifested in the way some scientists seek recognition for their work.
A person’s findings from extensive experimental work are normally either presented as “communications” to the scientific community at conferences, symposia, seminars and workshops, or submitted for publication in respectable journals with stringent peer and editorial reviews.
Either way one can be sure of a gruelling process of defending, verifying and validating one’s work. More often than not, at the insistence of the reviewers, certain experiments will need to be repeated, while others may be added on or extended to beef up the data.
Those who have made such presentations would have experienced the excruciating pain of seeing their work evaluated by some of their more illustrious colleagues.
Naturally, inter-institutional competition, professional rivalry and personal likes and dislikes may influence the decision to accept or reject a new finding.
But on the whole the system has withstood the test and is accepted as the best there is.
As for the researchers, despite the trauma they may endure in communicating their findings to the scientific fraternity, the reward is normally minimal.
Perhaps the biggest accomplishment is personal satisfaction, of having contributed a new idea to the development of science which, in the end will benefit society. Even then, true scientists should be humble in their submissions.
Although their findings could be substantiated by rigorous statistical methods, they would conclude their reports with expressions like “there is a 95 per cent probability that A and B are related”, or “there is a 99 per cent chance that A causes B to happen”.
Furthermore, as many of these studies are like little bricks in the great wall of scientific endeavour, they normally go unnoticed.
Only findings that catch public imagination will get media attention. Thus, what seems to be the discovery of obese, smart and infidelity genes would become an instant hit.
Similarly, research into artificial reproductive technologies such as test-tube babies and cloning easily get top billing. Also, purported remedies for sexual incapacity figure prominently in the news.
This in turn has given rise to yet another method of making one’s findings known to the world.
This is referred to within the scientific community as “publication by Press statement or conference”.
Most of the time the research findings make an immediate impression on the public. The researchers, too, tend to get media coverage and, for a while, bask in the limelight.
The ethics of “publication through the Press” have been extensively discussed among scientists. Many voice caution while some indicate apprehension.
The public must be informed of the quality and authenticity of claims made by scientists. The margins of error should be clearly spelt out.
In reporting medical breakthroughs, whether the research is based on allopathic, homeopathic, herbal or traditional medicine, the onus is on the researcher to ensure that the findings are based on solid studies through methodologies that involve flawless data acquisition techniques.
Clinical data, for example, is paramount in confirming not only the efficacy of a pharmaceutical preparation, but also its safety. Without this type of data, claims of the effectiveness of a product or treatment should be received with maximum scepticism.
The success of a drug or treatment based on subjective observations and personal experiences cannot be extrapolated to conclude anything else.
The second message that can be gleaned from the medicine-peddling episode in Do Re Mi is more worrying. Some people appear to be easily taken in by claims and labels.
Take anything, bottle or package it nicely, and put on a label that claims it as the quick and sure cure for whatever, be it AIDS or impotence or even mental inefficiency. Chances are someone will buy it.
Nowadays, claims and labels a la medicine-peddlers are not confined to the scientific community, but also prevail in certain religious groupings.
Things are conveniently labelled as Islamic or secular. Thus, knowledge may be secular or Islamic. Medicine, entertainment and many others, too, are naively categorised as secular or Islamic.
Never mind if such arbitrary compartmentalisation has hindered Islamic resurgence and renewal many times before. This group is insisting on re-enacting this hopeless and dangerous scenario.
Now, even political parties are not spared, so much so members of a particular party are pretty sure of their Islamic credentials simply because the name, or rather label, implies it.
Again, there are people who readily accept this. Sadly, once these labels are imprinted in their minds no amount of persuasion can make them see otherwise.
It never occurs to them that what is labelled as secular may not necessarily be so, while what is touted to be Islamic may well be contradicting the faith.
The message here is we should not take anything for granted. We should do all the thinking ourselves by referring to reliable sources and materials.
For Muslims, the Quran and practices of the Prophet Muhammad must be the most important sources. We should pray for God’s guidance.
In the meantime, labels and claims aimed at swaying our minds and thoughts must be put in their proper place, that is, the waste bin.