In 2005, writer Mark Leyner and doctor Billy Goldberg published ‘Why do men have nipples?‘, a hilarious popular science book in which they answered very crazy questions: from the reason why hair comes out of our ears to the physiological reasons why asparagus perfumes our pee. However, they were not able to answer a key question: where did the fluff of the navel?
Four years later, Georg Steinhauser wanted share your answer with the world. According to him, navel lint was mainly related to abdominal hair. According to him, the hair collected the fibers from the clothing and directed them to the navel. He did experiments for three years removing breasts to see the differences! But no one wanted to publish it.
Nobody? No! A magazine populated by irreducible mad scientists still resists, as always, the most basic control practices of contemporary scientific publication. Welcome to the world of ‘Medical Hypothesis‘.
Against the “gentrification” of science
In recent years, “evidence-based” things They have enjoyed unprecedented fame. From politics to medicine, thousands of professionals have turned to science in search of solutions to respond to the problems of an increasingly complex society.
However, all that glittered was not gold: again and again We have once again reflected on one of the blind spots of the approachthat science is, by nature, conservative. Not in a political sense, but in an epistemological sense. That is, we know better what we have; but when what we have doesn’t work, it’s a problem.
A problem because, without resources to investigate new optionsare forced to implement interventions that do not work, leaving many professionals with their hands tied. For good reasons, yes. But with his hands tied. It is not strange, of course, that there are people who want more diversity. This is the case of ‘Medical Hypotheses‘, the most WTF science magazine of the last 40 years.
‘Medical Hypotheses’ was founded by the physiologist David Horrobin who directed it until his death in 2003. Horrobin, who was already himself a controversial figure (the British Medical Journal defined as one of the greatest “snake oil salesmen of his time”), made a magazine in his image and likeness.
Fun, refreshing and dangerous
In theory, the idea was to build a respectable forum to debate unconventional ideas unconstrained by current scientific publishing standards as a way to boost the diversity threatened by academic monoculture. ‘Medical hypotheses’ wanted to be a place to bring intuitions, extravagant ideas and crazy theories. In a world like the scientific one full of certainties and phrases in the present indicative, Horrobin’s magazine was all the y-sis and conditionals.
That makes it a profound magazine. fun and refreshingbut it also does a bomb box. You can also read a study that relates heels with schizophrenia that one about the similarities between people with Down syndrome and Asians. These days, without going any further, a study is circulating in tabloids around the world about If we can abandon ourselves so much that we end up dying due to pure psychology.
For years, the world was a party in ‘Medical Hypotheses’. In the first issues, pioneers from some of the most developing fields of the time wrote. But its main asset is also its main problem. It is a magazine that requires a very skilled editor to be able to navigate controversial terrain without publishing malicious and even dangerous work.
The end of the party
When Horrobin died in 2003, he was replaced by Bruce G. Charlton. Horrobin had written down that he was the only person he truly trusted to continue his work. At the end of 2009, an article in which he stated that “there was no evidence that HIV caused AIDS” was published in the magazine. The party was over.
The paper had been rejected in all research area publications until it ended up in ‘Medical Hypotheses’. He scandal It was capital and Elsevier, owner and publisher of the magazine, fired Charlton a few months later.
Furthermore, in an attempt to contain the damage, Elsevier introduced a review system halfway between the original system and the peer review of traditional publications. That clearly went against the magazine’s reason for being and Hundreds of researchers protested against the decision.
‘Medical Hypotheses’ is, in some ways, a symbol of the risky, indomitable and (often) reckless science that we still need, but it no longer plays a central role in public debate. Today, the preprints (and the repositories that store these open drafts — with arXiv.org at the head) fulfill that function. A function that, despite making our lives difficult, is best never missed.
In Xataka | This frog is so photogenic that it is now on the verge of extinction
Image | Pexels
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings