Art
Simply put, science is the pursuit and application of knowledge, and art is the expression or application of creative skill and imagination. So which, then, is medicine?
Ronald Munson begins by stating that “although medicine is scientific, it is not and can not become a science.” Forty years after that was written, it is still a debate which many people are not even aware is being debated.
Medicine differs from other scientific disciplines in that it is generally accepted to be open to interpretation. We do not seek a fact from our GPs, we ask for their opinion and potentially a second opinion if we are not happy with the first. A human body is a complex living system and no two are the same. A mathematician, on the other hand, will calculate a result which is not generally open to interpretation. Mathematics is classified as an ‘exact science’, which also includes astronomy and physics. ‘Fundamental science’ explores new and existing theories to better understand them. This then is followed by ‘applied science’ which is the practical application of science. To determine where medicine is classified, we need to use demarcation to distinguish between sciences, such as physics and mathematics, and non-sciences, such as history and art.
Doctors use the practical application of science, however, as Ronald Munson states, “the aim of medicine is to promote health through the prevention and treatment of disease, while the aim of science is to acquire knowledge”. When we seek a diagnosis from a doctor, we are, as Gavin Francis says, “still going to have to find someone you can trust.” He goes on to say that a diagnosis is not entirely determined in what a patient says, but in interpreting what they are not saying. “[T]here remains as much poetry in medicine as there is science.”
It may then be a question which determines how, or even if, we recover from illness. There isn’t any one way to treat a patient as everyone is different: they present different symptoms, for different illnesses, at different times. “[I]t’s simply a matter of each doctor finding their own best solution for the patient’s needs.” Like an artist who has experience, familiarity, and a preference for a particular tool, a doctor’s solution is likely based on their experience, familiarity with certain forms of treatment, and their preference for a method of care.
A doctor without familiarity or without experience in recommending a plant-based diet is unlikely to even be aware of the benefits of this course of treatment or prevention. The level of basic nutrition training of medical students in Australia is limited, and could be as little as only a few hours over the course of their education. However, doctors routinely include nutritional advice in their patient solutions, often recommending animal products which, even if they may briefly alleviate the current illness, will certainly lead to other and more significant illnesses. This is more similar to an artist painting with a toxic spray can when all they have had experience with is a pencil, than it is to a scientist using a tool they are trained and experienced with.
Animal research is solidly on the side of art if we are to consider that the results are almost always open to interpretation. It isn’t possible to know the pain level of an animal, it is isn’t possible to know if a toxicity test will replicate in humans, it isn’t even possible to to determine if two humans will react in the same way to the same medication or substance.
So are the results of animal research projects more likely to be an interpretation? How, then, can the use of animals ever be justified if their use cannot lead to replicable or more certain results for humans?
In medical research, results of studies are open to interpretation and in fact it has been found that biologists will reach different conclusions from the same data set. And, researchers often create multiple publications based on the same data set, each time finding a different aspect with which to report on the findings. The results are not necessarily incorrect, they just display a perfect example of creativity, not exactitude. Art, not science.
