Evaluating "Breakthroughs"
Every once in awhile, a newspaper or magazine article will announce that a particular scientist recently reported findings at a meeting or in a scientific journal that represents a potential "breakthrough" for people with SCI. The implication of the article often is that the results announced by this scientist will make paralysis due to SCI a thing of the past, or at the very least, will speed up the process of finding a cure. How is one to interpret these kinds of reports?

One important factor to keep under consideration is that the process of scientific investigations is a long and complicated one, with many basic questions still unanswered. A "breakthrough" re-gar-ding even one of the most basic biological questions discussed earlier certainly may represent an important step forward in one particular area of understanding, but many equally important fundamental questions about cell function still remain unanswered. The "breakthrough" in and of itself, therefore, is unlikely to lead to any significant advance in our understanding of the mechanisms that occur as a result of SCI, and certainly will not lead directly to a "cure."

A second factor to keep in mind is that science is not as definitive a discipline as most lay people would like to think. Even though one scientist may propose a particular theory about how the CNS works, and may indeed provide evidence to support that theory, it is extremely difficult to prove without a doubt that one's theory is completely correct. In fact, unproven theories may be presented, other scientists may agree with the interpretation of the data, yet eventually the theory will be proven to be completely incorrect.

In the medical field, for example, the practice of "bleeding" a patient was once used widely by physicians. Because the common belief was that "bleeding" was beneficial, doctors continued with the practice and interpreted the "data" to support the theory that "bleeding" was a good treatment. In other words, the eventual survival of some patients was attributed to good care, including "bleeding," while death was attributed to other factors.

In science, the same kind of thing can happen, but because of the lack of knowledge most of us have about basic science principles, and because of our intense desire to have answers that will lead to clinical advances, we are less aware and less willing to accept the lack of "hard data" to support various theories. Consequently, it is important to realize that a reported "breakthrough" may or may not represent an important step forward, and that time will be the best judge of its value.