Rapid Responses to:

EDITOR'S CHOICE: Kamran Abbasi Is it better to be smart or stupid? BMJ 2004; 329: 0-h [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Smart and Stupid :Conditioned and Unconditioned :

Dr.Bhalendu Vaishnav, Dr.Smruti B. Vaishnav, Department of Obst. and Gynecology,P.S.Medical College.   (24 September 2004)

What's the difference?

Harvey P Gamble   (24 September 2004)

Interesting research and clinical relevance

Panuwat Lertsithichai   (27 September 2004)

Medical research goes to the dogs

Shyam s kothari kothari   (27 September 2004)

Smart and Stupid :Conditioned and Unconditioned : 24 September 2004
Dr.Bhalendu Vaishnav, Addl. Professor,Department of Medicine,P.S.Medical College H.M.Patel Center of Medical Care and Education,Karamsad,Gujarat. INDIA .PIN 3883325, Dr.Smruti B. Vaishnav, Department of Obst. and Gynecology,P.S.Medical College. Send response to journal: Re: Smart and Stupid :Conditioned and Unconditioned :	The stupidity of beetles and bacteria provides them with an advantage over the intelligent human species......Why ? Because they are ,although primitive,still unconditioned. All the material world is manifestation of energy (e=(mc)2.) This energy ,better called 'Consciousness' is more evolved and specialised in the humans, but it is also more conditioned in them. This conditioning provides the human beings with an identity. At the same time, it limits the potentiality of expression of the Force of Consciousness. In contrast, the bacteria and other lower species have no sense of identity and therefore they are more in an unconditioned or egoless state. They have no preference to kill ,no will to kill and are living their life quite true to their nature. In a sense it is like water in an ocean and water in a pot. The drop of water in the ocean has no identity of its own but yet is representative of the whole ocean. The water in the pot has its own identity but the very same identity limits its confines. The real advantage which the humans have is their capacity to willfully exceed themselves through sustained efforts towards 'growth of consciousness'. This would enable them to grow in oneness with the source of energy; to become the vehicles of consciousness rather than the possessors of the consciousness. Competing interests: None declared
What's the difference? 24 September 2004
Harvey P Gamble, Specialist Registrar Health Protection Agency Send response to journal: Re: What's the difference?	This reminds me of the book called 'Elephant Elements' (can't remember the authors' names). This book is apparently for children. It uses pictures of elephants to illustrate opposites. For 'intelligent' and 'stupid' there is no perceptible difference in appearance between the two elephants. Competing interests: None declared
Interesting research and clinical relevance 27 September 2004
Panuwat Lertsithichai, Assitant Professor of Surgery Ramathibodi Hospital & Medical School, Bangkok, 10400 Send response to journal: Re: Interesting research and clinical relevance	I fully approve of publishing articles such as that of Willis et al. in major medical journals. I don't think anyone will deny that the work is interesting, even if the direct clinical relevance or applicability of the work is not yet clear. Interesting work (even with some elements of humour) should sometimes be encouraged for its own sake. The publication of this type of research will stimulate clinicians to look beyond conventional ideas and examine common, unexplained observations and anecdotal reports which may be of importance when examined in greater detail. I have a strong feeling that, in this age where any proper research must undergo "ethical" review, the proposal for this study may not pass the scrutiny of peer review or ethics committee in some institutions! The acceptance and recognition of this work by a major medical publication should help in pushing through unconventional but interesting ideas, even if direct clinical relevance is not yet in sight. Competing interests: None declared
Medical research goes to the dogs 27 September 2004
Shyam s kothari kothari, professor All India Institute of medical sciences, newdelhi,110029 Send response to journal: Re: Medical research goes to the dogs	That dogs possess a keen sense of smell hardly require an evidence based support,but precisely such an effort finds favour with the editors` choice as well is amusing.It is perhaps a reflection of the respect new ideas generate amongst the scientific community-there are so few of them now-a days.But it is also a reflection of the fact that today`s medical mind is rather preoccupied with statistical jargon(41% Vs 14%),restless activism,and freedom to explore. A similar study testing the fact that canines can actually see angels of death (a notion prevalent in some parts of the world)would generate ,in all probabilities, similar results, and would also help in bridging gap between different view points.Alas, in this era of evidence based medicine,this has to be shown- but who will fund such a study? Competing interests: None declared