A case that biomedicine is unduly negative to radical hypotheses and to theorizing--evidence based on cardiology's reaction to the spasm of resistance vessel concept and on the nature of scientific research.

This communication will attempt to make a case that biomedicine is unduly negative to radical hypotheses and to theorizing. Evidence will be based on a proposed undue negativity by cardiology to a radical hypothesis I first described two and a half decades ago--the spasm of resistance vessel (S-RV) concept of ischemic heart disease (IHD). The theory is regarded as an alternate paradigm and deals with basic pathogenetic mechanisms of IHD, the most significant disorder of Western civilization. The concept, if valid, might help in reducing the impact of this disorder, and I believe that the evidence for the theory and the importance of IHD support a more open minded attitude toward the idea. Cardiology's negativity is attributed to the nature of research; the most important factor is considered to be the Kuhnian negativity of scientific communities to hypotheses which are destructive of conventional wisdom, and a second factor is the special nature of biomedical research. Biomedicine is regarded as special because a low level of specific information about complex biomedical processes has fostered an essentially total study-based approach. Such an approach is assumed to have resulted in biomedicine's use of induction as 'the' method of scientific inquiry, and prompted negativity towards the hypothetico-deductive method used to develop and test the theory. Also, the study-based nature of biomedicine appears to have fostered an intuitive reliance on only newly performed studies to test hypotheses, which led to ignoring evidence for the concept derived from known information about IHD. Biomedicine is also regarded as special because its infrequent use of paradigm-change has resulted in unfamiliarity with this method, and because the practical method of training in biomedical research has worsened the general unfamiliarity of scientists with theoretical aspects of science. Because of these factors, the S-RV concept has not yet been properly evaluated--a quarter of a century after it was first created.