lence and Nonscience: The Essential Dilferences 33 using far less invasive techn
ID: 1655275 • Letter: L
Question
lence and Nonscience: The Essential Dilferences 33 using far less invasive techniques, the women in Division 1 assisted by experienced Viruses and bacteria were unknown in the 1840s. Surgical instruments were not sterilized, no special effort was made by doctors to clean their hands, and doctors did not wear gloves during operations and autopsies Supposing that there was something bad in dead bodies and this something had entered Semmelweis's friend's system through his wound- could the same bad "stuff" (Semmelweis called it "cadaveric material") get onto hands of the physicians and medical students, who then might, without washing, go on to help a woman give birth? Then, if this cadaveric mate rial were transmitted into the woman's body during the birth of her baby, it might lead to her death. were attended to by medical students being trained in obstetrics. Perhaps all of the additional poking and prodding conducted during this training was harmful and contributed to the higher death rate of women in Division1 These induced hypotheses all sounded good. Each marked a genuine dif- ference between Divisions 1 and 2 that might have caused the difference in the death rate. Semmelweis was doing what most scientists do in such a situation; he was relying on creativity and imagination in seeking out an This possibility inspired Semmelweis's final hypothesis: The presence of physicians and medical students in Division 1 was at the root of the mystery. Students who attended the women in Division 1 regularly conducted auto sies as part of their training and so would be in contact with dead bodies on e same days they were assisting women giving birth. Furthermore, physi cians would frequently perform autopsies on the bodies of women who had already died of childbed fever, often going directly from the autopsy room to the birthing rooms to assist other women giving birth. Herein was a grimly ironic twist to this new hypothesis; the attempt by physicians to solve the mystery of childbed fever by performing autopsies on its victims was one of ation. Creativity and imagination are just as important to science as good ex observation. But being creative and imaginative was not enough. It did not help the women who were still dying at an alarming rate. Semmelweis had to go beyond producing possible explanations; he had to test each one of them. So, he deduced the necessary implications of each: 1. If hypothesis 1 were correct, then alleviating the crowding in Division 1 should reduce the mortality rate. The result: no change. So the first hypothesis was rejected. It had failed the scientific test;it did not explainthe most important factors in transmitting the disease to additional women the difference in mortality rates and it simply could not be correct. To test this hypothesis, Semmelweis instituted new policies in Division 1, including the requirement that all attending physicians and students cleanse their hands with chlorinated lime, a bleaching agent, before entering. The result: the death rates in both divisions dropped (see Table 2.2). Division 2, always the safer one, came down from a rate of 200 to a rate of 130 maternal deaths for every 10,000 births. Division 1 declined far more dramatically, from the previously cited maternal death rate of 2,000 to a rate of 120 per 10,000 births. Semmelweis had both solved a m and halted an epidemic. 2. Semmelweis went on to test hypothesis 2 by changing the birth posi tions of the women in Division 1 to match those of the women in Division 2. Again, there was no change, and another hypothesis was rejected. 3. Next, to test hypothesis 3, the priest was rerouted. Women in Division 1 continued to die of childbed fever at about five times the rate of those in Division 2. This hypothesis was also rejected. 4. To test hypothesis 4, it was decided to limit the number of invasive procedures used on the women to train the students in their examina- tion techniques. The statistics showed that this had no impact on the death rate in Division 1; 10 or 11 percent of the women continued to die even when fewer students were allowed to examine them internally Science and Nonscience: The Essential Differences luck. An acquaintance-also a doctor- died, and the manner of his death provided Semmelweis with another possible explanation for the problem in Division 1. Though Semmelweis's friend was not a woman who had recently given birth, he did have precisely the same symptoms as did the women who were dying of childbed fever. Most important, this doctor had died of a disease similar to childbed fever soon after accidentally cutting himself dur- ing an autopsy Through objective observation and analysis, a scientist, whether a physi- cist, chemist, biologist, psychologist, or archaeologist, sees things that need explaining. Through creativity and imagination, the scientist suggests pos- sible hypotheses to explain these "mysteries." The scientist then sets up a rigorous method through experimentation or subsequent research to deduc- tively test the validity of a given hypothesis. If the implications of a hypoth- esis are shown not to be true, the hypothesis must be rejected and then it's back to the drawing board. If the implications are found to be true, we Then, as so often happens in science, Semmelweis had a stroke of uphold or support our hypothesis.Explanation / Answer
In Science the way to truth is always through experimentation.NO matter how much the theory is fantastic if it is not supported by the experimental results it has to be rejected ruthlessly.
Semmelweis had 4 hypothesis but they were not supported by experimental results.But he suddenly saw one of his male friend doctor die of the same childbed fever after cutting himself while performing an autopsy.So Semmelweis deduced that this childbed fever is transmitted through the infected hands of the doctors who are performing autopsy and then coming to help deliver babies.Then he tested his hypothesis by instructing a group of doctors to wash their hands with chlorinated lime after they have performed autopsy.This had a drastic result in reducing the mortality rate of the mothers dying of childbed fever.
So a Scientist has to observe very carefully and deduce his hypothesis based on them.Most importantly he has to support his hypothesis by experimental results.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.