My contention is that we do indeed have some science in the practice of medicine, but not anything like enough, and we have a great distance to go. Indeed, most of what is regarded as high science in medicine is actually a set of technologies for diagnostic precision--the CAT scan, NMR, and many exquisite refinements of our methods for detecting biochemical abnormalities of one sort or another. But these have not yet been matched by any comparable transformations in therapy. We are still confronted by the chronic disablements of an aging population, lacking any clear understanding of the mechanisms of these diseases--dementia, for instance, or diabetes or cirrhosis or arthritis or stroke and all the rest on a long list--and without knowing the underlying mechanisms we lack new therapeutic approaches.
To be sure, we do have some spectacular surgical achievements in the headlines--the transplantation of hearts, kidneys, livers, and the ...
