IIT-Madras Director V Kamakoti's remark exaggerated preliminary results from a single experiment to fit a narrative that furthers a political agenda
The recent controversial remark by IIT-Madras Director V Kamakoti, endorsing the “medicinal value” of cow urine (gomutra), highlights yet again the abuse of positions of scientific leadership for the broadcast of obscurantist messages that are an affront to evidence-based science.
Kamakoti claimed that gomutra cures infections, that it has anti-inflammatory properties, and is anti-bacterial and anti-fungal. In support of his claims, he offered five research papers, one of them published in Scientific Reports, a journal belonging to the Nature portfolio.
How does the “evidence” he has cited stack up against his over-the-top claims?
About the paper
The paper, titled “Peptide profiling in cow urine reveals molecular signature of physiology-driven pathways and in-silico predicted bioactive properties”, analysed peptides in cow urine.
Peptides are a short chain of amino acids, which act as the building blocks of proteins. Just like proteins, peptides also perform various functions such as healing wounds, sending signals between cells, fighting against bacteria etc.
In this study, the peptides in cow urine were extracted, analysed and classified into groups according to their probable anti-microbial, anti-inflammatory, anti-hypertensive, and anti-cancerous properties.
The study identified 551 peptides in cow urine with probable anti-microbial properties.
Also read | Zoho CEO backs IIT Madras director on his 'gomutra' remark amid backlash
Predictive, probabilistic
The reason for terming them “probable” is because the classification was generated by in-silico analysis. In-silico analysis is when we use computers to search through existing knowledge and make predictions based on the projections.
Say, we want to know what drug might be used against a new disease. We can use a computer to search through existing knowledge of drugs and diseases to come up with a list of probable candidate drugs that might work against the disease.
However, it is predictive and ‘probabilistic’ because such a study estimates the likelihood of something happening based on models, patterns, and data.
Once there is a predicted list, the scientist then performs real experiments to validate the prediction. This is first done in vitro, that is, outside cells, and, after that, within cells that is, in vivo.
Also read: Rows erupt as 'Garbhavigyan', ‘gomutra’ mentions crop up at IITs
Thereafter, tests are performed on whole live subjects, based on the findings along the way. Scientists do not straightaway jump to experimenting with a whole live subject such as an animal or human.
The experiment
Now, it turns out that this study conducted just one experiment to validate the predicted antimicrobial effects of the peptides in cow urine in vitro. The antimicrobial effects on two bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, were assessed.
This is of obvious public interest because these bacteria are known to infect humans; if the peptides act against these bacteria, there would be obvious benefits.
How was this experiment conducted? By using something called a disc diffusion method. A dish is filled with a jelly-like material (called agar) that helps bacteria grow and spread with the bacteria that scientists want to test.
Then small paper discs are soaked in the substance (like a drug/peptide, etc.) to be tested. The paper discs are then placed in the agar dish. The dish is then left at a temperature that is conducive for the growth of the bacteria.
If the substance on the disc can kill or stop the bacteria from growing, the region around the disc appears clear, as bacteria don’t grow there, forming a clear ring-like zone around the disc called the “zone of inhibition”.
Also read | ‘Science illiterate boomer uncle’: The Liver Doc slams Zoho CEO Vembu for cow urine claims
The rest of the dish, in regions away from the disc, and outside the clear ring-like zone, looks grainy, as bacteria grows there. The size of the clear zone is measured; a larger clear zone usually means the substance is more effective in impeding bacterial growth.
Abnormal findings
In this study, the researchers tested cow urine peptide extract versus BSA (Bovine serum albumin, a protein in cow blood) for the two bacteria in the dish. BSA was used as a negative control in the experiment as it is known to not have antimicrobial effects.
They found that the peptide extract caused a zone of inhibition formation in both cases, whereas BSA did not. They measured a mean inhibition zone of 1.22±0.11(SD) cm; SEM: ±0.03cm on E coli and a mean inhibition zone of 1.22±0.10 (SD) cm; SEM: ±0.03cm) on S aureus.
The exactly similar measurements in the two cases is rather suspicious because it is completely uncharacteristic in biological experiments; usually, one sees a degree of variability in such experiments, as to be expected from experiments involving live microorganisms, albeit controlled environments.
Further, E coli is a gram-negative bacteria and S aureus is a gram-positive bacteria. They have different growth rates, the former generally growing faster; they also have different outer membrane structures, factors that are likely to influence the final inhibition zone sizes.
An exact match in zone size is not just unrealistic but highly improbable.
Also read: How to treat coronavirus? Try cow urine, suggests Assam's BJP legislator
No positive control
Significantly, no positive control was used in the experiment to compare the extent of antimicrobial activity against a known standard.
The study also does not provide any follow-up experiments providing quantitative insights, which are relatively easy to perform.
For example, measuring Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC), i.e., evaluating the lowest concentration of the substance needed to inhibit bacterial growth or Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC), enables researchers to determine if the substance only inhibits or actually kills bacteria, which is critical for validating its use as an antibacterial agent.
Interpreting dubious science
Now the question: does this one experiment translate to “drink cow urine to cure bacterial infection in the human body”? The answer is NO.
Here is why: Declaring a substance as a cure for bacterial infections based on just one disc diffusion experiment is scientifically incorrect and seriously risky. This is because this single test only provides a tiny part of the big picture. For instance, something that kills bacteria in a dish might harm human cells, too.
Also read | ‘Left liberal’: Sridhar Vembu hits back at Liver Doc over ‘gomutra’ debate
Also, we need to know whether the substance breaks down within the human body, or how long it stays active in order to act efficiently.
Many other aspects like these need to be looked at before making a strong claim about cow urine being used as an antibiotic cure agent.
More problems in store?
Crucially, does the ‘cure’ actually end up causing more problems? Related to this is the obvious question of what effect gomutra’s many other constituents have on the human body.
The human body is far more complicated than a dish in the lab. Various physiological factors like immune response, blood circulation, metabolism, and tissue environment can affect how well a peptide (or indeed, any substance) works inside the body.
The result from a single experiment is grossly inadequate to confirm the usage of cow urine peptide extract as an antibiotic. Scientists need to repeat the test under different conditions, with many more controls and study the peptides in more advanced systems, like animal models, before considering it for humans.
'Science' for propaganda
Developing a drug takes years of rigorous research and testing. After initial experiments in the lab, a potential drug candidate must pass through multiple stages, including animal studies and clinical trials on humans, to ensure that it is safe, effective, and meets strict regulatory standards.
According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a drug discovery pipeline takes at least 12 years on average. Cutting corners, and abandoning the backup of reproducible and verified scientific evidence, is dangerous from a public health standpoint.
It is indeed unfortunate that selective scientific findings or preliminary results from a single experiment have been exaggerated to fit a narrative that furthers a political agenda.
What is even more surprising and perhaps alarming in this case is that the director of an eminent academic institution like IIT-Madras indulged in such conduct. This not only undermines the credibility of science but also manipulates public perception.
Public trust
Furthermore, it diminishes public trust in science and the scientific method. Such misrepresentation and provocative public communication of science with the obvious intent of political gain also potentially diverts resources, which are already scarce, from genuine research.
The wretched case of ‘Coronil’, lauded as a wonder drug during the COVID pandemic by those in authority, which proved to be nothing but a fraud, comes to mind.
Indeed, those holding leading positions in public scientific and research institutions should be held to the high scientific standards that they ought to uphold instead of providing a cover for the loud and aggressive voices of unreason.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
