'If we don't reject Ramanujan's theorems...': Ex-CEA defends Kamakoti, questions Priyanka Gandhi

Former Chief Economic Adviser Krishnamurthy V Subramanian on Thursday mounted a fresh defence of IIT Madras Director V Kamakoti, saying scientific ideas should be judged by evidence rather than their origin. He questioned Congress leaders over criticism of research into cow urine after Priyanka Gandhi referred to the academic as a "cow urine expert."

In a detailed post on X, Subramanian said his earlier questions to Priyanka Gandhi, the Congress and Rahul Gandhi remained unanswered, arguing that the debate was about scientific methodology, not the truth of every claim rooted in tradition.

In January this year, Kamakoti spoke about the "medicinal value" of cow urine during an event at a Go Samrakshana Sala in Chennai on Maatu Pongal. He claimed cow urine had antibacterial, antifungal and digestive properties and narrated an anecdote about an ascetic whose fever subsided after consuming it.

Don't Miss: 'One of India's top tech brains': 215 academicians defend IIT Madras Director Kamakoti in letter to Priyanka Gandhi

He made those remarks while speaking on the role of indigenous cows in organic farming and agriculture. The comments had, however, triggered a political controversy. This resurfaced this week again after Priyanka Gandhi referred to Kamakoti as a "cow urine expert".

'IF WE DON'T REJECT RAMANUJAN...'

Drawing parallels from the history of science, Subramanian argued that the origin of an idea should not determine whether it deserves scientific examination.

"If we do not reject Ramanujan's theorems because Devi came and gave them in his dreams, why should we reject a research question on Gomutra?" he asked.

He cited mathematician Srinivasa Ramanujan, who attributed many of his mathematical insights to Goddess Namagiri, and chemist August Kekulé, who said the structure of benzene came to him in a dream.

"Hardy did not ask where the ideas came from. He checked the mathematics. That was the only thing that mattered," Subramanian wrote, adding that "Origin carries no epistemic weight, neither negative nor positive."

Quoting philosopher of science Hans Reichenbach and philosopher Karl Popper, he said scientific hypotheses should be evaluated through evidence and testing rather than by their source.

He said Reichenbach, one of the founders of modern philosophy of science, drew the distinction that governs this debate in Experience and Prediction: "the context of discovery versus the context of justification. How an idea arises belongs to psychology, biography or history. Whether it is true is an entirely different question, answered only through evidence and testing."

Don't Miss: 'Most interesting intellectual cluster in India': Sanjeev Sanyal praises IIT Madras, Prof Kamakoti

'TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IS A SOURCE OF HYPOTHESES'

Subramanian argued that traditional knowledge has historically generated scientific breakthroughs, citing Nobel laureate Tu Youyou's discovery of artemisinin from an ancient Chinese medical text, as well as medicines derived from foxglove, willow bark and French lilac.

"Traditional knowledge is a source of hypotheses, not a substitute for evidence. The scientific method exists precisely to determine which hypotheses survive and which do not," he stated.

Referring specifically to cow urine research, Subramanian said there were already peer-reviewed studies examining its antimicrobial, antifungal, antidiabetic and agricultural applications.

"Whether one ultimately agrees with the findings is a matter for scientific debate. But once a hypothesis is being investigated through peer-reviewed experimental research, calling it 'unscientific' is simply incorrect."

'SCIENCE PROGRESSES BY TESTING HYPOTHESES'

Responding to criticism that Kamakoti, a computer scientist, was not qualified to comment on microbiology, Subramanian argued that while pharmacological conclusions should be left to specialists, researchers across disciplines are competent to discuss scientific methodology.

He also rejected the argument that the absence of an approved medicine invalidates a line of research, saying every approved drug began as a hypothesis under investigation.

"Science progresses by testing hypotheses, not by mocking them. Equally, science does not accept hypotheses because they are ancient, traditional, or culturally meaningful. It accepts or rejects them on the basis of evidence alone."

"That is the scientific temper I am defending," he added.

Kamakoti was named this week as one of the six members of the Centre's task force to reform the National Testing Agency (NTA).