A two-box option.

Your ‘Out of the Box’ columnist (Cannon, 2005) says he is unconfined, and hence able to commend the aphorism of the Tao Te Ching: ‘Be really whole, and all things will come to you’. I have no idea what this aphorism means. If it means anything, I doubt if it can be proved to be true or untrue, so I am not very interested in it. Is it wise for nutritionists to dispense with boxes entirely if, like me, they have average intellects and want to do research? Some mega-intellects like Peter Medawar did important research in many different fields, but some are like Bobby Fischer, who was a chess genius but an under-achiever in virtually every other field. Researchers try to solve important problems: there are no brownie points given to those who ask unanswerable questions (Medawar, 1967, p. 7) or to the seventh person to proclaim an important new truth. Therefore the researcher with mediocre intellect can only compete effectively in the battle against ignorance by restricting his field of enquiry. I commend a two-box strategy for the intellectually challenged. Take the first paper I had published in an international journal (Garrow and Piper, 1955). I am a very mediocre biochemist, and a barely literate electronic engineer, but at the time (50 years ago) I knew more about radiation detectors than the average biochemist, and more about the effects of malnutrition than the average electronic engineer; so by working in the tiny (virtually unpopulated) box where these two disciplines overlap I was able to get (temporarily) ahead in this field of expertise. Using the tool thus developed I was later able to report my results in a prestigious journal (Garrow, 1959). Your columnist Geoffrey Cannon disparages facts and extols thought, but thought that does not lead to some action (such as establishing reliable facts) is notoriously ineffective (Matthew). Tyro researchers may find, as I did, that the best opportunity for research is to be found by working at the intersection of two (or even three) disparate boxes, rather than by scanning the universe and everything. I mention this as a constructive criticism of the proposed ‘new nutrition science’ (my emphasis) (Cannon, 2005). The 10 dimensions listed, such as evolution, environment, ethics, are certainly relevant to nutrition, and extend beyond the biochemical frame established 150 years ago – I would be happy to describe it as a new nutrition philosophy. But I expect any new science to deal with problems that are soluble, as Medawar requires. The term ‘science’ should not be hijacked for a non-scientific approach. In his column Geoffrey Cannon also alludes to methods of referencing, including of books. Authors supply bibliographic references at the end of scientific papers for several reasons – some good, and some not so good. Good reasons include: