Dr. Teezhinathan Kamakoti, director of IIT-Madras, is a respected computer scientist. He leads one of India’s most prestigious scientific institutions, known globally for excellence in technology and research. Yet, his recent statements have stirred an unexpected debate.
At a gathering organized by Go Samrakshana Sala in Chennai, Kamakoti shared his views on cow urine. He claimed it has medicinal properties, including potential cures for cancer and other chronic diseases. These remarks, made during a speech promoting indigenous cow breeds, sparked widespread discussions among the public and scientific communities.
Kamakoti’s love for indigenous cows, particularly breeds like Gir and Sahiwal, is deeply personal. However, his position as IIT director gives his words additional weight. Many believe his statements blurred the line between science and faith, raising concerns about their scientific validity.
Critics argue that public figures must base their claims on verified evidence. Endorsing unproven ideas, especially at forums linked to traditional beliefs, can confuse people and undermine scientific principles. Kamakoti’s words, they say, lend undue credibility to beliefs lacking rigorous research.
This isn’t the first time cow-related beliefs have sparked attention in India. In 2019, the government launched a project called the “National Cow Science Research Programme.” It funded studies on cow urine, dung, and milk for potential medicinal benefits. Supporters claim these products hold therapeutic value and deserve scientific exploration.
Skeptics, however, believe mixing tradition with science is risky. They argue that science must rely solely on verifiable evidence from peer-reviewed studies. Faith-based claims, when promoted as science, could harm public trust in scientific institutions, especially globally recognized ones like IIT-Madras.
Kamakoti’s case brings this larger debate to light. As a private individual, he can hold personal beliefs. But as a leader of a globally respected institution, his responsibility is greater. He represents the principles of modern science, which demand evidence-based conclusions.
The backlash prompted Kamakoti to issue a clarification. He emphasized the importance of rigorous research in science. He also stated that traditional practices, while significant culturally, should not replace evidence-backed methods.
This episode highlights the challenges leaders in science face today. Personal beliefs often clash with professional obligations in a connected world. When influential figures make statements, their words can shape public opinions and policy decisions, both nationally and internationally.
Supporters of indigenous traditions feel such practices deserve a chance. Many believe ancient remedies might offer untapped scientific potential. However, these ideas must undergo thorough testing through clinical trials to gain acceptance.
Kamakoti remains a respected academic and scientist despite the controversy. His contributions to computer science, including advancements in AI and cryptography, are widely acknowledged and celebrated. Yet, this incident serves as a reminder of the responsibilities tied to leadership roles.
Science thrives on evidence, not anecdotes or beliefs. Mixing faith and science requires careful communication to avoid misunderstandings. Public trust in scientific institutions depends on maintaining clarity and accountability.
The debate about blending tradition and science continues to grow. Both have their value, but they serve different purposes. Faith provides cultural identity and emotional comfort, while science seeks objective truths.
As one observer aptly noted, “Tradition and science can coexist, but they must not contradict each other.” Kamakoti’s case reminds us of this delicate balance in today’s complex world.