A More Human Way to Train AI

Xiang, A., Andrews, J.T.A., Bourke, R.L. et al. Fair human-centric image dataset for ethical AI benchmarking. Nature, November 2025

A new study introduces FHIBE, the Fair Human-Centric Image Benchmark, the first large-scale, publicly available image dataset designed with ethical AI development in mind. Unlike most existing computer-vision datasets, which are often scraped from the internet without consent, FHIBE contains more than 10,000 images from nearly 2,000 volunteers across 81 countries, all collected with informed consent, privacy protection, and fair compensation.

FHIBE stands out for its global diversity and its exceptionally rich, self-reported demographic details, including age, pronouns, ancestry, and skin tone. Each image is also paired with detailed pixel-level annotations, environmental conditions, and camera metadata. This makes FHIBE the most comprehensive tool to date for evaluating bias in human-focused AI systems—from face detection and pose estimation to visual question answering.

When researchers tested popular computer-vision models on FHIBE, they uncovered both well-known and newly identified biases. For example, models tended to perform better on younger, lighter-skinned individuals and struggled with older adults, darker skin tones, baldness, and even hairstyle variability. These insights show why ethically sourced, diverse datasets are essential: they allow scientists to detect subtle biases that would otherwise remain hidden. FHIBE not only raises the bar for fairness benchmarks but also offers a practical roadmap for how to responsibly build the next generation of AI datasets.

A New Way to Sense Smell—Without Smelling at All

Halina B. Stanley et al. Substitution of human olfaction by the trigeminal system. Sci. Adv., November 2025

Scientists have developed a first-of-its-kind device that helps people who have lost their sense of smell “sense” odors again, without actually restoring real smell. The device works by pairing an electronic nose (a sensor that detects odor molecules in the air) with a tiny electrical stimulator placed inside the nose.

Instead of activating the damaged olfactory system, the device stimulates the trigeminal nerve, another nerve inside the nose that normally senses tingling, irritation, or temperature from things like menthol or chili peppers. The question was: Can the brain learn to use these trigeminal signals as a substitute for smell?

Across four experiments with over 60 volunteers (including people with complete and partial smell loss), the researchers found that participants could reliably detect when an odor was present based on the electrical stimulation pattern. Some could also tell the difference between different stimulation patterns, though this was harder and improved when participants were trained first. The ability to detect the signal did not depend on having a working sense of smell, meaning even anosmic individuals could use the system.

The device does not recreate real smells. But it shows, for the first time, that it may be possible to give patients a practical way to recognize odor categories, like food vs. danger odors, through another nerve pathway. This could be an early step toward a future “smell prosthesis” for people living with permanent smell loss.

Can Positive Memories Help Heal the Brain?

Steve Ramirez. Memories change. But can we change them on purpose? Science Friday, November 2025.

Neuroscientist Dr. Steve Ramirez explains that memories are not fixed snapshots of the past; they are dynamic reconstructions that change slightly each time we recall them. Instead of functioning like recordings, memories behave more like malleable building blocks, which the brain continually updates. This flexibility may even help us imagine the future by combining elements of past experiences.

New research shows that scientists can activate specific memories in mice by stimulating the exact brain cells involved in those experiences. In mice that show depression-like behavior, artificially turning on their positive memories can lift their mood and reduce symptoms, sometimes even long-term. This suggests that memory manipulation could one day support new treatments for mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety.

Humans already experience a natural form of this effect. Simply recalling a joyful or painful memory can change our biology within seconds, altering mood, heart rate, stress hormones, and attention. This natural responsiveness points to the possibility of developing therapies that intentionally harness positive memories.

Future treatments could also target traumatic memories. Instead of erasing them, scientists may be able to reduce their emotional weight, offering new hope for people living with PTSD while preserving the factual memory.

Looking ahead, the field is moving toward a deeper map of memory in the brain, identifying the specific cells involved in certain memories and finding ways to support or restore them. Such work could eventually help treat memory loss in disorders like Alzheimer’s.

Under the influence of these developments, it is highly likely that there will be collective transformations in convictions, ideas, and , scientific thought. When we look back at the recent past, we see that so many things have changed. Just yesterday, commonly accepted “immutable” facts, such as Galileo’s understanding of the cosmos or Newton’s universal gravitation, have been exchanged for relativity and become defunct theories. The view of taking matter as the basis for everything has been doubted for a long time. Today we see that researchers in different fields, particularly quantum physics, are concerned with the non-material world just as much as the material world. It seems that in the near future not just matter or atoms, but anti-matter will become a common subject of research for circles of science; metaphysics will be mentioned wherever physics is considered.

Science tries to explain the realities of our perceptions in the light of results obtained through experience. It does not give credit to knowledge which is not perceived and verified by the senses until their reality is proven through scientific methodology. For example, nobody doubts the reality of those things that we can see, regardless of their nature. Likewise, we can say the same for things we hear, touch or experience with other things perceptible through our sense organs. As for magnetic or electronic fields that we cannot perceive with our sense organs, we detect them with compasses or other tools. Science is able to perceive this much with the means it presently has, but is as yet unable to go further beyond “electrical,” “magnetic,” and “gravitational” fields. As relevant tools and devices that can prove the existence and nature of other fields are invented, scientific research will then be able to start exploring beyond these fields. In this respect, claiming that science encompasses everything and that it has reached its ultimate limits is surely a great mistake and is blind to what the history of science has shown us. As a matter of fact, if we look into the discoveries and inventions science has produced, we realize that what we know is almost nothing in comparison to what we do not know.

Not only does claiming that we know everything contradict reality, it is also a regressive behavior which lacks any zeal for further progress and is about being content with the present achievements. In every era, those who deem the achievements reached by contemporary science as the ultimate limits of progress, have blocked the way to further scientific discoveries and reduced the intellectual life to misery. Therefore, we see it as an obligation to reconsider what we have learned so far with a critical perspective, our previous knowledge needs to be reevaluated in the light of new discoveries, both in terms of correcting our mistakes and finding a way out of today’s dead ends. This includes a thorough study of the outer space and the earth, their relation to one another, night and day flowing in regular cycles, the special conditions of living or non-living beings in their own world, as well as human and animal organisms’ motion, function and purposes. Likewise soil, water, their composition, and their relationship with living beings, all must absolutely be reevaluated and analyzed with modern methods. Only in this way will it be possible to correct those theories that have not been proven according to scientific research methods, and those mistaken rules which are based on wrong judgments.

The dignity of science requires research to be conducted with an appropriate methodology. Those who busy scientific centers with unproven theories both deceive the masses and violate the dignity of science. Scientific methodology in its plainest form consists of: first, scientists determine their subject and clearly define what they want to learn; then they revise the results of previous research related to that subject; and then they determine the results to be derived from the data that they have collected. In order to test the reliability of the previously obtained results properly, a set of new tests is applied. If the new tests do not prove the suggested theory, scientists go back to the drawing board for further research. They collect new data, and by combining it with previous findings, they give new shape to their theory. Thus, they record the experimentally proven findings and then they consider whether the particular fact that they would like to define as an established principle can be generalized or not. If it can be generalized, then they evaluate the relationship with similar phenomena and see the whole of the picture. This method of research, also adopted by modern methodology, is an objective one for scientific evaluation. Therefore, it is absolutely not scientific to claim that something is definitely true or is established without using such scientific methodology, and to object or deny what contradicts that assumption. Suppositions and estimations asserted as established ideas are nothing but suggested theories and the universal principles that are derived from these suggestions are nothing but deception. Scientific conclusions cannot be drawn from such suppositions and estimations, nor can such suppositions be used to reject knowledge affirmed by testimony and reliable reports or proven through proper methodologies.

For instance, those seeking scientific information limit themselves to concrete and physical knowledge. Furthermore, they have to form the mechanisms of causality from natural causes and then refine the resulting knowledge through a sieve of doubt. Likewise, those who seek religious knowledge, which mainly depends on belief, must learn the pillars of faith by searching and then using their minds and logic, rather than mere imitation, to check the information’s authenticity by consulting the primary sources. Religious knowledge is gained through belief and using the principles of reason and logic, rather than experimentation and observation, to analyze the resulting knowledge.

Human knowledge that can be known can be divided into three subgroups: that which is unknown, unknowable, and known. If we subdivide these further, the following classes emerge: the knowable that is known; the knowable that is unknown; the unknowable that can be known thorough the use of various means; and that which will never be known by humanity. This classification is based on having the means to acquire and learn information, as well as the type of information demanded.

There is other knowledge that belongs only to God, and that can acquired only via revelation (wahy), divinely inspired Prophets, and divinely revealed books. As the bulk of such knowledge has absolute meaning, its application, validity, and meaning can be acquired only after appropriate education and training. Since most religious information is like medicine, it must be applied at the appropriate place and taken in the proper dosage to give the greatest benefit. Otherwise, this information could lead people astray.

In today’s information age, useful communication is possible if we know what information we want and how to obtain it. Adherents of scientific ideologies and societies that view scientific and religious-moral information as contradictory and mutually exclusive should realize the differences and boundaries between the knowable, that which remains unknown by scientific methods, and the unknowable. We must understand that information seen as contradictory and mutually exclusive is actually complementary, for nature’s diversity reflects the principle of the “unity and entirety of differences.” Only this understanding will ensure peace and security among the different parts of society that represent the different types of information.

Scientific and religious (faith-related) information represent different types of information gained by various methods. At the same time, however, they form a “meaningful unity” in human life. The critical task is to synthesize these two types of information and then apply the results to one’s daily life.

The boundaries and characteristics of unknowable, long-time subjects in philosophy and epistemology have been (and still are) debated by philosophers for centuries. Based on this understanding, we will discuss the meanings of the unknown and the unknowable concepts of modern science.1

THE PROBLEM OF THE UNKNOWN AND THE UNKNOWABLE

In 1931, logician Kurt Godel shocked scientific circles with a new discovery: some basic mathematical propositions and premises, the common language of science, cannot be proven or refuted. He called this the Theorem of Uncertainty. In the 1980s, British mathematician Alan Turing used a digital computer (the Turing Machine) to prove that one could not give a correct answer before posing an abstract problem. Do these two discoveries tell us something about the place and grade of the unknowable in science?

Science seeks to explain and understand all of the universe’s elements and happenings. Scientific questions can be very general or very specific: Will the universe expand continuously? Will human activity engender large-scale change on the Earth? There is no prior knowledge or premise on which to base answers to such questions. Science, which uses mathematics as a means, is different from mathematics. All discoveries are made in mathematical fields by using models formed by manipulating symbols. Can we apply all appropriate mathematical findings to other sciences?

Ralph Gomery, head of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, states that we can understand science by dividing it into three parts: the known part of the scientific universe, the unknown, and the unknowable. The subjects taught in schools and universities form the known part of science. At the same time, exhibits in science museums and elsewhere are summaries of what has been discovered. Scientists and researchers feel the excitement of searching the unknown in order to make it known. According to Gomery, that which is now unknown will be knowable in the future, and the unknowable will remain unknown forever. The limits of science are determined by the subtle lines between what is unknown and what is unknowable. According to some, these boundaries are very rigid, predetermined, and cannot change (i.e., the boundaries of science and religion). Following are some unknown “facts” and questions that might be known and answered in the future.

Models that can forecast the Earth’s dynamic functions, and thus predict the currently unforeseeable nature of earth quakes, might be successfully developed. What negative ecologicial changes will be wrought upon the Earth through human production and consumption, and how can they be prevented or mitigated? Is there intelligent life in outer space? If so, how and by what means can we communicate with it? How does human consciousness develop? What is the relation between free will and the brain’s physico-chemical reactions? How can a national or global economy be kept stable without driving it into chaos? Can we prove which of these questions are unknowable?

According to Joseph Traub, Godel’s theorem only limits the power of mathematics; it has nothing to do with whether or not a scientific question is answerable. Traub believes that there are causes in science that make some questions unanswerable. Examples are insufficient archeological and historical data, as well as the first appearance of language; the fact of coincidental events and simultaneous discoveries, which make these events indistinguishable and hence their explanation harder (e.g., we cannot distinguish the cause-and-effect relations between events that took place isochronally in the first appearance of life); and insufficient sources, methods, and experimental designs to test the correctness and validity of today’s prevalent theories.

We must be careful when claiming that something is unknowable, for doing so without exposing the reasons may hinder scientific progress and development. On the other hand, many scientists accept the presence of that which is unknowable and unanswerable by science, and view science as trying to solve and understand the knowable universe.

DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SCIENTIFIC REALITY

In America, scientists from various branches gather in periodical meetings at the Santa Fe Institute in an attempt to model a prototype university of the 21st century by drawing lines between the unknown and the unknowable. They emphasize that scientific truth and reality have five different aspects: the reality of the physical and concrete universe, the reality based on the mathematical modeling of the preceding reality, the reality produced and interpreted based on the depictions and descriptions of the preceding models, the virtual (cyber, imaginary) reality produced in a computer environment, and the reality produced by simulations in computerized environments. Thus, “reality” and “models of reality” are not identical.

Some researchers claim that there are only two worlds of reality: the physical universe (or nature) and computers. They also state that these two different worlds should be modeled differently. From this aspect, which reality or model is of interest becomes an important issue when scientists try to classify what is unknown and unknowable.

Let’s concretize these distinctions. Every living organism consists of proteins, which should be folded in a specific three-dimensional form to become functional. One or several of these possible foldings are functional; the rest are meaningless. The formation of folding in a living organism takes a few milliseconds. But scientists, even if they use the best supercomputers in existence, cannot simulate this process. Since the theories and algorithms of the computer environment are insufficient, there is no conformity between the model and reality, for the living system folds the amino acids properly. We do not have enough knowledge to model this amino acid structure in a computer environment, because there is no one-to-one correspondence between reality and the perception and visualization of the reality in the mind.

Niels Bohr summarized what could be done: “I cannot grasp reality, but [I can] produce a mathematical model that can predict reality.” This opened new doors to philosophy. Albert Einstein believed that there is a reality that can be defined by mathematical models. Today, a similar debate continues in scientific circles between Stephen Hawking (who defends Bohr) and Roger Penrose (who defends Einstein).

THE END OF SCIENCE?

The main argument of those who state that science has come to an end is as follows: The basic discoveries about the physical reality of the universe have been made. All that remains is to fill in its content. For example, subatomic particles have been discovered. Molecules that code life have been discovered, and hence new genes are being produced. The basic theories that enabled space technology have been developed. Perhaps future technological innovations will be limited to improving existing ones, rather than making new discoveries. Besides, science alone could not solve humanity’s problems or prevent bloodshed, although it received a considerable amount of financial support. Thus from now on, these sources should be used to discover the real nature of humanity and the sciences (e.g., social, religious, and moral) that ensure human welfare and well-being, for solely scientific information is not everything. It seems that we need religious and moral knowledge to use our scientific findings in the best interests of humanity. Today, ethics is a compulsory course in Western universities, and some scientists believe that research should focus on more concrete, answerable, and functional topics.

On the other hand, others believe that science has not ended and that many things remain to be discovered. They point out that scientific discoveries are not so numerous, and that new research areas appear by intermingling physical sciences with themselves and the social sciences. They stress that until now, scientific findings have been reached by deduction. Now, however, the dominant scientific paradigm is being transformed into systematic thinking, and the interaction of all things will be studied in database networks. This will engender new views of science and the universe. They also claim that those sciences that focused on the information of the particles will begin to focus on systems and understanding the nature of their interactions.

FOOTNOTES

1. “Modern science” signifies scientific information about the universe that is gathered by one’s five senses, observation, experimentation, and mathematical modeling and explanations. It does not include religious studies and knowledge.

REFERENCES

• Horgan, John. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. New York: Helix Books, 1996.
• Traub, Joseph. “The Unknown and the Unknowable.” The Third Culture. Interview. 1998.
• http://www.edge.org/documents/brockman.html.
• —. Information and Complexity. N.p: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

I am sure, to most of us who have learned about scientists as unapproachable figures sitting on top of Mount Everest (and somehow almost all of whom are Western), this viewpoint may seem quite new. Yet, there is more to it. The same thinker points to another equally important factor in the development of civilization and advancement of sciences: with a great strength in his weakness and potency in his impotence, man is very much like a pampered child in creation. If he recognizes his weakness and performs his worship with his words, actions and state of mind, if he knows his own impotence and asks for God’s aid, he will then have fulfilled the obligation of gratitude for the subjugation of creation to his needs.

As with a petted child who by means of a little cry or simply a sad look obtains the assistance of adults to serve him: even the tiniest part of what they do for him by far exceeds what lies in the child’s own power to do for himself, and their great help he owes to his great weakness. So too, the apparent dominance of man over the rest of creation and his progress in civilization are not the result of his own deserving but they were subjugated to him because he himself was weak: he received aid because he was helpless; he was enriched thereby because he was poor; he was inspired because he was ignorant; he was bestowed with favours because he was in need of them (Nursi, 23rd Word). 

Penicillin

Most people believe that great discoveries are results of deliberate, directed effort, planning. exhaustive experiment and logical inference. The discovery of penicillin is the most famous counter example. Although the role of planning, experimenting and research has an undeniable role in scientific discoveries, events do not always form a logical sequence, and this is what I am here trying to emphasize.

During World War I, doctors depended on antiseptics to cure battIe wounds. A. Fleming, a bacteriologist, observed that phenol (or carbolic acid, the most common antiseptic at that time) did more harm than good, in that it killed the leukocytes (white blood cells) faster than it killed the bacteria, and he knew this was bad because the leukocytes are the body’s natural defenders against bacteria.

In 1922, while suffering from a cold, Fleming made a culture from some of his own nasal secretions. As he examined the culture dish filled with yellow bacteria, a tear fell into it from his eye. The next day, when he examined the culture, he found a clear space where the tear had fallen. He correctly concluded that the tear contained a substance that caused rapid destruction of the bacteria, but was harmless to human tissue. The antibiotic enzyme in the tear he named lysozyme. It turned out to be of little practical importance because the germs that lysozyme killed were relatively harmless, but this discovery was an essential prelude to that of penicillin.

In the summer of 1928, Fleming was engaged in research on influenza. While doing some routine laboratory work involving microscopic examination of cultures of bacteria grown in petri dishes (flat glass dishes provided with covers), Fleming noticed in one dish an unusual clear area. Examination showed that the clear area surrounded a spot where a bit of mould had fallen into the dish, apparently while the dish was uncovered. Remembering his experience with lysozyme, Fleming concluded that the mould was producing something that was deadly to the staphylococcus in the culture dish. Later he would say: ‘There are thousands of different moulds and there are thousands of different bacteria, and that chance putting the mould in the right spot at the right time was like winning the Irish sweep.’

Fleming’s own words are enough as a response to those who attribute scientific discoveries to chance or idolize scientists. However, I will give other examples to make the point clearer.

Teflon

From non-stick frying pans to space suits to artificial heart valves, Teflon has found several areas of application. Its discovery resulted from an apparently ‘accidental’ observation by a young chemist, R. Plunket, working in Du Pont laboratories. On April 6, 1938, Plunket opened a tank of gaseous tetrafluoerothylene in the hope of preparing a non-toxic refrigerant from it, but no gas came out, to the surprise of Plunkett and his assistant. Plunkett could not understand this because the weight of the tank indicated that it should be full of the gaseous fluorocarbon.

Instead of discarding the tank and getting another in order to get on with his refrigerant research, Plunkett decided to satisfy his curiosity about the ‘empty tank’. Having determined that the valve was not faulty by running a wire through its opening, he sawed the tank open and looked inside. There he found a waxy white powder and, being a chemist, he realized what it must mean.

The molecules of the gaseous tetrafluoroethylene had combined with one another ‘polymerized’ to such an extent that they now formed a solid material. The waxy white powder did indeed have remarkable properties: it was more inert than sand – not affected by strong acids, bases or heat and no solvent could dissolve it – but, in contrast to sand, it was extremely slippery.

X (Roentgen) Rays

Physicist W. Roentgen discovered the rays which were later to be named after him, in an unexpected and unplanned manner. Roentgen was repeating experiments by other physicists in which electricity at high voltage was discharged through air or other gases in a partially evacuated glass tube. We now know that cathode rays are actually streams of electrons being emitted from the cathode, and the impact of these electrons on the walls of the glass tubes produces the phosphorescence.

In 1892, it was demonstrated that cathode rays could penetrate thin metallic foils. Discharge tubes having thin aluminium windows allowed the cathode rays to pass out of the tube where they could be detected by the light they produced on a screen of phosphorescent material (such screens were also used to detect ultraviolet light), but they were found to travel only two or three centimetres in the air at ordinary pressure outside the evacuated tube.

Roentgen repeated some of these experiments to familiarize himself with the techniques. He then decided to see whether he could detect cathode rays issuing from an evacuated all-glass tube, that is, one with no thin aliminium window. Na one had observed cathode rays under these conditions. Roentgen thought the reason for the failure might be that strong phosphorescence of the cathode tube obscured the weak fluorescence of the detecting screen. To test this theory, he devised a black cardboard cover for the cathode tube. To determine the effectiveness of the shield, he then darkened the room and turned on the high voltage coil to energize the tube. Satisfied that his black shield did indeed cover the tube and allowed no phosphorescent light to escape, he was about to shut off the coil and turn on the room lights so that he could position the phosphorescent screen at varying short distances from the vacuum tube:

Just at that moment, he noticed a weak light shimmering from a point in the dark room more than a yard from the vacuum tube. At first, he thought there must be, after all, a light leak from the black mask around the tube, which was being reflected from a mirror in the room. However, there was no mirror. When he passed another series of charges through the cathode tube, he saw the light appear in the same location again, looking like faint green clouds moving in synchronism with the fluctuating discharges of the cathode tube. Hurriedly lighting a match, Roentgen found to his amazement that the source of the mysterious light was the little fluorescent screen that he had planned to use as a detector near the blinded cathode tube, but it was lying on the bench more than a yard from the tube.

Roentgen realized immediately that he had encountered an entirely new phenomenon. These were not cathode rays that lit up the fluorescent screen more than a yard from the tube! With feverish activity, he devoted himself single-mindedly in the next several weeks to exploring this new form of radiation. He reported his findings in a paper published in Wunburg, dated December 28, 1895, and entitled ‘A New Kind of Ray, a Preliminary Communication’. Although he described accurately most of the basic qualitative properties of the new rays in this paper, his acknowledgement that he did not yet fully understand them was indicated by the name he chose for them, X-rays. (They have also often been called Roentgen rays.)

He reported that the new rays were not affected by a magnet, as cathode rays were known to be. Not only would they penetrate more than a yard of air, in contrast to the two or three inch limit of cathode rays, but also (to quote his paper):

‘All bodies are transparent to this agent, though in very different degrees. Paper is very transparent; behind a bound book of about one thousand pages I saw the fluorescent screen light up brightly. In the same way the fluorescence appeared behind a double pack of cards. Thick blocks of wood are also transparent, pine boards two or three centimetres thick absorbing only slightly. A plate of aluminium about fifteen millimetres thick, though it enfeebled the action seriously, did not cause the fluorescence to disappear entirely. If the hand be held between the discharge tube and the screen, the darker shadow of the bones is seen within the slightly dark shadow image of the hand itself.’

He found that he could even record such skeletal images on photographic film. This property of X-rays captured the attention of the medical world immediately. In an incredibly short time X-rays were used routinely for diagnosis in hospitals throughout the world.

Insulin

If a relative or a friend of yours has diabetes, you will probably know how important insulin is for them. As a partial remedy for most diabetics today, insulin was discovered as an answer to the prayers of hundreds of thousands of diabetics by the Most Merciful One. Perhaps, even better relief and remedy are awaiting discovery in some unexpected time or place.

In 1889, while studying the function of the pancreas in digestion, two researchers removed the pancreas from a dog. The very next day a laboratory assistant called their attention to a swarm of flies around the urine from this dog. Curious about why the flies were attracted to the urine, they analysed it and found it was loaded with sugar. Sugar in urine is a common sign of diabetes.

The researchers realized that they were seeing for the first time evidence of the experimental production of diabetes in an animal. The fact that this animal had no pancreas suggested a relationship between that organ and diabetes. The researchers subsequently proved that the pancreas produces a secretion that controls the use of sugar, and that lack of this secretion causes defects in sugar metabolism then exhibited as symptoms of diabetes.

Many attempts were made to isolate the secretion, with little success until 1921. A young Canadian medical student extracted the secretion from the pancreas of dogs. When they injected the extracts into dogs rendered diabetic by removal of their pancreases, the blood sugar levels of these dogs returned to normal or below, and the urine became sugar-free. The general condition of the dogs also improved.

Until recently, all insulin used for the treatment of human diabetes came from the pancreases of some animals. As a result of genetic engineering, based on knowing how DNA controls protein synthesis, a major pharmaceutical firm has begun to produce human insulin by using bacteria. The fact that a microscopic creature, like the bacterium can be made to work for the wellbeing of human beings is a subject worthy of study on its own.

Of course, these are by no means the only examples worth mentioning of ‘happy, chance discoveries’. Here are some more to add to the list: the discovery of molecular structure of organic compounds, saccharin and nutra-sweet (sugar substitutes, again for diabetics), ‘safety glass used in automobiles and planes, oxygen and several other chemical elements, radioactivity, astronomical discoveries like pulsars and background Big Bang radiation, many mathematical theorems, high temperature superconductors, synthetic dyes, etc., etc.

Can one really call all of these marvellous discoveries simply ‘happy, chance accidents’? I believe human conscience and reason must resist such a misconception. Surely, any person of common sense would say: ‘I am thankful to the Merciful One, who has bestowed upon us the favour of these discoveries, enabled us to benefit from them, among His innumerable other bounties’.