Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) (Madras) director V. Kamakoti’s observations on cow urine continue to haunt not only him but his supporters as well. Although his remark were made much earlier, they came into prominence again after Prime Minister Narendra Modi included him in a panel tasked with reviewing India’s examination system.A casual comment by Priyanka Gandhi in parliament has resulted in the Hindutva army lining up and firing unceasing salvos against her. A set of academics has lamented a top scientist being subjected to ‘unwanted ridicule.’ Are they right? Was Kamakoti right? Let us first discuss the professor’s statement.What did he say?During a speech at a ‘Go Samrakshana Sala’ event, Kamakoti stated that cow urine possesses anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-inflammatory and digestive properties. He shared an anecdote about a sanyasi (monk) who reportedly recovered from a high fever within 15 minutes after consuming cow urine. Despite facing criticism, Kamakoti doubled down on his comments, stating that the anti-fungal, anti-bacterial and anti-inflammatory properties of cow urine have been scientifically demonstrated. He also multiple academic and research papers – including a peptide-profiling study – to back the biological activity of compounds found in it. He also mentioned that he consumes panchagavya, an ayurvedic concoction consisting of cow urine, cow dung, milk, ghee and curd.Is he correct?He is correct that certain laboratory studies have identified bioactive components in cow urine. Chemical and peptide-profiling studies have shown that specific extracts or distillates of cow urine can inhibit the growth of certain bacteria (like E. coli or Staphylococcus aureus) in a petri dish (in vitro). Analytical testing confirms the presence of urea, creatinine, various minerals and volatile fatty acids, which naturally possess some chemical or preservative properties.However, scientists, medical professionals and rationalist groups heavily criticised his statements because there is a vast gap between basic laboratory observations and actual human medicine. The claim that a high fever can be cured within 15 minutes by drinking cow urine is entirely anecdotal. No robust, peer-reviewed clinical trials on humans support the idea that cow urine acts as a rapid antipyretic (fever reducer). Fevers are immune responses to underlying infections that typically require hours or days to resolve with established medications.Also read: From Cow Urine That Cures Cancer to ‘Vedic Plaster’: A Day at Jaipur’s ‘Gau Mahakumbh’Furthermore, review papers investigating traditional claims around cow urine consistently conclude that while basic biochemical traits exist, clinical trials on human subjects are lacking. Proof of antimicrobial activity in a lab tube does not mean it is safe or effective to ingest for ailments like irritable bowel syndrome or systemic infections. Medical experts note that raw or unprocessed animal urine can contain pathogens, harmful bacteria and toxins, potentially leading to gastrointestinal distress or infections rather than health benefits. While laboratory research demonstrates that cow urine contains interesting chemical and antimicrobial compounds, presenting it as a validated clinical medicine or treatment for human diseases is scientifically unsupported.The lament of the academicsNow let us come to the academics who have remarked that dismissing a scholar through a label, rather than engaging with the substance of his views, risks undermining the very scientific temper that the constitution calls upon every citizen to develop.Firstly, Gandhi would perhaps not have made the remarks if these academics had engaged with the substance of his views when he had originally made them. They chose to keep quiet; at least, there was no lament from them against the undermining of scientific temper.Secondly, parading his undoubtedly outstanding achievements doesn’t grant him license to make unscientific statements and get away unscathed. Kamakoti is not a holy cow. This is not the first time that persons professing science were roundly criticised for their unscientific sides. Let me make a short list:Isaac Newton: While universally celebrated for establishing modern physics and calculus, Newton spent decades deeply engrossed in alchemy and theological chronology. His contemporaries and later Enlightenment thinkers viewed these pursuits as irrational deviations from the rigorous empirical method he otherwise championed.Nikola Tesla: In his later years, Tesla rejected Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, famously arguing that space could not be curved and attempted to develop his own ‘dynamic theory of gravity.’ He also claimed to have invented a ‘teleforce’ weapon (a death ray) and asserted that he was receiving signals from extraterrestrial civilisations on Mars using his wireless equipment. Journalists and mainstream physicists viewed his announcements as eccentric and disconnected from empirical validation, overshadowing his actual engineering achievements.Linus Pauling: A two-time Nobel Prize laureate (in Chemistry and Peace) and one of the most influential chemists of the 20th century, Pauling spent his later decades promoting the unproven idea that massive daily doses of Vitamin C could cure the common cold, heart disease and terminal cancer. Mainstream oncologists and medical researchers severely criticised Pauling for promoting medical misinformation without adequate, reproducible clinical trials.I can give several such examples. Science is unsparing. It doesn’t give a concession to you just because you are a scientist yourself. Gandhi is right to ridicule Kamakoti for his statement. In fact, he should have apologised to the scientific community for making unproven, unscientific statements. Instead, he doubled down.Now, one may ask the question: Maybe scientists can make remarks against him, but how can Gandhi, a novice in every sense, speak against what he said?Science not only permits, but actively relies, on non-scientists to scrutinise, question and criticise claims that appear unscientific. Falsifiability is one of the basic principles of science. Anyone can point out when a claim lacks scientific quality or is framed in a way that frustrates testing. What is more, science is not merely meant to be a secretive and insular discipline where enlightened people speak in code words that few comprehend. Every scientific finding must be published, methodologies explained and data shared so that the broader community can examine them. When scientists make proclamations outside their field of expertise (for example, a computer scientist making sweeping claims about chemical properties), non-scientists have every right to call out that abuse of authority.Also read: MP Govt’s Research Project on Cow Products Curing Cancer Faces Allegations of Financial FraudHistory is filled with instances where non-scientists, independent critics or watchdogs challenged statements made by individuals with scientific credentials. For instance, phrenology was a rage during the 19th and 20th centuries. It involved measuring skull bumps to determine intelligence and criminal tendencies, claiming biological backing for white supremacy and eugenics. There were many non-scientific critics against it and history proved them right.Similarly, as recently as 2004, a celebrated South Korean veterinarian and stem cell researcher, Hwang Woo-suk, published papers claiming to have successfully derived human embryonic stem cells from cloned embryos. The initial scepticism did not come from high-tech labs, but from anonymous internet users and investigative bloggers who noticed anomalies, duplicate photos and statistical impossibilities in his published data. It was public pressure that forced mainstream scientific journalists to re-examine the papers, leading to a full retraction.Science is a method and not an instrument to issue fiats. When a statement sounds unscientific, challenging it, or even ridiculing it, aligns with the core spirit of inquiry. Good science acknowledges ridicule that is just, even if it comes from a manifestly non-scientific person. Only bad science demands silent obedience.P.A. Krishnan is an author in English and Tamil. With a postgraduate degree in physics from Presidency College, Madras and experience in academia, the civil service and scientific institutions, he writes frequently on science and public life.