Nineteenth-century physicians who advocated hand-washing before surgery—like Ignaz Semmelweis—were often ridiculed by their peers. Semmelweis demonstrated that mortality rates dropped dramatically when doctors washed hands after autopsies before delivering babies. Yet the medical establishment rejected his findings; accepting them would have meant acknowledging that doctors themselves had been spreading deadly infections. Sometimes scientific resistance reflects not just evidence but professional identity.
Based on the passage, it can be inferred that
Semmelweis's findings had no supporting evidence
hand-washing before surgery was universally accepted in the nineteenth century
threatened self-image may contribute to resistance to scientific findings
doctors never spread infections to patients
Correct Answer: C
Choice C is the best answer. Accepting the findings meant admitting doctors caused deaths.
- Context clues: Acceptance would mean "acknowledging that doctors themselves had been spreading deadly infections."
- Meaning: Protecting professional identity contributed to rejection of valid evidence.
- Verify: "Scientific resistance reflects not just evidence but professional identity."
💡 Strategy: When valid evidence is rejected and identity threat is cited, infer identity-based resistance.
Choice A is incorrect because mortality "dropped dramatically" with hand-washing. Choice B is incorrect because Semmelweis was "ridiculed by his peers." Choice D is incorrect because the whole point is that doctors were spreading infections without knowing.