OK Fish,
But Doctor to Doctor means very little in the scientific community.
If you study any area, medicine, education, genetics or whatever. And you make some discovery, a new treatment, a better drug, or a genetic link between a cause and effect. In science it means absolutely nothing until it is peer reviewed.
You present your findings to your peers, it may be other scientists or researchers.
They look at what you have found, they look at your data, your methodology, what you did to test your hypothesis, a whole range of things. If your peers find your research to be valid and credible. You usually get your research published in a scientific journal. Somewhere, then if it is really good work, others may refer to your research in their own. If it is really ground breaking you get lots of credit and all sorts of stuff follows.
I don't make those rules up, it is just how it works.
Have a look here...
The peer review process for journal publication is essentially a quality control mechanism. It is a process by which experts evaluate scholarly works, and its objective is to ensure a high quality of published science. Read this article to understand peer review and editorial decision-making...
www.editage.com
It is done that way to sift out the credible and reproducible results from the rubbish.
So when you said, "India rape problem linked to genetics" The immediate implication to that is that it was a proper peer reviewed study. You mentioned a couple of Doctors and so on. Studies like that have no real issue with copyright as far as my understanding goes. Unless it is a formula for a wonder drug then perhaps it will be secret. But medical findings and research is always published for the benefit of all.
So one doctor talking to another doctor and saying they have found a genetic link to the rape problem is meaningless unless it is peer reviewed and published. That's not me saying that before you get mad again, it is just how science works.
There have been many examples over the years of scientist coming up with findings that upon scrutiny have been found to be not correct. That is precisely why it is peer reviewed. It is a safeguard if you like.
I have an honors degree in computer science. But I am no one special at all, What is to stop me from making some outlandish claim about some new AI, and try to market it as the next wonder AI brain? All that stops me publishing loony results is per review.
That is what I wanted to see the study you referred to. If their is no study, if there is no peer review, all their is, is a theory by a couple of doctors. There is NO LINK or at least none proven yet. Not all doctors are correct, those may be. But until they follow the process it is not a Link, it is a theory.
So I am sorry you got so upset. Perhaps it is a cultural difference between us. But to me your title implies a proper scientific study.
All the best
D