Testing any intervention upon fellow humankind, to determine its worth, requires the highest level of proof that we can devise. Intervention - interference, even - in other people's lives, by policymakers and researchers, requires proof that it will do more good than harm. The burden of providing good quality evidence about interventions imposed upon healthy people, should be greater than it is for those who seek help from health professionals. Health professionals' only option is to draw upon the best possible evidence available at that time, to help inform their decision with the patient.

It is essential to recognise that testing is necessary. Good ideas, beliefs and good intentions are not sufficient. The generative act of observation may lead to theory, but it is essential that theory be put to the test, to refute or confirm the veracity of the hypothesis. The hypothesis may be likened to the baton in a relay race, where the winning post remains elusively out of sight. Testing hypotheses is a team activity, where the onlookers and supporters - who may have a stake in the race - are likely to have a valuable and pertinent contribution to make, to enhance the focus, speed, endurance and skill of the contestants.

The purpose of testing is to determine, by as unbiased a comparison as it is possible to devise, that the intervention being tested does more good than harm. No intervention is harm-free. Whether its members realise this or not, the whole population will be either the beneficiary or the victim. It should be everyone's business to contribute, by whatever means they have at their disposal. Expert facilitation helps - it is said that the onlooker sees most of the game. It follows that the runner who is deaf and blind to onlookers - onlookers who will have different skills from the runner's own - will not enjoy the benefit of collaborating, to find ways to improve the race.

In healthcare treatments, for example, improvements in the method known as the randomised controlled clinical trial are being brought about, by the integration of qualitative research within the quantitative. Input from the main stakeholder - the healthy citizen, or the patient - can illuminate the nature of the objective, and lighten up dark patches, to ensure the quickest and best way of heading for that elusive winning post. Only by observing, listening carefully, talking together and joint planning, will uncertainties be reduced, and a well-run race be achieved.

If the international event is to produce a worthwhile winner, then there should be no segregation of spectator from runner in the common room, when celebrating, analysing, reviewing and publicising the qualifying heats.