>>I must have expressed that badly. I was saying the human body and the things that go wrong with it (not the cures and treatments) have probably changed less in the last 2000 years than the IT platform has changed in the last 10. That is certainly one of the reasons medical truths and solutions once proven should continue to work unless there is some kind of mutation of the patient population - or of the disease itself (one thinks of drug resistence)

Unlike IT in which it is relatively easy to know most everything in a particular niche, human biology remains poorly understood for the most part and the more you know, the more you realize you don't know. That's because IT is man-made for consumption by fellow humans whereas the human body is far beyond any person's ability to replicate from scratch- except by following certain rules laid down by nature in which case it's mostly automated. Vendors chip away at the edges, trying to make things safer or find cures. As an example, obstetrics today is far safer than it used to be, as is clearly evident when you take a walk in a 1800s graveyard to confirm the number of very young women who died. This is quite different from a vendor deciding that what IT needs is a massively complicated new development paradigm that revolves around that vendor's best interests and becomes largely irrelevant going forward when Google and Apple seize control of the mobile platform.