March 21, 2007

Homeopathic Degree in Britain Puts Scientific Gloss on Nonscientific Dross, Critics Say

Homeopathy students in Britain may receive bachelor-of-science degrees, but there’s precious little science in their curricula, according to two articles in tomorrow’s issue of Nature. In an essay, David Colquhoun, a pharmacist at University College London, questions the granting of B.Sc. degrees to students who focus on alternative medical practices, like homeopathy, that are not based on scientific evidence.

An accompanying news report notes that six British universities offer B.Sc. degrees in homeopathy, which relies on minute doses of poisons or toxins that supposedly rouse the body’s defenses and lead to better health. But medical researchers question homeopaths’ claims, which have not held up when subjected to clinical trials like those used to evaluate potential new drugs. Homeopathic medicines are so diluted that they are unlikely to contain even a molecule of the purported cure, the mainstream scientists say.

The danger, critics say, lies in the apparent legitimacy conferred on a homeopathic practitioner who holds a B.Sc., a stature that could lead unwary patients to ignore proven treatments.

Homeopathy and other complementary and alternative medical practices are taught in medical schools in France, Germany, and the United States, but only as an adjunct to a curriculum of evidence-based medicine. The situation in Britain is unlikely to change anytime soon, Nature reports, since neither universities nor higher-education organizations seem to regard it as a problem. —Susan Brown

Comments

1. One cannot help but think than the nonsensical and dangerous practices of these British universities (and of many supposedly respectable institutions elsewhere) represent a reversion to superstition that has recently infused western culture as a whole, including the small tribe of supposed scholars who venerate Latour, Bloor, Forman, Haraway, Harding, Shapin and similar practitioners of snarky and unsupported “debunking” of science. In particular, Harry Collins’s furious and frantic denunciations of those who have exposed the ineffectuality of homeopathy and the mendacity of its practitioners comes inevitably to mind as evidence of the real but unstated link between “science studies” and fraudulent medicine.

   What constitutes the causal pattern underlying this linkage far from self-evident. How much is it tied to the “science bashing” relied on by the Bush Administration to justify some of its loony policies? In the end, however, it is clear that gibbering enthusiasm for the “alternative”—homeopathy, “healing touch”, the whole gamut of quackeries—whether voiced by the cultural right or the cultural left—both seem equally culpable—seems to be a central part of the pattern and one certain to have deadly and disastrous consequences.

   — Norman Levitt    Mar 21, 01:36 PM    #

2. As we all know allopathic drug industry is a multi million dollar industry. The article in Nature is also an effort just to keep the fast getting popularity of Homoeopathy in the society. Millions of people are now shifting to Alternative therapies, to avoid the adverse side effects of the so-called scientific drugs. People are sometimes made experimental animals by these drug companies. And as the theory goes, it is the survival of the fittest, and Homoeopathy is showing its credibility by growing use. Allopathic drug companies are afraid of losing their share of the million dollars industry and trying all these cheap tricks to put down Homoeopathy. It is just a sign of frustration. But a journal with the reputation should have studied the science of Homoeopathy before getting influenced by these companies.

   Go to countries like India where already 20% of the population in some states use Homoeopathy. It is used in epidemics like Chikun Gunya, Cholera, Japanese Encephalitis with very good results. No placebo can give good results in such grave diseases.

   — Kannan    Mar 21, 10:40 PM    #

3. I like very much Norman Levitt’s suggestion that the frenzied anti-science of the last 25 years or so reached its culmination on the science-bashing of Bush (and Blair). This is much what Francis Wheen said in his book, ‘How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World’. Once you’ve believed one impossible thing, the next few dozen come easily (and WMD are rather more important than crackpot medicine). Being an optimist, I think I see signs of that era drawing to an end. And about time too.
   David Colquhoun UCL (pharmacologist, not pharmacist)

   — David Colquhoun    Mar 22, 04:01 AM    #

4. As a scientist, I am biased (!) in favor of evidence-based medicine. The emphasis of this story, however, clearly reflects one of the main problems with “evidence-based” medicine. The question is not which system is scientifically better – rather, it should be “What treatment makes the patient feel better?”.

   Take this statement in the Nature article: “For advocates of evidence-based medicine, such arguments are equivalent to admitting that homeopathy is nothing more than a strong placebo effect brought on by an attentive practitioner. If the treatment cannot work unless the patient and practitioner believe in it, then it cannot be due to the physical properties of the remedy.”

   As a patient, why should I care WHY the medicine works? There is considerable EVIDENCE that the modern medical system does a disservice to patients when Doctors do not spend enough time with patients. Accusing that homeopathy works primarily due to the time spent by the practitioner with the patient, in a sense, is an admission that practitioners of allopathic medicine do not give their patients sufficient time (and there is plenty of evidence that it is a good thing for a Doctor to spend more time with the patient).

   It is about time that “evidence-based” medicine paid attention to the “evidence”. For a certain proportion of patients, alternative medicine works. It may well be a placebo-effect, but as a patient I don’t really care what it is called. It behooves modern Science to find out what that is, and incorporate it into modern medical practice.

   So long as alternative medicine makes a patient feel better, there will always be ardent believers for those systems. And in dismissing this bottom-line, modern medicine fuels the supporters of alternative medicine.

   And, finally, moving on to politics – the victory of “mumbo-jumbo” is simultaneously a failure of the proponents of Science. Part of the problem is the supersciliousness of the proponents of Science. By their failure to realize that faith, hope, poetry, humor, etc can have as much sway as Science over human emotions and behavior (all testable, verifiable and quantifiable), the Al Gore’s and the Richard Dawkins of the world are unlikely to capture the imagination of the average human being.

   — V.K. Viswanathan    Mar 22, 09:09 AM    #

5. I wouldn’t be so quick to judge homeopathic practitioners, the traditional definition of evidence is narrow and evidence is often misused due to centric motives. Clearly the research infrastructure that supports western medicine is not as accessible to homeopathic practitioners (or others who practice alternative medicine). When millions of people are engaged in a practice – there is generally some truth, the trick is discovering the truth. Discovering the evidence “what works” will not occur if we judge prematurely. Given the fact that medical errors are a leading cause of death in the U.S. lets be more careful about our use of the term “evidence”.

   — mary wohlford-wessels    Mar 22, 09:44 AM    #

Previous: Professor Who Calls for War Against Iran Will Speak at George Mason U.
Next: Campuses Should Answer Unmet Needs of Muslim Students, Report Says