According to the New Testament account, after the crucifixion Thomas insists on seeing and touching the wounds of Jesus before he will believe in the resurrection. Jesus shows Thomas but gently upbraids him: “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Which is fine, as a basis for faith. If that is your response to the ineffable mystery of existence.
Caravaggio’s “The incredulity of St Thomas” (from Wikipedia)
But not when it comes to science or medicine. Or government policy.
In science, our instinct is to side with Thomas: the only acceptable basis for belief is seeing. Show us the data is our mantra. Show us the evidence. No substitutes or alternatives are acceptable. Now and then we might argue about the data and what it means. We might not even properly understand it. But that’s OK, because science tackles hard questions. By talking, debating, turning the problem over and over to see it from all sides and using the power of imagination as best we can, we construct new ideas about how the natural world works. And then put them to the test. To generate more evidence. And so it goes.
This sceptical, exploratory, testing method is the true glory of science. Our experience is that this system has profoundly altered our understanding of the world around us and shaped our influence over it. Through the 19th and 20th centuries, the same interrogative approach has been applied to medicine. The method is imperfect and our understanding far from complete, but the advances in antibiotics, vaccines, organ transplants and fertility treatment are a lasting testament to its success.
And yet there are many who would demur, who cling to fanciful notions generated when medicine was in its infancy, notions that have seen little or no development since that time and are—if anything—a little shy when it comes to rigorous investigation. Fancies such as homeopathy and chiropractic. So-called alternative medicines.
You might think that science could easily bat away such interlopers, who like borrow the vocabulary of science and medicine but are nevertheless easy to spot because, like a tourist on a package holiday, the accent is all wrong. But they defend themselves with vigour, even if it is sometimes with comedic effect.
On Wednesday 25th November the UK Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology will examine the evidence for homeopathy. This is called an Evidence Check and the committee will hear submission from both sides. It promises to be a truly fascinating encounter (details here catch it on parliament TV ).
But the homeopaths are nervous and are trying to respond to this unwanted investigation in the only way they know how — with more woo. Gimpy’s blog reported last week that there is a homeopathic plan to interfere with the committee’s hearing using… mind tricks! On the morning of the Committee meeting, between 9:05 and 9:15, they have asked supporters to participate in an Intention Experiment to sway the honourable members by focussing en masse on the following statement:
We intend the outcome for the UK homeopathy evidence check to be wholly and fully in favour of homeopathy. We intend for the vast and thorough body of scientific data supporting the efficacy of homeopathy to be seen, heard and recognised as valid, solid and scientific. This is so, and it is done.
Yoda would have been so proud!
I’m not making this stuff up. But clearly the homeopaths are.
This sort of voodoo is all of a piece with a world view that is so strangely unworldly. There was another taste of it last week from one of homeopathy’s most enthusiastic proponents, Richard L Milgrom (Ph.D., F.R.S.C., M.A.R.H.) in an article in the Journal of Complementary and Applied Medicine in which he tried to reconcile homeopathy and biomedicine. Permit me to quote from the abstract:
Based on known observables, a rudimentary fractal model of the universe is proposed consisting of a series of self-similar integrated levels of reality, or “wholes” contained one within another like a set of Russian dolls. This model suggests possible contextualization of homeopathy and biomedicine’s observational stances.
The fractal model bears compelling similarities to the ancient Hermetic tradition encapsulated in the phrase, “As above; so below.” In the context of this model, homeopathy’s observational stance includes a multidimensional range of symptoms from across several “levels of wholeness.” In contrast, biomedicine’s stance corresponds to exclusive observation of separate symptoms, each originating from one physical level of reality.
If anyone thinks they know how to explain what this means, please don’t bother to get in touch.
It is easy to laugh (and some would argue that is the only approach to take with these outlandish people) but there is a sober side to all this. In England and Wales, the freedom of the sceptic to poke fun or, more seriously, an inquiring finger is limited by our libel laws. Few here can be unaware of the case brought by the BCA against Simon Singh when he wrote to challenge the evidence for the therapeutic reach of chiropractic.
That law suit is rightly mentioned in a report published on November 10th by The Libel Reform Campaign. The campaign, sponsored primarily by English PEN and the Index on Censorship, has attracted a broad church of support and is striving to bring this country’s libel law up to international standards. Science and public health matters feature prominently among the recent cases used in the report to illustrate the way that the current law is too easily deployed to silence critics.
There is a concise and very readable executive summary which enunciates a clear plan of reform. I can also recommend the succinct dissections of the report presented by Jack of Kent and Simon Singh himself, so I won’t go into much further detail.
The report is lucid and level headed. There are no strident calls for special pleading for science or any other sphere of human endeavour. There is a frank acknowledgement that protection from baseless defamation should certainly be enshrined in law. But the argument that the current defective libel law cedes too much censorious potential to powerful organisations and individuals is built of solid data. It’s not just Simon Singh who has been threatened. The dreadful impact of the libel law on critics of alternative medicine (such as Andy Lewis of the Quackometer) or those who challenge medical or pharmaceutical companies (such as Peter Wilmhurst) are particularly relevant to anyone who cares about having the freedom to debate and discuss the evidence.
In common with many scientists, I don’t see myself as particularly at risk under the present libel regime (as long as I am careful). My research is mostly of a fundamental nature and I am not likely to come into conflict with powerful vested interests. But I don’t see that as an excuse for inaction. As scientists we are particularly aware of the nuance and sophistication of our art, and of the contingent and incomplete nature of our understanding of the world. The necessity of being able to interrogate ideas remorselessly is so engrained in our scientific bones that we may sometimes forget it is there. But that freedom of interrogation — so prized by science — is not something that we can take for granted, especially when our work rubs up against powerful commercial and political interests.
So I would urge you to act. Proselytise for science and the scientific method at every opportunity. And, if you have not already done so, please sign the petition organised by Sense about Science to keep the libel laws out of science. The wider campaign for libel reform is no less important and appears to be gathering important momentum from across the political spectrum. There are statements of support from Jack Straw (the Labour government’s Justice Secretatry), Joanne Cash (Conservative) and the tireless Dr Evan Harris (Lib Dem).
Evan Harris, who is a member of the of the parliamentary Science and Technology committee will, I hope, play a leading role in the interrogation of the evidence on homeopathy this coming Wednesday. He has a very clear understanding of the value of scientific evidence and supports not only Simon Singh but also Professor David Nutt, the recently departed independent scientific adviser, who’s pronouncements on the relative risks of different drugs have so challenged two Home Secretaries.
Preaching or teaching?
Harris and Nutt spoke at the second Westminster Sceptics in the Pub (SITP) meeting in The Barley Mow last Monday. It was an excellent meeting (as already reported by @jourdemayne and @doctorblogs): vibrant, thoughtful and good humoured. Both speakers provided fascinating insights into the facts about drug risks and the sometimes unbelievable difficulties in having a logical discussion on these contentious matters with government ministers. The Q&A session, deftly chaired by Jack of Kent, lasted a good hour and gave the audience a welcome chance to dig deeper. All of it lubricated — a delightful irony pointed out by @doctorblogs — with plenty of beer, one of the more harmful drugs on Prof. Nutt’s list.
Were they preaching to the converted? Probably, but the ‘sermons’ were nonetheless invigorating and inspiring. And provided us with some of the ammunition that we, the apostles of science need to take with us if we are to act in the world and make a difference.
The Westminster sceptics are gathering again on Tuesday to discuss “What Next For Science Activism in the New Media?”.
It should be a good meeting, brothers and sisters.
Thanks for the tip-off about the Parliament TV screening – think I’ll keep that on in the background on Wednesday.
But, hot diggity, another Westminster skeptics I can’t make. I’ll definitely be at regular skeptics in December, though. As long as I don’t have to poke my fingers into anyone’s wounds.
I fully agree with your view that as scientists we need to proselytise about our work and methods. Although at the moment relatively few seem willing to do so, there is a sense of a growing movement, through blogs, SITP, Sense about Science, Twitter etc., that may yet move to protect the essential principles of scientific investigation from the commercial and political interests to which you refer. But this will be a real struggle. In my view, Mandelson’s recently reported ‘vision’ for UK universities is the most worrying, in that it threatens scholarship, risk-taking, creativity, and most of the motivating factors that inspire us to work. We already have much government meddling in setting the strategic objectives of the research councils, which effectively threaten to force those of us engaged in fundamental research to realign our interests and aspirations with those of the political parties! This is extreme folly.
Matt – you and your unhealthy obsession with the undead… But I’m sorry to hear you can’t make it on Tues.
Thanks for your comment Stephen — and welcome to NN. I share your sense that is that there is a growing appreciation of the need for scientists to get more involved in these sorts of campaigns.
Mandelson’s speech/vision was not so encouraging (and neither was the news that the UK is lagging behind other European countries in making investments in its University research base as a way out of the depression).
But it is something of the same old line that we have heard from many Govts. They all have this tendency, though I suppose it’s a bit of a change from Labour who did pump some investment into the university sector in the late 90s. But perhaps we scientists just have to learn to be more effective at getting our (evidence-based) message across. We have to preach the value to society of blue-skies research!
But you know what’s scary – anything less than a total ban on homeopathy will be interpreted as a resounding success for the Jedi mind tricks.
I fear you are absolutely right Bill. That’s one of the most annoying features of the alt. med. community: their ability to tip-toe through the data, cherry-picking as they go.
But that should be no excuse for fatalism or inaction. I think we have to keep battling and, if anything, up the ante (as well as the anti!).
Climate change deniaists take a similarly selective tack. Was pleased to hear Lord Lawson efficiently and effectively trounced on BBC R4 this morning (note – link will probably only work directly today).
For those wishing to catch the Evidence Check on Homeopathy by the House of Commons Select Committee, use this link to catch it live at 9.30 am on Wed 25th Nov.
The same link should work afterwards as I believe these videos are archived.
Thanks for the link. I was interested in Lawson’s use of the term ‘open minded’. Whenever anyone feels the need to be clear that they are open minded, it makes me wonder…
As has often been said, Bill, it means they have become so open-minded that their brain has fallen out. Which is certainly true of the homeopaths.
Too often people wrap themselves in the banner of open-mindedness as a rhetorical trick to retrieve some sort of respectability. Lawson, a consummate politician, is skilled at this.
Interestingly, on the specific question of homeopathy, Edzard Ernst has argued that it is time to close our minds. I have to say, I am inclined to agree.
Oh, and what Austin said too!
Brilliant, Stephen! And worth considering attempt to get published in print somewhere. Seems good fodder for NewScientist ‘s ‘Opinion’ slot.
Very kind of you to say so Lee. And to think I nearly said to myself yesterday morning, “Oh sod it, I’m having a lie-in!”
Bloody great post Stephen! Wish there was youchoob of these events. Nothing like that here in Memphis. in fact it’d be hard to set up due to local apathy & rampant local
creationismlunacy.I agree with Lee; send it to the New Scientist OpEd editor!
Me, too, by the way. Proud to be the first “like” on Facebook 🙂
Of course, the Royal Society’s motto is
– which says it all, as you can read about here.
I half thought about blogging on Milgrom’s latest attack of Reality-free verbal diarrhoea, but I can’t really think of anything that hasn’t already been said. Except that one struggles to take on these folks with satire, because their (personal) reality is already well beyond what any satirist could reasonably invent. I am vaguely reminded of that Statement of Tom Lehrer’s about how he realised satire was redundant when they gave Henry Kissinger the Nobel Peace Prize.
One serious point is that it would be good if scientists’ opinions (like Stephen’s here) appeared more regularly in prominent places, notably in journals. One of the prevailing problems with Alternative Reality, especially in the medical sphere, is that it has a vast slate of its own PubMed-listed publications. These are places where random ravings are treated with utter high seriousness and thus given the status of “publications in peer-reviewed journals”.
In contrast, all too often the scientific deconstructions appears on blogs. Now, the standard of logic and evidence is often far higher on these blogs than in the supposedly peer-review alternative reality journals – but still, it gives the Unreality Community a chance to huff and puff about:
Thanks Ian and Heather. The skeptics meetings are great fun, Ian, and there’s plenty to choose from in London, now that there are two groups running. (I have Matt to thank for introducing me.) They’re all over the UK and the rest of the world – you might be pleasantly surprised were you to moot the idea in Memphis. I’m sure the population is not quite as homogenous as you say!
@Austin – I agree it is a struggle to get through to these people. I have got hold of the full version of Milgrom’s paper and have been reading it with my mouth open. But I still think it’s worth going after them, not (as I think you’re implying) because we’re likely to change any of their minds but because it could (eventually!) have an impact on the general public to see scientists stand up to the nonsense that comes out of all orifices of the alt. med. community.
Moreover, they are very good at getting into MSM outlets and we should try to do the same.
Actually Ian, now that I look closer at that list I linked to, I see there’s a Skeptics in the Pub in Chattanooga. IIt’s only 343 miles from Memphis. What are you waiting for?
Any scientists we know presenting the case against homeopathy? Or is it all ministers and civil servants at these shorts of shindigs?
No it’s a pretty good selection. Here’s the full list of people lined up to speak tomorrow:
Wednesday 25 November 2009
9.30am: Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain;
Robert Wilson, Chairman, British Association of Homeopathic Manufacturers;
Paul Bennett, Professional Standards Director, Boots;
Tracey Brown, Managing Director, Sense About Science;
Dr Ben Goldacre, Journalist, The Guardian
10.30am: Dr Peter Fisher, Director of Research, Royal London Homeopathic Hospital;
Professor Edzard Ernst, Director, Complementary Medicine Group, Peninsula Medical School;
Dr James Thallon, Medical Director, NHS West Kent;
Dr Robert Mathie, Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association
I’ve highlighted the ones I know to be capable of making sense on this. Goldacre is mis-cast as just a ‘journalist’ since he is also a medic with a fine nose for sniffing out bunkum. I also hope that Prof Lawrence will be able to explain the deadening effect of infinite dilution…
It will be interesting to discover what the “Research Development Adviser” of the British Homeopathic Association actually does.
I see from my link that there’s a further session scheduled for next Monday:
Monday 30 November 2009
4.15pm: Mike O’Brien QC MP, Minister for Health Services, Department of Health;
Professor David Harper, Director General, Health Improvement and Protection, and Chief Scientist, Department of Health;
Professor Kent Woods, Chief Executive, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
Hear about the homeopath who died from an overdose?
He forgot to take his medicine.
Har, har.
But for 3 min of quality science humour (warning: tastes may vary), check our Brian Malow’s recent video. Great stuff!
Richard’s comment reminds me of various unofficial competitions we have had over the years at Ben Goldacre’s BadScience site to come up with slogans for homeopathy:
Etc etc.
Stephen, re the earlier comment, I didn’t mean battle fatigue in trying to reach the True Alternative Believers – quite agree nothing any of us can say is going to convince them. I meant that even in “combatting” the nonsense for the possible informing of the neutral-to-undecided, one has the feeling of being like King Canute, or possibly of wrestling blancmange. After 4 yrs of commenting and a couple of years of blogging I frequently feel I’m going round in circles.
I do agree, though, that the Unreality needs “rebuttal” wherever it appears. In particular, pro-CAM rubbish in the MSM needs combatting in the MSM, which is why Ben Goldcare has been such an important influence. Plus pro-CAM rubbish on the internet needs combatting on the internet, etc.
The CAM pseudo-journals (of which the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine is one of the lamest examples, in my opinion) are a problem. This is because they allow pro-CAM nonsense-ists like Lionel Milgrom a cloak of scientific respectability – not to real scientists, of course, but certainly to fans of Alternative Reality like the Prince of Wales and his friends, and also to a depressingly growing (and self-reinforcing) community that various people have termed “”Quackademics.””:http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2008/01/exposing-quackery-in-medical-education.html
I appreciate the frustration Austin, both with respect to commenting/blogging and the impact of Journals that will print musings such as Milgrom’s on the nature of the universe.
Goldacre is influential because he has broken successfully into MSM; I guess more of us should try to do likewise but I don’t know how he manages to write a weekly column and do full-time doctoring. Maybe something worth exploring with the Science Media Centre?
The Journals question is harder to counter without simply coming across as arrogant. I guess they are peer-reviewed, after a fashion, though if all the peers are homeopaths etc. clearly that provides plenty of latitude for publishing nonsense. After all there’s a fair smattering of weak stuff in the normal scientific literature! But, I presume these journals have little traction when it comes to Cochrane analyses?
Great post, Stephen.
Shucks, I’m all depressed, now.
Ta, Henry!
For anyone without access to Parliament TV, you can follow this morning’s Evidence Check on Homeopathy via the Guardian’s live blog.
I have to get ready for teaching this morning so will catch it later…
Want to watch but don’t want to install Silverlight (which Parliament TV requires)? Try this BBC page.
Proceedings should start at about 9:30 am.
As I drifted in and out of consciousness this morning, I caught Tracey Brown on Today discussing the libel business (forward to 1:36:44).
Thanks Lee. If people are looking today (Fri 27th Nov), they can access the two segments on the libel reform issue that appeared on the BBC radio 4 Today programme using this link which has them split into separate audio files.
The segment at 07:37 is the interview with Tracy Brown from Sense about Science; then at 08:48 there is an interview with Peter Wilmhurst (extraordinarily courageous cardiologist who is currently being sued in England by an American company for remarks made in America) and the shadow justice secretary, Dominick Grieve.
bq. “…and the shadow justice secretary, Dominick Grieve.” (Re Libel reform)
…who managed to miss the point spectacularly, IMHO. Much of the current English use of “reputation management” law seems to be about trying to gag and deter criticism – not about “redress and restoring one’s reputation”. How can one see the Wilmshurst case as being about restoring reputation, for instance, as opposed to putting the frighteners on any future persons tempted to be publicly critical?
That this kind of law deals in silencing critics is quite evident from the web pitches of the law firms that specialise in this area. Changing the fee structure will do F-all about this, as far as I can see. What is also needed is a clear-cut “default” public interest defence, not the byzantine and heavily qualified one enshrined in the current English law.
PS Dominick Grieve, lest one forget, is a QC.
I totally agree Austin. Grieve missed the point spectacularly; through ignorance or design, I wonder?
If the Tories get in next year, I hope Joanne Cash takes up the fight to drive the reform through.
I sometimes think that, while lawyers can accept, if pushed, that some (other?) lawyers make too much money out of certain areas of law (like English defamation law)…
– they are much less able/ready to accept that whole areas of current legal “business” should not really exist in the quantity that they do (like English defamation law with people arguing over the minutiae of the meaning of individual phrases).
Turkeys and Christmas come to mind.
Don’t tell me you’re saying that lawyers are only human…!?
Hmm… that makes me think of the many websites devoted to lawyer jokes, e.g. see here.
I like the first one on the site, which I hadn’t seen before:
Q: What’s the problem with lawyer jokes?
A: Lawyers don’t think they’re funny, and no one else thinks they’re jokes.