Dear Editor,
I am surprised and disappointed that
the National Science Foundation has decided to maintain the 2002 version of Indicators publication including the portion titled, Science Fiction and Pseudoscience (NSF, 2002). Although 2002 is fairly recent, many of the
far-reaching statements made by the writers have been effectively refuted.
First,
the writers discuss the popularity of science fiction and then transition to
their definition of pseudoscience. The
issue with this approach is that they are implying a sense of deductive
reasoning (Jones, 2010). The implication
is that the phenomena that the writers list as pseudoscience is essentially
science fiction. Current research has
proven this implication false.
Second,
the writers do not appear to hold to their own given definitions for
“pseudoscience” and “science” (NSF, 2002).
The stated definition for pseudoscience focuses on claims that lack
evidence (NSF, 2002) and yet as I share below, the authors’ inaccurately
overstate this assertion. Additionally,
their own definition of science includes the view that science attempts to
interpret phenomena and aims to find a testable means of evaluation (NSF,
2002). Therefore, by their definitions,
science should continue testing since it aims to understand. Thus, much of what was questioned in the past
has now been answered (NCCAM, 2013).
For
example, many of the phenomena that the writers list as pseudoscience have been
validated and in fact, the committee that they cite for their list of
pseudoscience no longer lists many of these areas, and the links on their
resources page no longer work. These
pages just may need to be updated, or this may be due to the fact that several
of these theoretical forms have been tested to be valid (CSICOP,
n.d.). Either way, this would still be
an indicator of a publication being out of date.
The
writers list a number of specific phenomena, and then add alternative medicine
as a pseudoscience (NSF, 2002). As
previously noted, the first mistake is that some of the items in the list
concerning health treatments have been determined to be valid. For example, therapeutic touch applies an
understanding that some have refuted, yet research has demonstrated the
effectiveness of the technique. A study
conducted in Brazil sought to understand if therapeutic touch was effective in
treating chronic pain in the elderly.
Not only did the researchers see improvement in pain levels, the
patients also noted improvement in anxiety, quality of sleep, and depression (Marta, Baldan, Berton, Pavam, & da
Silva, 2010).
A second mistake
is that alternative medicine includes a wide number of possible treatment
options for improving health, and this list is regularly changing (NCCAM,
2013). One such alternative is
acupuncture. Although somewhat new for
Western culture, acupuncture is regularly practiced in many other cultures, and
has been for years. Having lived in
South Korea for two years I have seen a number of people who have found pain
relief through acupuncture. However, you
do not need to take my word for it. A randomized clinical trial
was completed in 2012 and the researchers found that patients struggling with
functional dyspepsia, which is known for epigastric pain, experienced a greater
relief from their pain through acupuncture, even when compared to a group that received
a false style of acupuncture in order to eliminate any placebo effect (Ma, Yu, Li, Liang, Tian, Zheng, Sun,
Chang, Zhao, Wu, & Zeng, 2012).
An additional example is from the
treatment of PTSD, one of the more challenging disorders facing our military
and veterans today. As an active duty
Army chaplain I have sought to assist a number of Soldiers who have wrestled
with PTSD.
A study conducted at Camp Pendleton,
CA worked with 123 combat veterans. The
researchers found that patients who received treatment with healing touch and
guided imagery noted significant improvements in their symptoms compared to
those who received the standard PTSD treatment (Jain, McMahon, Hasen, Kozub, Porter,
King, & Guarneri, 2012).
It may be significant to note that some
of these examples are from sound research studies that were accomplished
outside of the United States. It has
been, and most likely will always continue to be, a challenge to recognize the
strong work of others that are outside of our culture, our comfort-zone, and
often times even our language. Although
the United States has a strong history for science and discovery, it is
possible that our preconceived ideas concerning the body and how it operates
may be hindering some of the opportunities presented to us to learn something
new (Freeman, 2009). For example, aromatherapy
to some seems as simple as lighting a few candles. However, researchers in Japan found that the
use of lavender, in particular, improved symptoms of women suffering from
premenstrual syndrome (Matsumoto, Asakura, & Hayashi, 2013). A key attribute of this study was that the
researchers judged some of their findings on the reaction of the autonomic
nervous system (Matsumoto, et al, 2013).
After reviewing all of this
information, it is interesting to note that the stated mission of the NSF is
focused on the fields of science and engineering and is to specifically not
delve into medical science (NSF, 2002).
Is it possible that there may be a little arrogance at play if the
writers are ignoring their own mission and strategic plan? How much may we risk missing if we too
quickly dismiss vast areas of possible understanding because we act too
arrogantly and with too broad of a stroke?
References
Committee for the Scienctific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) (n.d.). Resources. Retrieved from http://www.csicop.org/resources
Freeman, L.W. (2009) Mosby's complementary & alternative medicine: A research-based approach. (3rd ed). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Hains, G., Descarreaux, M., Lamy, A., & Hains, F. (2010). A randomized controlled (intervention) trial of ischemic compression therapy for chronic carpal tunnel syndrome. Journal of The Canadian Chiropractic Association, 54(3), 155-163. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=ba4ca0bd-fdda-4764-ae6c-0b64d7fbbdca%40sessionmgr10&vid=4&hid=15
Jain, S., McMahon, G., Hasen, P., Kozub, M., Porter, V., King, R., & Guarneri, E. (2012). Healing Touch with Guided Imagery for PTSD in returning active duty military: a randomized controlled trial. Military Medicine, 177(9), 1015-1021. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1f740017-15ac-46e9-9e14-8f8f74c6acde%40sessionmgr12&vid=4&hid=3
Jones, R. (2010). Finding the good argument or Why bother with logic?. Retrieved from http://writingspaces.org/sites/default/files/jones--finding-the-good-argument.pdf
Ma, T., Yu, S., Li, Y., Liang, F., Tian, X., Zheng, H., & ... Zeng, F. (2012). Randomised clinical trial: an assessment of acupuncture on specific meridian or specific acupoint vs. sham acupuncture for treating functional dyspepsia. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 35(5), 552-561. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2011.04979.x http://ehis.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e7825cc8-7b6a-441b-a5a9-1717f807fcf2%40sessionmgr14&vid=8&hid=15
Marta, I., Baldan, S., Berton, A., Pavam, M., & da Silva, M. (2010). The effectiveness of Therapeutic Touch on pain, depression and sleep in patients with chronic pain: clinical trial. Revista Da Escola De Enfermagem Da Usp, 44(4), 1094-1100. http://www.scielo.br/pdf/reeusp/v44n4/en_35.pdf
Matsumoto, T., Asakura, H., & Hayashi, T. (2013). Does lavender aromatherapy alleviate premenstrual emotional symptoms?: a randomized crossover trial. Biopsychosocial Medicine, 7(1), 1-8. doi:10.1186/1751-0759-7-12 http://xt6nc6eu9q.search.serialssolutions.com/?ID=DOI:10.1186%2f1751-0759-7-12&genre=article&atitle=Does+lavender+aromatherapy+alleviate+premenstrual+emotional+symptoms%3f%3a+a+randomized+crossover+trial.&title=BioPsychoSocial+Medicine&issn=17510759&isbn=&volume=7&issue=1&date=20130701&aulast=Matsumoto%2c+Tamaki&spage=1&pages=1-8&rft.sid=EBSCO:Academic+Search+Index:88843417
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) (2013). What Is Complementary and Alternative Medicine? Retrieved from http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam
National Science Foundation (NSF). (2002). Science Fiction and Pseudoscience. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm#c7s5l2
No comments:
Post a Comment