Incommensurable worldviews? Is public use of complementary and alternative medicines incompatible with support for science and conventional medicine?

Proponents of controversial Complementary and Alternative Medicines, such as homeopathy, argue that these treatments can be used with great effect in addition to, and sometimes instead of, ?conventional? medicine. In doing so, they accept the idea that the scientific approach to the evaluation of treatment does not undermine use of and support for some of the more controversial CAM treatments. For those adhering to the scientific canon, however, such efficacy claims lack the requisite evidential basis from randomised controlled trials. It is not clear, however, whether such opposition characterises the views of the general public. In this paper we use data from the 2009 Wellcome Monitor survey to investigate public use of and beliefs about the efficacy of a prominent and controversial CAM within the United Kingdom, homeopathy. We proceed by using Latent Class Analysis to assess whether it is possible to identify a sub-group of the population who are at ease in combining support for science and conventional medicine with use of CAM treatments, and belief in the efficacy of homeopathy. Our results suggest that over 40% of the British public maintain positive evaluations of both homeopathy and conventional medicine simultaneously. Explanatory analyses reveal that simultaneous support for a controversial CAM treatment and conventional medicine is, in part, explained by a lack of scientific knowledge as well as concerns about the regulation of medical research

Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the 'vaccination confidence gap'

By far the most common strategy used in the attempt to modify negative attitudes toward vaccination is to appeal to evidence-based reasoning. We argue, however, that focusing on science comprehension is inconsistent with one of the key facts of cognitive psychology: Humans are biased information processors and often engage in motivated reasoning. On this basis, we hypothesised that negative attitudes can be explained primarily by factors unrelated to the empirical evidence for vaccination; including some shared attitudes that also attract people to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In particular, we tested psychosocial factors associated with CAM endorsement in past research; including aspects of spirituality, intuitive (vs analytic) thinking styles, and the personality trait of openness to experience. These relationships were tested in a cross-sectional, stratified CATI survey (N = 1256, 624 Females). Whilst educational level and thinking style did not predict vaccination rejection, psychosocial factors including: preferring CAM to conventional medicine (OR .49, 95% CI .36 .83, 95% CI .71 to vaccination. Furthermore, for 9 of the 12 CAMs surveyed, utilisation in the last 12 months was associated with lower levels of vaccination endorsement. From this we suggest that vaccination scepticism appears to be the outcome of a particular cultural and psychological orientation leading to unwillingness to engage with the scientific evidence. Vaccination compliance might be increased either by building general confidence and understanding of evidence-based medicine, or by appealing to features usually associated with CAM, e.g.–.66), endorsement of spirituality as a source of knowledge (OR–.96), and openness (OR .86, 95% CI .74–.99), all predicted negative attitudes‘strengthening your natural resistance to disease’

A Hippocratic Oath for life sciences: a Hippocratic-style oath in the life sciences could help to educate researchers about the dangers of dual-use research

During the final phase of a three-year-long programme to enhance the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), representatives of the States Parties met twice in 2005 “to discuss and promote common understanding and effective action on the content, promulgation, and adoption of codes of conduct for scientists” (United Nations, 2005b). The issue of codes of conduct is becoming increasingly important in the twenty-first century because, as the life sciences continue to advance rapidly, scientists need to be more aware of concerns over the misuse of science and technology. In the words of the Interacademy Panel on International Issues, “…scientific research has created new and unexpected knowledge and technologies that offer unprecedented opportunities to improve human and animal health and environmental conditions. But some science and technology can be used for destructive purposes as well as for constructive purposes. Scientists have a special responsibility when it comes to problems of ‘dual use’ and the misuse of science and technology” (IAP, 2005). After the conclusion of the States Parties' Meeting in December 2005, the BTWC Secretariat stated: “States Parties recognised that codes of conduct can support the [BTWC] in combating present and future threats posed by biological and toxin weapons. States Parties noted that a range of different approaches exist to develop codes of conduct in view of differences in national requirements and circumstances”, and added that “Codes were considered to be most effective if they and their underlying principles are widely known and understood” (United Nations, 2005b)

Why do ineffective treatments seem helpful? A brief review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>After any therapy, when symptoms improve, healthcare providers (and patients) are tempted to award credit to treatment. Over time, a particular treatment can seem so undeniably helpful that scientific verification of efficacy is judged an inconvenient waste of time and resources. Unfortunately, practitioners' accumulated, day-to-day, informal impressions of diagnostic reliability and clinical efficacy are of limited value. To help clarify why even treatments entirely lacking in direct effect can seem helpful, I will explain why real signs and symptoms often improve, independent of treatment. Then, I will detail quirks of human perception, interpretation, and memory that often make symptoms seem improved, when they are not. I conclude that healthcare will grow to full potential only when judgments of clinical efficacy routinely are based in properly scientific, placebo-controlled, outcome analysis.</p