It isn’t often that Members of Parliament are praised, vilified as they are over their expenses, point-scoring and deference to vested interests. Yet this week has seen a moment of real clarity in Westminster, a true demonstration of how our elected leaders can exercise critical thinking and formulate policy based on objective, rational evidence – and all this over some tiny sugar pills.
Monday saw the publication of Evidence Check: Homeopathy, a report by the House of Commons Science and Technology committee (full report available as a PDF here). This report followed months of taking evidence from various parties – from registered homeopaths and representatives of retailers that sell such ‘remedies,’ to medic and journalist Ben Goldacre and Professor of Complementary Medicine Edzard Ernst. Analysing this evidence were Committee Chairman Phil Willis MP and Dr. Evan Harris MP, as well as several Labour and Conservative Members. Their findings generated quite some media interest, with dozens of stories leading with the Committee’s call to withdraw NHS funding for homeopathy on the grounds that it is ‘implausbile’ (for more in-depth coverage of the report and its implications, please read the quackometer blog, gimpy’s blog, the Stuff and Nonsense blog and Martin Robbins’ piece in the Guardian) Let’s look behind those headlines to the work the Committee did, and why I for one want these MPs (or most of them) to be praised from the rooftops.
Homoeopathy – a system of medical thought devised by Samuel Hahnemann at the turn of the 19th Century and based on the principle that like-cures-like and that ultra-dilute doses* make stronger remedies – has been available on the NHS since its inception; indeed there are four NHS homeopathic hospitals (another was shut down last year), and it is estimated that up to £10m of taxpayers’ money is spent annually on this form of alternative medicine. Which would not be of concern, were it not for the fact that there is not a jot of reliable evidence to suggest that homeopathic remedies work beyond the placebo effect. (*as I pointed out in a recent blog post, remedies are often diluted to ‘1-in-1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.’)
This is where the Committee’s work began, and from the very beginning they took an approach rarely seen in politics and governance – they first assessed what current government policy regarding homeopathy was, then discussed the evidence base for that policy, and finally made recommendations based on said evidence. Consider, evaluate, act, as some blog or another is called…
They report that whilst the ‘Department of Health (DH) … “does not maintain a position” on any complementary or alternative treatment, including homeopathy … Primary Care Trusts (PCTs)are responsible for commissioning care services and are thus currently free to fund homeopathy.’ This official neutrality is presumably there to encourage what has become the raison d’être of the modern NHS – patient choice. So the government’s stance was to offer homeopathy for free as a matter of choice – but the committee asked what its predecessors had not, which was simply this: can, and does, homeopathy work? This then was the ‘evaluate’ section of the report, and by far the most important.
To differentiate between evidence from homoeopathists (who, perhaps unsurprisingly, claimed that there was indeed evidence that their remedies worked) and other more sceptical witnesses who claimed the opposite, the committee decided to include only evidence from well-conducted, blinded, randomised clinical trials – the gold standard in evidence-based medicine, where there is every possibility that any treatment effect of a drug is down to its own action and not to placebo. This is the first point that I want to emphasise – that instead of treating all evidence as equal, instead of putting poor-quality anecdotal ‘evidence’ (repeat after me: the plural of anecdote is not data…) on a par with well-controlled peer-reviewed studies, the Committee insisted that NHS policy should be based on the most reliable evidence available. For this they are to be congratulated – it isn’t enough to equivocate when faced with a hierarchy of quality, no matter how much homeopaths themselves bleat that their precious case studies (I had a headache, I took a pill, it went away…) have been ignored.
So on the basis of the best evidence available, the Committee concluded that, on the question of scientific plausibility (can homeopathy work?), the answer was a resounding no – in their own words, ‘we consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible.’
So what, many homeopathists say – our patients report that after taking our pills they felt better; isn’t that what matters? So we come to the question of efficacy (does homeopathy work?). Again, using the best available evidence, the Committee concludes that ‘In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.’ The Committee noted that those in favour of homeopathy regularly cherry-picked individual studies that supported their position, and ignored the vast body of quality research that refuted their position. Again, a point worth emphasising – it isn’t enough to say that ‘I believe X works for Y,’ you have to produce high-quality evidence to back up your claim – and not just reports of what is essentially a regression fallacy.
Lastly the Committee looked at the issue of product labelling – the MHRA, the regulatory body charged with overseeing the licensing of medicinal products, came in for some heavy criticism here. Essentially, the MHRA has a rigorous regime that drugs must pass through in order to be approved for use – a regime that includes regulated clinical trials, a solid basis for efficacy, and an excellent safety profile. We can be sure that homeopathic sugar pills satisfy the latter, it’s the former two criteria that they would fail on – only as it stands, the MHRA licences homeopathic pills without any consideration of their efficacy, just their safety. Such a two-tier approach, with one rule for genuine medicines and another for placebo-based diluted nothing, was deemed to be inappropriate.
In summing up, the report states that, considering the evidence, if NHS doctors prescribe homeopathic medicines, ‘they risk damaging the trust that exists between them and their patients.’ Moreover, the Committee concludes that ‘when the NHS funds homeopathy, it endorses it,’ and therefore ‘The Government should stop allowing the funding of homeopathy on the NHS.’
Of course this damming verdict matters, and of course the MPs have made the right judgement in calling for an end to government-sponsored homeopathy. But as a scientist trained in the evaluation of evidence, whose profession rests on rigorous and critical analysis of evidence regardless of one’s prior assumptions, the process through which they reached their conclusions matter more. It is great to see rational scientific principles being brought to bear in the formulation of policy. Now all that remains is for the government to accept the Committee’s findings, and for the rest of governmental policy to be subjected to such thorough evidence checks. Well, one can but hope!
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
42 Comments
Except for Bob Russell MP, who has signed this EDM: http://tinyurl.com/yzmsrps. I am rather embarrassed that a parliamentary member of our party has signed up to such anti-science piffle.
Quite right. I’ve never been able to understand why (as far as I know) it isn’t party policy to abolish NHS support for homeopathy.
Yes I’ve just seen the EDM in question, and that Mr. Russell is a signatory. What concerns me is that 40 (forty) of our MPs, including most of the frontbench team, supported EDM 1240, which was included the following wording:
“That this House welcomes the positive contribution made to the health of the nation by the NHS homeopathic hospitals; notes that some six million people use complementary treatments each year;”
“expresses concern that NHS cuts are threatening the future of these hospitals; and calls on the Government actively to support these valuable national assets.”
To me, the second sentence gives the game away somewhat – there is a great deal of pressure on MPs to voice support for alternative therapies, as many of their constituents use them.
I have it on good authority (Chatham House rules prevent me from disclosing the source…) that many Lib Dem MPs are concerned that a show of strength against homeopathy and the like, based on its popularity. My contention is simply this – that just because something is popular, doesn’t make it right…
Hoorah. And yes, Bob Russell is extremely embarrassing. He’s undoing all Evan Harris & Phil Willis’ goodwill.
I remember hearing an Any Questions which had David Laws, Theresa May, Labour Minister Can’t Remember Who and Ben Goldacre. Inevitably someone asked whether homeopathy should be funded on the NHS. May and the Labour guy were pathetically craven and said yes and both of them, I think, referenced people’s feelings. Laws gave an unequivocal no to the question itself, but even he felt the need to somehow soften this with a personal anecdote about how his father-in-law nonetheless found it effective. Would anyone do this if it was any other area of policy under discussion? “Yes, we’re in favour of tackling global warming immediately, but I do have to say my sister-in-law doesn’t really believe it’s happening and she’s found it pretty chilly this winter, so it just goes to show you can’t be too careful!”
@Alix: hah, that old ‘just goes to show you can’t be too careful’ makes an appearance again…
I do agree that most other areas of public policy can be dealt with in a more forthright manner, but when it comes to alternative medicine (and for that matter religion, but I’m not sure I want to open that can of worms on this thread…) MPS seem obliged to bend over backwards to accommodate all possible sensitivities.
Thank Flying Spaghetti Monster for Evan Harris and Phil Willis eh…?
I feel rather strongly about this, so I’ve created a Facebook group calling on Bob Russell MP to withdraw his support for the EDM: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=info&gid=320696079951
Who needs homeopathy when you can have religious relics?
James, that is truly amazing. I mean, if only the BBC cast off the shackles of conformity and showed more innuendo and baseless nonsense, then the world would really benefit from this cure for cancer…
Seriously though, the BBC ought to know better – a few days ago our dear friend Ben Goldacre posted a BBC clip showing a woman who claimed that homeopathy cured her cancer.
I give up…
Two pieces of satire have effectively skewered ‘alternative therapies’…
Mitchell & Webb’s homeopathic A&E:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0
The Daily Mash:
http://bit.ly/9lB15N
If homeopathy works, then so should the Daily Mash’s suggestion: “The report could see government funding into the not-treatment being stripped back to £1 as according to homeopathic theory it will have the same effect as giving them £100 million. Practitioners will apply for one penny of the new budget and then be advised to shake it vigorously in their bank account.”
I think the Daily Mash makes an excellent point, but it should go further. The chancellor should write a cheque to the British Homeopathic Association for 0.00000000000000000001p tomorrow!
I haven’t believed in it since the age of eight when during a boring evening left on my own at home I munched my way through my parents’ stock of homoeopathic pills with no discernable effect. However, it does occur to me to wonder whether it is a cost-effective treatment for the many people who believe in it. After all, the placebo effect is demonstrably extremely powerful, and probably particularly so if it is supported by a pseudo-scientific infrastructure. Without reading the Committee’s report I don’t know if they considered this point, but despite the treatment being completely unscientific it could still be creating value for money for the NHS, in which case why stop funding it?
I hate to interrupt a good bit of alternative therapy bashing, but if a placebo works and is safe and cheap, why on earth should we stop funding it?
I haven’t had a chance to read the report but I disagree with Prateek’s assertion that the key issue is isolating the effect of the homeopathy compared to a placebo. Surely the fair test should be whether it actually has a beneficial effect, regardless of what is causing this.
One example: should we stop funding arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee because it doesn’t work?
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/2/81
Arguably yes, because it doesn’t work – it is just the placebo effect. But if people can walk and have vastly improved mobility as a result of the procedure, then who are we to say they shouldn’t? This is the reason that around 650,000 of these procedures are still carried out in the US at over $5,000 a pop (I imagine they are also carried out in the UK but don’t have info on this). Compared to this the 10 million cost of homeopathy seems a small price to pay for patient choice and improved health.
I normally have the greatest of respect for Even and Phil, but I’m not sure this is either liberal or a sensible use of campaigning resources.
I hate to interrupt a good bit of alternative therapy bashing, but if a placebo works and is safe and cheap, why on earth should we stop funding it?
Because doctors could instead prescribe magic feathers which they made themselves, thereby saving the taxpayer millions of pounds instead of making sugar pill salesmen rich.
Indeed, I have discovered through totally uncontrolled experiment that it is possible to knowingly induce the placebo effect on oneself. VIz, I get drunk and have a terrible hangover which (typically) I have great trouble fighting off. Paracetamol, alka seltzer, bloody mary – nothing works. For some reason, one day I self-medicated with a packet of Walkers prawn cocktail crisps and (probably entirely coincidentally) recovered from the hangover much more quickly than usual. So now that’s what I use to “cure” a hangover, and I seem to be able to believe in it even though I don’t really believe in it.
Sorry James, I think that response is a bit simplistic. For a placebo to work successfully the patient has to believe it is going to work. Millions of people believe in homoeopathy: if they believe that it has any scientific basis then they are wrong, but if, for whatever reasons, they believe that it is going to do them some good then it well might. “Magic feathers” might work for a few simple-minded people but they are not all that likely to be effective for very many. And is there any evidence to suggest that there are very many rich ‘sugar pill salesmen’? How about rich drugs salesmen? Rich cosmetic surgeons? I don’t think this is a productive line of argument: perhaps someone could address the points made above by Joel and myself instead.
The following situation should never happen:
Politican A: Well, we can keep these 100 or 120 people in well paid and producive jobs, or we can buy the materials to build a solid gold statue of cheese.
Politican B: My constituents like gold. Do that one.
The following situation should never happen:
Politician A: Well, we could put £10m towards the shortfall of the IBERS department at Aberystwyth University, or we could give these overpriced placebos to people so they put on a more positive outlook of life and get better.
Politican B: My constituents use those overpriced placebos. Do that one.
@Simon Titley: I love that homeopathic A&E! Here’s another excellent skewering: “If homeopathy works I’ll drink my own piss” by Crispian Jago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1B2aFElfjE
In the 19th Century and before, doctors education was largely on manners and so on. I imagine that most success was down to placebo at these times. There is no reason why we can’t have evidence based policy: use the drugs, and train doctors to give out medicine in the most placebo-maxing way. That would use the most of the evidence we have (though we should stick to truthfull comments, which reduces it a fair bit, for ethics sake…)
Joel and tony hill raise some interesting points – let me deal with the easiest first if I may. tony asks
. How about Boiron, a French manufacturer of homeopathic remedies, which as Prof. David Colquhoun shows makes around twenty million euros annual profit on a trade volume of 300 million – a larger business in anybody’s book. Yes there are rich pharmaceutical-ists, but that’s another story – perhaps for another post (incidentally, speaking of Boiron, they are another example of how large alt med companies, or Big Quacka as they’re affectionately known, out-do Big Pharma in their money-hungry antics – according to the master badscience blogger gimpy, Boiron spend 18.5 times more on marketing than on R&D, whereas pharmaceutical companies spend *only* twice as much).
On to the placebo effect. I have some sympathy with the position that if something ‘works’, even as a placebo, we should use it. Indeed, I’d go as far as to say that mainstream medicine has a lot to learn from the placebo – whether it’s the long consultation times, the humanity shown in treating the patient as if their conditions matter, or the elaborate theatrics of intervention, there’s something in it to be sure. Three caveats as I see them (short for time so I might expand this argument on my blog sometime soon). Firstly, let’s look at the definition of ‘works.’ If patient presents with symptoms X, undergoes procedure Y, and reports reduction in X, tony & joel’s argument would be that X should be an approved treatment for Y. Trouble is, Y is almost always a chronic and/or self-limiting and or/phasic condition, which abates without intervention – most alt med therapies are used against colds, irritable bowel, chronic pain etc. Also, patients are likely to present when their symptoms are at their worst – thereby increasing the likelihood that X will ‘feel better’ anyway, regardless of Y. So when patients self-report that they feel better, we have to be wary of saying that the treatment in question ‘works,’ which is why I’d question saying ‘but it works, no matter how, so let it be…’
Second objection is this – If your argument is that ‘millions of people believe that homeopathy works for them, why not offer it,’ then why stop at offering homeopathy? why not offer vitamin pills as anti-ageing solutions? Millions of people believe that taking vitamin pills makes them look/feel younger, so why not prescribe them? The answer of course is that they don’t work – there’s much evidence to show this. Offering remedies that people think are effective is not the same as offering remedies that are effective. Remember, we must remember that we’re speaking of these treatments in the context of the NHS, a taxpayer-funded institution. Nobody is saying that homeopathy/vitamin pills/reiki should be banned outright, just that the NHS should only provide treatments that work. This is where it gets tricky though, as joel shows with the knee surgery study. I’m afraid the same standards apply there – just because doctors believe arthroscopy works, doesn’t mean that it does – and if it’s shown to be no better than placebo then the principles of evidence-based medicine suggest that they shouldn’t be used. This applies to all medical practice – a great deal of which is being scrutinised and revised according to the result of comprehensive meta-analyses.
Which brings me onto the final objection – that of the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship and of double-standards. When prescribing any other drug, the doctor says to the patient ‘take this, it will help you get better.’ In prescribing homeopathy, they are lying to the patient (unless the doc themselves believes it will help, which is not better) – ethically dubious, no? And then there’s double-standards – we insist that all new drugs go through rigorous safety testing, double-blinded placebo-controlled trials (whenever possible) before being approved – but for homeopathy, we should just offer it because people think it works? Sorry, don’t buy it…
enough ranting for now, will try and expand on these points on my blog some time – do let me know what you think tho… 🙂
I’m sure that inducing a placebo effect is legitimate practice in many cases and should be an option open to GPs, but that still doesn’t justify spending NHS money on homeopathy. If placebo is the only consideration then surely bog-standard sugar pills will work just as well as very expensive magical sugar pills that have had spells cast on them by a witch-doctor, but at a fraction of the price.
I’m sure that March 2007 is too long ago to judge people for having expressed misguided views, even if they are MPs. We can rebuke them for not having been careful but if they really have seen through the woo now then I wouldn’t hold it against them.
I am pleased to see that Walley is not a signatory to either EDM & that we are having some respect for science & rationality, especially since Simon Singh seems to to have had a good day.
Asquith may be right about the 2007 EDM but I am concerned to see that Mike Hancock has now joined Bob Russell in signing the current one. http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=40517&SESSION=903
Thank you Prateek Buch for engaging with the argument I was putting forward. I probably didn’t make my central point clearly enough last night because I wasn’t feeling too well, but I took some Nux Vomica and….only joking! I don’t believe there is any scientific basis to homoeopathy and I don’t believe it works for me, but essentially what I was wondering was whether the committee had done a cost/benefit analysis (if such a procedure is still used) on the existing homoeopathic institutions operating under the aegis of the NHS. If they are not providing value for money then withdraw public funding and let them fund themselves in future – it seems that private homoeopathic practitioners can successfully make good livings; but if, as I suspect, they have financial outcomes that are as good as, or better, than similar mainstream institutions in the NHS then withdrawing funding would be tantamount to an abuse of power by the scientific rationalists. And just in passing, I don’t think a 6.7% net profit on turnover amounts to getting rich!
Another reason to remove NHS funding for homeopathy is to remove the credence that the NHS’s association brings.
If people believe homeopathy is curing minor ailments, then there’s no major harm done by taking them instead of a proven medicine. However, when people suffering from life-threatening illnesses are targeted by placebo-pushing charlatans, a reassurance that the NHS uses homeopathy could persuade someone who’s desperate and vulnerable.
“… if, as I suspect, they have financial outcomes that are as good as, or better, than similar mainstream institutions in the NHS then withdrawing funding would be tantamount to an abuse of power by the scientific rationalists.”
If a “cost/benefit” analysis indicates that treatment based on a placebo has a better “financial outcome” than one based on a scientifically proven drug, then I’d suggest there’s probably something wrong with the analysis!
Not that I find it difficult to believe that it would. After all, sugar is pretty cheap!
tony hill, no need to thank, in fact, thank you for taking an interest 🙂
The Committee did indeed undertake a cost-benefit analysis, or at least tried to. Allow me to quote verbatim the relevant passages from the report (emphasis original):
So to summarise, in terms of cost/benefit analysis, there is no way of knowing the ‘cost’ element, although it appears to be in the several millions per annum. As for the ‘benefit’ element, we’re back to the same debate. When a person claims that homeopathy was beneficial for them, how can we be sure that they aren’t experiencing regression to the mean, that they wouldn’t have gotten better without sugar pills? The point is this – homeopaths choose to ‘treat’ things that appear to improve anyway, thereby they’re able to claim benefit. No serious analysis would allow this I’m afraid.
Duncan Stott, agree entirely. The major danger is twofold – that people seeking homeopathy privately feel that ‘well, the NHS uses it so it must be OK,’ and also that when seeking therapy for (eg) a chronic condition on the NHS, a patient feels that they are choosing between h’pathy and conventional drugs – the point being that it’s a false choice as h’pathy has been artificially elevated to appear equivalent to real medicine.
I was speaking figuratively when I referred to doctors prescribing “magic feathers” but on the placebo effect more specifically, a couple of points:
a) Studies have shown that injecting a placebo – ideally by someone wearing a white coat – is more effective than taking a placebo in pill form. If we want to maximise the effectiveness of a placebo we ought to be considering how to get as much bang for our buck;
b) Studies also point to a price placebo effect. Specifically, the more you pay for a placebo the more effective it is liable to be. So by not spending NHS money on homeopathy we might actually be making the treatment of people who insist on homeopathy more effective.
The fundamental problem I have with funding treatments with nothing more than a placebo effect in the NHS is twofold. Firstly, once we know that something only has a placebo effect surely it is incumbant on doctors to point this out to their patients – thereby making the treatment less effective (this applies to medical treatments as well)? Where do we draw the line between “good” lying/withholding information and bad? Secondly, it encourages people to go down the line of indulging in complementary medicine for other things, even in areas where there are lifesaving treatments available, and thus reduce their life chances in other areas.
It is one thing to prescribe something you genuinely think will be of benefit to the patient – quite another to do so knowing the treatment will have minimal benefit. The placebo effect raises all sorts of dilemmas for the medical profession. The lesson should surely not be to go down the line of putting doctors in charge of arbitrating between what facts they tell or withhold from their patients.
As a former scientist, I can say for the first time in my life a politician impressed me. I watched the debates online and can say Evan Harris is the kind of man I want for my MP; very professional in his dealings. I’m pleased, really pleased at the report. However, I’m saddened by the reaction of too many MPs.
Too many MPs seem to reject scientific evidence; something I find bizarre for a country where the sciences are promoted as being essential to the UK economy.
Can MPs really continue to ask the public to pay for an education, an education and expertise they seem to undervalue so readily by dismissing the report?
How many votes will this group of MPs risk losing, not only of the science graduates themselves but of their friends and family as a result? Is it fear of upsetting a scientifically illiterate group of voters? Should I ask how scientifically literate are our MPs in general? Could a group of MPs be so afraid of science that a refresher course in the basics would do them, the public, and journalists a great deal of good?
Are they simply afraid to challenge scientifically illiterate journalists in the press and cheap magazines who may try to create a fuss in order to steal headlines? Why can’t our politicians stand on top of a mountain and proclaim the wonder of science and take great pride in the efforts of scientists and the committee for shining a light on wasteful use of money within the NHS, and have a press event while they hand over the rescued cost to university researchers seeking to find effective treatments for any number of afflictions?
Do I want MPs who show so little regard for evidence to sit in a jury let alone make decisions regarding the running of this country, preferring instead to court incompetent journalists rather skilfully deal tabloid headlines the contempt they so obviously deserve? I do genuinely ask myself that question. There would be outrage if a conviction failed due to a jury disregarding solid scientific evidence on the basis of not wanting to upset a particular group of society, wouldn’t there?
MPs can not have it both ways. Do they value evidence in their decision making, decisions that can and do affect our laws and freedoms, the health of the UK population, our standing as a world force in science and many, many other arenas, our security and even decisions that may send our armed forces to war?
These days, we come with both a vote and an education, something MPs would do well to remember as they fight for the political lives. The politicians of the UK must understand that they must demonstrate their ability to be professional, fair and just to the electorate. We need smart and strong politicians to lead us into the coming years and MPs must demonstrate that they have the necessary ingredients to lead us into a future where we will rely more heavily on science and technology.
Is it wise to face up to the evidence now, educate politicians and the public where necessary and stop funding the supply of treatments that are no more than water or sugar pills on the NHS up and down the length of the UK. After all, it has been 300 years or thereabouts since the Enlightenment. In future years, we may well find ourselves facing more challenging technological and scientific questions and out politicians are required to demonstrate they are capable of making sound decisions from now on, particularly after the recent political scandals. We need an informed group of people to represent us, people who will agree with the electorate when our views are similar, but equally have the spine to stand up and fight for right over wrong, even if a proportion of the electorate do not like what they hear.
Can out politicians demonstrate to the electorate that they understand and will do what is required to govern effectively and honestly?
This small country gave us so many scientific greats including Joseph Black (carbon dioxide), James Watt (steam engine), Alexander Fleming (penicillin), Robert Watson-Watt (radar), Joseph Lister (antiseptic surgery), James Clerk Maxwell (thermodynamics and electromagnetic theorist), Watson & Crick (DNA), the recent Nobel Laureates Paul Nurse, John Sulston and Tim Hunt among so many other scientific giants. Surely the politicians of this small country can demonstrate a concise scientific understanding that illuminates the best British science has and can offer just as deftly as Evan Harris.
Mary – Indeed. But scientific literacy is not enough -my MP was a chemist (Des Turner) but he seems completely useless, a member of the committee, but (I skimed the report) didn’t seem to turn up, doesn’t debate. He is leaving at this election, and seems to have thought he now has no responsibilities (not that he did anything anyway}.
Mary – Indeed. But scientific literacy is not enough -my MP was a chemist (Des Turner) but he seems completely useless, a member of the committee, but (I skimed the report) didn’t seem to turn up, doesn’t debate. He is leaving at this election, and seems to have thought he now has no responsibilities (not that he did anything anyway}.
(In other words, Evan Harris is something special!)
I was quite appalled to see that the party had produced an official reaction to the report, saying that it fundamentally disagreed, and that NHS spending on homeopathy should continue – though apparently the document was “rescinded” a few hours later:
http://www.theliberati.net/quaequamblog/2010/02/27/what-the-lib-dem-policy-on-homeopathy-is-not/
Indeed, the party actually seemed to be advocating increasing NHS spending on homeopathy (and other “alternative medicine”) by having GPs prescribe these quack remedies:
“the measured introduction of treatment with CAMs therapies at primary care level has the potential to reduce expensive secondary referrals and/or long term expensive drug therapy in a range of conditions”
That kind of thing makes the party sound almost as loopy as the Green Party on this issue.
Mary – what a wonderful comment…! Can I suggest that if you feel this strongly about science and its representation in politics, and from your comments it certainly appears as though you do, that you write about it on a blog? doens’t have to be your own blog, there are plenty of sites out there (try layscience.net) where you could contribute an article along these lines!
On the issue of scientific literacy, I’m certain that far too many MPs simply do not understand what constitutes valid evidence. It’s tempting to suggest that having more scientists in Parliament (it’s fair to say that some of us, *ahem*, are trying…!) would solve this problem – trouble is, from what I’ve seen of Westminster, electoral pressure will always trump one’s professional background. Dogma and partisan considerations almost always drown out objective, evidence-based thought – which helps explain why so much government policy goes against the grain of trustworthy evidence.
For that reason, I don’t believe that stuffing the House of Commons with PhDs and white coats is the solution. Making policy makers more democratically accountable and having select committee have more power to hold government to account would help more. What’s vital is that campaigns such as that to remove NHS sponsorship of homeopathy are repeated for all those areas in which a scientific approach would be welcome – be that policies to fight crime, to combat climate change or any other.
I suspect that having scientifically literate journalists and editors would make more difference than doing the same with MPs.
Prateek Buch
Thank you! I might just do that.
Your right about how tempting it would be to stuff Parliament with PhDs; though I doubt many would want to.
I’d prefer to see plumbers sitting beside the chemists, a hotel receptionist sitting beside the lawyer, a whole range of people with all sorts of backgrounds. So long as they are honest to me and to themselves and work hard for the salary, a salary which most people can only dream of, while taking responsibility for themselves when representing the people who voted for them, then that is fine.
I’d really like to see your suggestions of ‘Making policy makers more democratically accountable and having select committee have more power to hold government to account would help more‘.
I want my MP, any MP sitting on a select committee to have enough gumption to admit he is out of his depth on a particular subject, then get up off his backside and either find out or excuse himself honestly. I’ve no idea about the rest of the world, but if my new MP, and it will be a new MP, wants my respect and a repeat vote, then he is going to have to be honest. Why so many MPs find it so easy to disregard such an excellent committee is beyond me. Why bother having them!!
Malcolm –
That is the crux of the issue. When you have not only the Mail, Telepgraph and such like, but also the Guardian providing the cliche’s of our time (scientists need to be more humble, etc) you know that there is going to be a long struggle.
I think it is that journalists want to contribute something to the discussion, but find that they can easily be ignored by the detailed, evidence-based arguments of scientists and academics in general; they want to kick back, and do what they do best: use ad hominems and irrlevence.
It is a shame. I saw recently that the Economist wants a new science correspondent, and explicitly stated that they would prefer someone with a background in science who can write, than a journalist with an interest in science. To be applauded: but perhaps there arn’t enough of the latter covering Westminster, where it counts?
“I remember hearing an Any Questions which had David Laws, Theresa May, Labour Minister Can’t Remember Who and Ben Goldacre.”
I actually wrote about that edition of AQ, and it was Shaun Woodward and Teresa May who gave poor answers to the question on funding AltMed on the NHS. (By “poor”, I mean “answers with which I disagree”.)
Here’s a snippet of what I wrote about the show:
Woodward stated he’d been “impressed by alternative medicine and homeopathic treatments” and believes they have their place in medical treatment. He thinks we should ensure “money is available for trials for actually people being able to choose, if they want to, versions of medicine…” Woodward appeared unclear as to whether we should fund trials or fund treatment for people who wished to choose a version of medicine that has not been shown to be effective.
Teresa May is “quite sympathetic to alternative medicines”, and thinks people should be able to “have a choice”. She believes that some people find that “alternative medicines actually do have a value for them” and that “what’s important is that we don’t simply dismiss them.” I don’t think that any alternative medicine treatments have been “simply dismissed” – many have been tested, shown not to work, and then dismissed. This is a rather different matter.
Congratulations, you have skewered my chance of persuading my girlfriend in Bristol South to vote Lib Dem instead of Labour, precisely because you have come out against homeopathy. I always thought that Liberals were less concerned about being ideologically sound than Labour or the Tories but obviously I was wrong.
These two links are essential watching for anyone who has an interest in homeopathy. I wouldn’t regard science as an ideology since it is a method used to understand how the world works. Science has shown homeopathy doesn’t work, as the Boots man himself made clear. My understanding is the LibDems argue that medicines that have good evidence to support their effectiveness should be available on the NHS while treatments we know from evidence not to work shouldn’t.
HoC Science and Technology Sub-Committee
HoC Science and Technology Sub-Committee 2
Perhaps showing these videos to your girlfriend may help you convince her the LibDems are worth reconsidering.
Hmm, it seems from the comments here that Cleggy’s Militant Tendency exists. Who would have believed it? What next, outlawing religious belief because the existence of God cannot be proved to Richard Dawkins’ satisfaction? It seems that if you don’t fully sign up to a materialist philosophy and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry you aren’t welcome in some Lib Dem circles. And just at the point when the Lib Dems are breaking through. To Mary, who decided to attempt to convert my g/f from a lifelong belief in homeopathy with two TV clips, you might just find your irresistable force running up against the immoveable object of her belief. And you still will have lost her vote. There’s nothing more resistable politically than evangelicals attempting to homogenise the world around them.
Con Logue: I’m afraid I cannot see how you could have missed the point more comprehensively than you have managed. Allow me to elaborate…
The position we take on homeopathy is precisely the opposite of being ideological – it’s about rationally assessing the available evidence and coming to a position based on data not anecdote, science not conjecture. So whilst I am sorry that your Bristolian partner feels that a evidence-based approach to deciding what to spend public money on is not for her, I urge you and her both to think carefully about just what your position implies – that you wish to waste (I use that word advisedly) taxpayer funds on remedies simply do not work.
And this is the point. You wrote about a materialist philosophy and the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and about evangelicals attempting to homogenise the world around them as though we’re calling for homeopathy to be banned in some authoritarian conspiracy. Just to be clear, we are Liberals (the clue’s in the name my friend) and as such we have no intention to ban the use of homeopathy whatsoever. What we do object to, and rightly so given the overwhelming evidence that the select committee considered, is the use of public money on such treatments, and the official endorsement that comes with such funding.
This phrase of yours – you might just find your irresistable force running up against the immoveable object of her belief – is revealing. Your partner has a belief in homeopathy, we on the other hand have evidence that it ought not to be funded by the taxpayer – believe all you want, but don’t expect public policy to be built around anything as flimsy as belief.
Con
You seem to have misunderstood. No one is talking about “outlawing” homeopathy, if people want to spend their own money on it.
What people object to is pouring millions of pounds of public money down the drain on such quackery, when the NHS is so short of money and treatments with proven curative effects are having to be rationed.
Anthony Aloysius St – I wish I could condense my thoughts into something as pithy as you 🙂
One Trackback
[…] the lively discussion about homeopathy and placebos following an earlier op-ed piece several people made comments about treatments which rely purely on the placebo effect such as: […]