NavBar 8000 Deluxe
Home Links Pictures Research

 

 

At the Intersection of Science and Faith

 

Matthew MacLeod

Doctoral Candidate

Watershed Ecosystems Graduate Program

Trent University

 

An essay submitted for consideration for the

French American Charitable Trust Scholarship

 

April 12, 2001

 

 

W

estern culture is pervaded with beliefs and practices based on ideas that are inconsistent with a modern scientific view of the world.  The most visible example is astrology, to which the vast majority of newspapers in North America devote print space on a daily basis.  A proportion of the populace place enormous faith in astrologers, however the majority treat it as entertainment rather than a tool for decision-making.  More contentious are the broad spectrum of homeopathic and “alternative” therapies, including acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation.  Despite being based on mode of action theories that are untenable, the merits of these treatments can be proven in controlled experiments and they cannot be dismissed as easily as an astrological chart.  It is, however, the responsibility of the scientific community to clearly distance themselves from the mechanistic explanations offered by practitioners of these pseudoscientific disciplines.  Failure on the part of scientists to provide skeptical opposition to dubious and unfounded claims allows the exploitation of science in the name of nonsense, effectively bypassing important moral and ethical discussion that must accompany scientific and technological advancement.

 

Practitioners of astrology, acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation offer cause and effect mechanisms of action to explain their disciplines.  Thus, the astrologer interprets how the relative positions of the sun, the moon, the planets and the stars influence individuals and their lives1.  The acupuncturist “needles” the connection points between the physical, emotional, spiritual and mental aspects of a person’s Qi, (their “life-force”), and reestablishes the balance between the opposing forces of Yin and Yang.  A chiropractor manipulates the spine because a departure from the normal position of the vertebrae (a condition known as Vertebral Subluxation Complex) can irritate or impair nerve function, and result in malfunctions of tissues and organs throughout the body3.

 

Applying the scientific method, these postulated cause and effect relationships can be restated in terms of testable hypotheses.  Thus the hypothesis underlying astrology is that there exists a force that acts between celestial objects and individuals that influences their behavior and lives.  In chiropractic manipulation, the hypothesis is that the body is naturally self-regulating, but can be disturbed by misalignment of the spinal column, resulting in various ailments.  The hypotheses underlying acupuncture cannot be stated as succinctly, but must include the following elements:

 

-that there exists within all living persons a life-force called the Qi that is itself influenced by, or composed of, two other forces, Yin and Yang.

-that the Qi can be manipulated by puncturing the skin with needles at specific “acupuncture points”.

-that imbalances between the Yin and Yang forces can influence the Qi and cause disease and pain.

 

In practice, an overwhelming majority of scientifically sound experiments do not support these hypotheses4.  The scientific method would therefore dictate that they must be adjusted to account for this lack of evidence, or alternatively, be abandoned entirely.  Unfortunately, the cause and effect relationships at the foundation of astrology and acupuncture have been accepted for hundreds or even thousands of years, and therefore are not revised or repudiated in light of such recent evidence.  In the case of chiropractic manipulation, the existence of vertebral subluxations was postulated in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, but has not been supported by scientific studies5.  However, this hypothesis is still a component of chiropractic training, and a recent survey of Canadian chiropractors found that 81% believe that treatments should not be restricted to musculoskeletal problems6.  An information pamphlet from the Ontario Chiropractic Association claims chiropractic manipulation can be an effective treatment for colic in infants, recurring ear infections and sinus problems7.  Because they appear to be based on the scientific method but are in fact founded on unsupported hypotheses, astrology, acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation can be referred to as “pseudoscientific” disciplines. 

 

Despite their inconsistency with modern scientific ideals, the public accepts and demands the services of pseudoscientific professionals, and there is a trend towards integrating some of these practices into the mainstream.  The field of medicine leads the way in this area because demand for “alternative health care” is increasing, and government funds are becoming available for standardized formal training programs and treatment centers.  Closer association of scientific and pseudoscientific methods seems logical because there is a body of evidence that supports the effectiveness of some alternative treatments, though often in a much more limited fashion than what is claimed by practitioners.  For example, the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently released a consensus statement on acupuncture that acknowledges its efficacy in treating nausea due to chemotherapy, and for treatment of postoperative pain8.  Chiropractic is firmly established as an effective treatment for lower back pain, and is the only form of “alternative health care” that is covered by the majority of health care insurance plans in the United States and Canada.

 

However, the scientific and pseudoscientific communities are inherently incompatible, and attempts to bridge the two worlds often spark disagreements.  The NIH consensus statement on acupuncture states that the efficacy of the treatment is believed to be due to the release of endogenous opioids, a quantifiable biological response, and that the definition and characterization of acupuncture points is controversial and cannot be reconciled with contemporary biomedical theories.  The biological effects of acupuncture are also observed when “sham” acupuncture points are stimulated, and similar responses are induced by painful stimulus, vigorous exercise, or relaxation training8.  Practitioners of acupuncture counter that efficacy of the treatment is dependent on the quality of the personal relationship between the acupuncturist and the patient, compatibility of beliefs, and a range of other factors.  Since these variables cannot be controlled, acupuncture cannot be fairly assessed by scientific experimentation.  The NIH consensus statement avoids these issues by recognizing that acupuncture is effective and calling for more detailed investigation of its mode of action. 

 

A notable example of the incompatibility between science and pseudoscience was the failure of a recent proposal to establish a Doctor of Chiropractic degree at York University in Toronto.  The program was to have been the first of its kind at a major North American University, and required establishment of a formal collaboration between York and the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, the largest and most influential school of chiropractic manipulation in Canada.  York was initially enthusiastic about the proposal because of financial benefits from the association and the opportunity to draw new students, but meetings between York’s scientific faculty and instructors at the Chiropractic College raised several issues.  After three years of internal debate, York rejected establishment of any formal affiliation.  Among the reasons for opposition were the teaching of “pseudoscientific modalities” in the training of chiropractors, and “attitudes and practices inconsistent with scientific principles”, such as discouraging immunization of children, and the general philosophy that subluxations cause disease9.

 

The NIH position on acupuncture and the failed proposal for the York University Chiropractic School can both be seen as manifestations of a larger ideological struggle.  In both cases the scientific merits of a health care treatment must be weighed against the unsupported theories of its practitioners.  These issues lie at the intersection of science and faith, and are therefore highly contentious.  It is most convenient to focus on the scientific aspects and ignore the faith, as the NIH did in its consensus statement, but it is the responsibility of the scientific community to take a firm stand against mixing pseudoscience and science, as was done by York University.  

 

Scientists must confront and refute unfounded pseudoscience because ethical and moral boundaries are threatened by complicity.  We are living at a time of unparalleled advances in our fundamental understanding of the world.  Recent breakthroughs in cosmology and quantum mechanics have yielded new insights into the workings of the universe at its extremes of scale, and have brought the fields of science and philosophy into intimate contact.  Biotechnologists have mapped the human genome and introduced genetically modified food to the global food supply.  For the first time in history, the cloning of a human being is feasible.  Breakthroughs of this magnitude introduce a host of new ethical and spiritual dilemmas that must be addressed by society; for example:

 

Should we clone a human being?

 

At the intersection of science and faith is a group who claim to know the answer.  A spiritual organization called the Raelian Movement has pledged to clone a human as soon as possible, and has made headlines around the world with a succession of claims that cloning operations are underway at a lab at an undisclosed location in either the Bahamas or the United States10. 

 

The Raelian Movement is led by Rael, a 54 year old French citizen who races sports cars in his spare time under the name Claude Vorilhon, and performs as a singer/songwriter as Claude Celler11.  Rael founded the Raelian Movement after he was contacted by an extraterrestrial in December, 1973.  The extraterrestrial told Rael that all life on earth had been created artificially, and that the logical evolution of an intelligent species was to develop the capability to reproduce themselves artificially.  Rael’s followers believe that it will soon be possible to create a clone of yourself and transfer memories and personalities to the new body, thus achieving eternal life, and that the opportunity to undergo this process is the birthright of all human beings.  At the core of the Raelian Movement is a hypothesis that is analogous to the hypothesis of the existence of a Qi, or of vertebral subluxations:  That there exist extraterrestrials who visited earth in the past and artificially created life on this planet.

 

Of course, this hypothesis has not been verified by experiment.  In fact, the consensus of opinion about alien visitation indicates that if Rael believes he was contacted by extraterrestrials, he is mistaken.  Nevertheless, his story may be the impetus for the first-ever cloning of a human being.

 

The publicity generated by the Raelian Movement can be directly linked to the widespread public acceptance of pseudoscience.  If science and mysticism can intermingle in astrology, acupuncture and chiropractic manipulation, and the scientific community does not protest, then why is it not reasonable that a human being should be cloned based on hearsay evidence of extraterrestrials?  The important moral and ethical discussions that should accompany the cloning of a human are effectively sidestepped.  It is therefore important for the scientific community to actively voice their skepticism of the dubious hypotheses underlying pseudoscientific fields.  Failure to speak out will allow the continued indiscriminate exploitation of science and society, both by the well-intentioned practitioners of “alternative” heath care, and by publicity seeking hucksters.

References

 

1 – Astrology and horoscopes by astrology.com.  2001.  http://www.astrology.com/understanding.html

 

2 – Singer, J.  Acupuncture, a brief introduction.  2001.  http://www.acupuncture.com/Acup/Acupuncture.htm

 

3 – Cleveland Chiropractic College.  2001.  What is chiropractic?  http://www.clevelandchiropractic.edu/About/WhatIs.htm

 

4 – The skeptic’s dictionary, a guide for the new Millennium.  2001.  http://skepdic.com/

 

5 – Benedetti, P and MacPhail, W.  2001.  What Do Chiropractors Believe and Why Does It Matter?  http://www.canoe.com/ChiroYork/chiro_philosophy.html

 

6 - Biggs, L. Hay, D. and Mierau, D.  1997.  Canadian chiropractors’ attitudes towards chiropractic philosophy and scope of practice: implications for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines.  Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 41:3, 145-154.

 

7 – Ontario Chiropractic Association Pamphlet.  1999.  CANOE Interactive Investigation.  http://www.canoe.ca/ChiroYork/oac_pedchiro_pamphlet.html

 

8 – National Institutes of Health.  1997.  NIH Consensus Statement:  Acupuncture.  Office of the Director, Volume 15, Number 5.

 

9 – Chronology of Events in the Proposal for a Doctor of Chiropractic Degree at York University.  2001.  http://www.ndir.com/chiro/chronology.html

 

10 – Peck, P.  2000.  Group Plans To Clone Human Within 18 Months, Technology Is There, Say Experts.  http://webmd.lycos.com/content/article/1728.62289

 

11 – The Raelian Revolution.  2001.  http://www.rael.org