To accuse anyone of an abuse of science is by no means a trivial charge. In the case of proponents of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), the accusation seems, however, often justified. Let me explain this by using the example of chiropractors (I could have chosen homeopaths, faith healers, acupuncturists or almost any other type of SCAM practitioner).
Put simply, science might be understood as a set of tools that can be employed for establishing the truth. In the case of chiropractic, science is used, for instance, to answer three questions:
- Is chiropractic plausible?
- Is chiropractic effective?
- Is chiropractic safe?
The way to answer these questions is to try falsifying the underlying hypotheses, such as to attempt demonstrating that:
- Chiropractic is not plausible.
- Chiropractic is not effective.
- Chiropractic is not safe.
It is only when all of our reasonably rigorous attempts at falsifying these hypotheses have failed that we can conclude that chiropractic is plausible, effective and safe.
This is rather elementary stuff that should be taught during the first lessons of any decent science course. Yet, practitioners of SCAM are either not being properly taught, or they are immune to even the most basic facts about science, or both. I regularly have the opportunity to observe the results of this deficit when I study the papers SCAM practitioners publish.
In the case of chiropractors, this is often embarrassingly obvious. They cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, is a plausible approach for treating a wide range of health problems. Plus, they cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that spinal manipulation is effective to cure this or that specific condition. And, finally, they cherry-pick the evidence to persuade us that spinal manipulation is safe.
Similarly, when they themselves conduct primary research, they set up their investigations in such a way that they confirm their beliefs that spinal manipulations are a plausible treatment, and that such manipulations are both effective and safe.
In other words, they do not try to falsify their hypotheses, but they do their very best to confirm them. And this, I am afraid, is nothing other than an abuse of science.
How can the average consumer (who may not always be in a position to know whether a scientific paper is reliable or not) tell when such abuse of science is occurring? How can they decide who to trust and who not? My simple but sadly not fool-proof advice consists of just two main points:
Firstly, never rely on a single paper or investigation – instead you should look to multiple papers to see if there is a consensus among the literature.
Secondly, you should check whether a discrepancy exists between the results and views of SCAM proponents and independent experts, such as where the chiropractors, homeopaths, acupuncturists, naturopaths or energy healers claim one thing, while independent scientists disagree or are unconvinced. In such cases, your alarm bells should start ringing.
You should then ask yourself: do I trust the person with such a clear and significant conflict of interest, or should I trust the independent scientist? If you chose the latter, it might be wise to use caution and avoid the treatment in question.
