Universities 'are duping students with homeopathy science degrees'

http://education.independent.co.uk/news/article2381073.ece


Universities 'are duping students with homeopathy science degrees'
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 22 March 2007

British universities offering science degrees in homeopathy and other forms
of complementary medicine are accused today of duping students into
believing they are scientific.

David Colquhoun, a pharmacologist at University College London, said there
was no scientific evidence that homeopathy was effective or to suggest that
it can be called a "science" .

Writing in the journal Nature, Dr Colquhoun said that last December British
universities advertised 61 courses in complementary medicine, 45 of which
were bachelor of science degrees.

"The least that one can expect of a bachelor of science honours (BSc) degree
is that the subject of the degree is science," he said. "Most complementary
and alternative medicine is not science because the vast majority of it is
not based on empirical evidence. Homeopathy, for example, has barely changed
since the beginning of the 19th century. It is much more like religion than
science."
In a separate report, Nature says many scientists and advocates of
evidence-based medicine believe that giving homeopathy a scientific status
alongside physics, chemistry and biology is unjustified.

"Aside from the fact that there is no known mechanism by which this
treatment could work, they argue that the evidence against it is
conclusive," the publication said.

The number of BSc degrees in alternative medicine has grown over the past
decade, especially among the "new" universities, where there is an emphasis
on vocational training rather than research.

Dr Colquhoun said that he had written to the vice-chancellors of some of
these universities to ask to see their course material in complementary
medicine. He said he had not received any replies and is now using freedom
of information legislation to get access to the teaching material to assess
how scientific it is.

One of the problems was that many forms of complementary medicine, such as
acupuncture, use words such as "force" and "energy" that sound like they are
drawn from science when they are not.

"Some of the words are borrowed from science, but they are used in a way
that has no discernible scientific meaning whatsoever," Dr Colquhoun said.
"Yet this sort of gobbledygook is being taught in some UK universities as
though it were science," he said.

Five of the 45 BSc degrees in complementary medicine are in homeopathy, and
are offered by the universities of Westminster, Central Lancashire and
Salford. The University of Westminster - a former polytechnic - offers 14
BScs in complementary medicine, Dr Colquhoun said.

A spokesman for Westminster University said that the degrees were fully
validated and they satisfied internal and external quality-assurance
standards. "Over a third of the course involves the detailed study of the
biomedical model. In addition, as part of the compulsory core research
theme, students develop skills in critiquing the research literature which
they later apply in their homeopathy and research project modules," the
spokesman said.

"A research-minded and scientific approach to the practice of homeopathy is
therefore embedded throughout the whole course," he added.

Dr Colquhoun said that since 1992, when polytechnics and colleges of further
education were allowed to call themselves universities, there had been an
explosion in unconventional courses such as baking and golf-course
management.

"That is quite different from awarding BSc degrees in subjects that are not
science at all, but are positively anti-science. In my view, they are plain
dishonest," he said.

Vice-chancellors are ultimately responsible for allowing their universities
to offer degrees and courses in complementary medicine and the question is
why they do it, Dr Colquhoun said.

"One reason is presumably that degrees in anti-scientific subjects exist
because there is a public demand," he said. "They are vocational degrees and
people are smart enough to know that magic is a good way to make money."

The Faculty of Homeopathy, which is the professional body of homeopathists,
said that it was not correct that the evidence against homeopathy was
conclusive. Defending the courses, it cited 50 peer-reviewed
placebo-controlled trials that had supported homeopathy.

"This is far too large a body of evidence to dismiss and warrants further
investigation in an open-minded, unbiased spirit of proper scientific
inquiry," said Peter Fisher, a spokesman for the faculty.

'His skin texture changed - it was remarkable'

Kim McConville, 39, and her son Rory, six

"Rory developed very bad eczema when he was only 10 weeks old. He had
steroid treatment but I was not particularly happy with that for a child so
young. He was a very happy child but lost lots of weight, and when I changed
his nappy my other children would have to hold his arms and legs to stop him
scratching.

"The eczema covered a lot of his body - his face was quite bad, but his legs
and knees were the worst. When he was 14 months old we saw a homeopath - she
asked lots of questions about him and then gave him a constitutional remedy
in the form of some sugary pills. His skin texture changed and his appetite
increased - it was remarkable. I never told him that what we did would make
him better so there is no possibility these results were down to a placebo
effect."

'Burning herbs left me with third-degree burns'

Anne Duguid, 69

"I'd been having a problem with my shoulder - I had limited movement in my
right arm - so I went to see an acupuncturist. They started me off on a
course of acupuncture, but after about five treatments I saw no change. The
method they used was one where they put burning herbs on top of the needles.
I stopped having the treatment after the acupuncturist left the room and
some of the herbs fell onto my skin. It was very painful, but there was
nothing I could do - there was no button to press for attention and I
couldn't get up because of all the needles that were still in me. I made a
successful claim because I was left with third degree burns. I had thought
that this treatment might make a difference, but I'd never try homeopathy -
I just don't believe that it works."

The arguments for and against

Pros

* Some patients say it works

* Inexpensive because no drugs are involved

* No side-effects because there is no biologically active ingredient in such
dilute solutions

* Will not interfere with other drugs that may have been prescribed

Cons

* No unequivocal scientific evidence that it works

* It cannot be explained by conventional science

* The medication is often in effect distilled water

* Only definite benefit is the well-known placebo effect

* Can turn some people away from modern medicine


.