THIS YEAR marks the 350th anniversary of the foundation of The Royal Society. The motto of the society, Nullias in Verba, generally translated as "On the word of no one", presents us with a laudable aspiration and at the same time a significant challenge., writes PAUL O'DONOGHUE
The intention of the motto was to caution against blind trust in authority and to encourage scepticism and confidence in empirical data.
At a time when scientific progress is so rapid that experts have difficulty attending to findings outside their own immediate area, how is the population at large to make sense of conflicting claims? It is not possible to work from first principles, or to conduct one’s own experiments. It is indeed impossible in practice, not to depend on authoritative sources.
Some examples will highlight the problems that may arise if poor choices are made as to whom we trust. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor at the centre of the controversy concerning the suggestion that the MMR vaccine resulted in an increased risk of autism, was recently struck off for serious misconduct by the General Medical Council in the UK. His initial research was published in 1998.
As a consequence of the erroneous connection drawn between the MMR vaccine and autism, uptake of the vaccine dropped significantly, impacting negatively on overall immunity within the population and increasing the risk to children of contracting measles, mumps and rubella.
Once this incorrect connection took hold in the public mindset, it was very difficult to shift and there are still significant numbers of parents and various campaigners who support Wakefield.
Two other recent examples of questionable authoritative claims come from popular self-help books. Michael O'Doherty is based in Co Clare and is co-founder of an alternative medicine system called Plexus Bioenergy. His book, entitled Just Imagine: a life without illness, is replete with pseudoscientific claims and common scientific terms are misused with reckless abandon.
The book is filled with anecdotes and testimonials from well-known personalities in place of what would normally be sought as evidence.
Two of the most concerning chapters in the book deal with cancer and children’s health respectively. O’Doherty states on page 98 that when people live with someone with cancer, or excessively fear it then “I believe it is inevitable that they will create the cancer”. This may explain why he suggested to his wife and her friends not to check their breasts for lumps, because if they did so, they would eventually find them.
O’Doherty states that “If you genuinely believe that you have something, and fear that something, then you will create it”. This he states, “is a fact supported by science and quantum physics whereby your thoughts have the capacity to affect your physiology and your emotions affect your DNA”. He claims to have treated thousands of people.
With regard to children, he claims that his system can hugely benefit children with ADHD, autism, asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, diabetes and many more conditions. He advises parents that “you need to exhaust every avenue . . . Do not depend solely on the health service and drug companies”.
Another book published this year, The compassionate intentions of illness, by Tony Humphreys and Helen Ruddle, both trained in mainstream psychology, is also quite concerning in its claim that every illness is created by a wise “self”, a kind of homuncular entity, as a substitute response in the face of threats to self expression.
It is suggested, for example, that men “may require open-heart surgery to bring attention to their dire need to love and be loved” if they cannot express these needs otherwise.
They claim that if such threats to self-expression are not recognised and addressed as a consequence of a minor illness being created, then a more serious one will arise. Latter conditions include multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, and cancer.
Unfortunately, many people take seriously such claims as made by those quoted above and may be adversely affected if their interpretation of what is being claimed deflects them from appropriate treatment.
What might be done to improve things? People need to be more sceptical; to question whether claims made make sense, are supported by evidence other than anecdotes and testimonials, and are reflective of the consensus within the medical and scientific community. A “yes” to these three merits increases confidence.
Scientists and other mainstream practitioners may be short on time, but have an ethical obligation to respond seriously to alternative and questionable claims.
Journalists likewise need to take exceptional care when reporting on alternative claims, and publishers, while in the business of selling books, might more honestly label fantasy as fantasy.
Paul O’Donoghue is a clinical psychologist and founder member of the Irish Skeptics Society. Contact@irishskeptics.net.