The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee will shortly release its report on the evidence base for homeopathy. The hearings and evidence submitted for this report have already been proven to be controversial and the outcome is eagerly awaited by homeopaths and skeptics alike. The results of the committee are likely to affect arguments over the regulation of homeopaths. There are effectively two current arguments within the homeopathic community for regulation, exemplified by the differing strategies of the two largest membership organisations, the Society of Homeopaths (SoH) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths (ARH).
The SoH are seeking registration with the Health Professionals Council (HPC), a statutory regulatory body, while the ARH would prefer to use the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council (CNHC). The HPC typically regulate real health care professionals, not alternative ones, and as there is no government support for the SoH’s application this route is unlikely to succeed. The CNHC however, while more than willing to regulate homeopaths, may run into issues with the homeopaths themselves. Simon Perry, of Leicester Skeptics in the Pub, has extracted an astonishing response from the CNHC in response to complains about alternative practitioners:
- CNHC will tell practitioners to remove claims they cannot justify.
- CNHC will conduct a review of evidence base for regulated therapies.
- CNHC will contact all registrants to instruct them not to make claims without justification.
- CNHC will contact complementary health course providers and authors to instruct them not to make claims without justification.
The homeopathic colleges and course providers will not be happy with being instructed not to make claims, such as curing cancer – as on the UCLAN course, without justification and the practitioners will be furious, no longer will they be able to claim they can treat malaria, that homeopathic vaccines work or that diluted duck liver can cure the common cold. This will be unacceptable to homeopaths. So where will their regulatory arguments take them following the committee’s report?
I will make no predictions about the regulatory arguments but I am willing to bet on an outbreak of internecine war within the profession. The SoH have not been cooperating with the ARH regarding their application to the HPC. Karin Mont, Chair of the ARH, recently met with the HPC to discuss the following, according to the meeting summary:
How regulation would work for the profession / Impact of regulation on profession
Progress of Society of Homeopath’s application for regulation
How the Alliance’s views could be heard if the Society of Homeopaths applied for regulation
Discussion around apparent ongoing campaign against homeopathy by parts of scientific community
Information about the Alliance, how it works and what it does
Discussion about HPC processes and procedures
Regardless of the fact that without government support, lacking at present, the SoH application will fail it is fascinating to see that relations between the SoH and ARH are so bad that the SoH are not willing to consult with or inform the ARH on the progress of their HPC application. Not only that it appears the ARH seem to verging on conspiracy, as recorded in official HPC records, in imagining that the scientific community is campaigning against them, no doubt funded by big pharma.
The SoH are also not getting involved with campaigns organised by other organisations to express support for homeopathy. H:MC21, a pro-homeopathy lobby group, have organised a mass protest in support of the trade for later this month:
HOMEOPATHS, PATIENTS, SUPPORTERS!
come toTHE MASS LOBBY OF PARLIAMENTWEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY 2010 at 2.30 p.m.HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT, ST. STEPHEN’S ENTRANCE .So far supporters include:Alliance of Registered HomeopathsHeliosHomeopathy HealsSouth-West London HomeopathsThe School of HomeopathyWest London HomeopathsYorkshire Centre of Classical Homeopathyas well as many individual homeopaths and patients
The SoH are noticeably not listed. Perhaps this is because they have concerns over harassing authors, although this has not stopped them from using libel law to silence criticism, or perhaps they are appalled that H:MC21 have Jeremy Sherr, the homeopath who inspired the World Health Organisation to issues a statement against homeopathy, is a patron of H:MC21, except they funded him. More likely it is because the SoH want to control the lay homeopathic profession. This might be difficult as the ARH and other organisations represent around 40% of homeopaths.
It increasingly looks like lay homeopaths cannot and will not reach agreement on regulation. Perhaps the only regulatory solution for homeopathy will be to ban the practice for individuals who are not on a credible professional register, that is, restrict its practice to medically qualified homeopaths. That option though will depend on medical homeopaths demonstrating that they have higher standards than lay homeopaths. Is anyone willing to bet that this will be the case?



Aric Sigman and a problem with newspaper comment
Posted by gimpy on January 7, 2010
Welcome to my first post of 2010, in which I identify and illustrate a problem with newspaper comment on matters of science.
Dr Aric Sigman is a popular author and presenter with a Phd on “The roles of attention in hypnotic and feedback control of heart rate” and an interest in blaming certain of societies ills on new technology and new media. He has been criticised previously for his habit of cherry picking and extrapolating wildly in various publications exploring this concept. In his latest comment piece on The Guardian’s Comment is Free site Dr Sigman constructs his thesis in fewer than 500 words arguing that:
Cited for support in this series of assertions are newspaper articles, from one and two days previous, reporting on criticism from a variety of bodies, including those representing healthcare, of a recent government consultation exploring a changing of the rules regarding product placement on television.
Following this opening argument Dr Sigman explores his interpretation of the implications of delayed development of “impulse control”.
This passage is notable for containing two references, the last in the article, that are in respectable academic journals and allow us to use them as a proxy to measure the breadth and depth of Dr Sigman’s scholarship. Do they say what he says they do?
The first reference is in the journal Child Development* and is cited as showing “the development of a child’s impulse control is uniquely related to early academic success and is now considered more important in early academic progress than measures of intelligence”. This paper studied “one hundred and forty-one 3- to 5-year-old children from low-income homes”, a small and narrowly defined cohort that should prevent extrapolation to general conclusions encompassing all populations of children, a point not lost on the authors as they conclude “An important direction for future work will be the replication with diverse populations of effects seen in these studies and assessment of the generalizability of training effects to academic ability.”. Furthermore neither of the terms ‘impulse control’ or ‘deferred gratification’, used by Dr Sigman, are defined or mentioned by the authors, they use the terms “effortful control, false belief understanding, and the inhibitory control and attention-shifting aspects of executive function” in their investigations. This work does not support the statement by Dr Sigman.
The second reference is in the British Journal of Psychiatry** and is cited as showing that “acquiescing in the face of pester power is linked to later antisocial aggressive behaviour and convictions for criminal violence”. This paper reports on the link between childhood consumption of chocolate and violent behaviour in adulthood, there was “a significant relationship between eating confectionery at age 10 years and violence at age 34 years”. The authors speculate in the discussion that:
The speculative nature of these mechanisms is clear from the context and they are not considered as proven by the authors, instead warranting “further attention”. This work does not support the statement by Dr Sigman.
However, unlike the first reference, a possible source of Dr Sigman’s misunderstanding can be easily found. The press release from the Royal College of Psychiatrists contains a quote from the studies lead author, Dr Simon Moore:
However this bold statement is qualified in the succeeding paragraph:
Like the paper itself, the press release makes clear from context the speculative nature of Dr Moore’s comment. However, this was not sufficient to prevent articles, such as this in the Daily Mail, that take Dr Moore’s speculation as an assertion of fact. This seems to have perturbed Dr Moore, and in an online response to criticism of his paper on the British Journal of Psychiatry’s website he writes (my bold):
Like the media, it is entirely possible that Dr Sigman has based his understanding of the paper on an incomplete reading of the press release alone.
In my opinion this basic failure of scholarship renders the arguments and conclusions in Dr Sigman’s article void of academic merit or extension by discussion. So why was it published?
Matt Seaton, the editor of Comment is Free, in response to my enquiry as to if Dr Sigman’s article was checked for factual errors and if his references were read, has provided some insight into how these errors were missed by The Guardian.
It is unreasonable to expect newspaper employees to have the time and expertise to examine references such as those used by Dr Sigman and I fully accept the need to trust an author. That Mr Seaton expected Dr Sigman to “’show his working’ and avoid the impression of making unwarranted assertions” is a reasonable burden to place on the author of a comment piece, Dr Sigman failing to do this adequately is not The Guardian’s fault. But the decision to publish was not Dr Sigman’s.
Some insight into the decision to publish may be gleaned from the comments in response to the article where it seems The Guardian’s online readers are more interested in having their prejudices confirmed or confronted rather than challenging the factual basis for Dr Sigman’s opinions. This is clearly not a forum for disseminating knowledge but a platform where the uninformed can combat assertion with prejudice. It is perhaps in The Guardian’s interests to attract the advertising revenues associated with a high volume of readers and they are simply given the readers what they want. Not fact, but opinion.
Unfortunately it is environments such as these that provide resources for that peculiar species of commentator that prefers to advance their arguments by popular opinion than by peer review. It is worth noting that in the 1980s Dr Sigman produced a handful of papers on hypnotism and since then does not appear to have published anything that appears in an academic database. Instead he has penned popular books and recorded less popular audio cassettes as well as performing research for commercial organisations on subjects outwith his, now dated, academic speciality. It appears at no point has he sought professional appraisal of his opinions by submitting them to the rigours of peer review, therefore we cannot know what merit they may have when considered against evidence in the field.
There is a famous speech by Richard Feynman in which in rails against what he calls ‘cargo cult science’ and argues that proper science requires high standards of honesty, absent elsewhere, to avoid the human tendency to be fooled.
Dr Sigman, in his inadequate use of references and tendency to assert without proof, has perhaps demonstrated that he has fooled himself, and others, and is little more than a cargo cult academic.
If only this criticism was a cautionary tale of the dangers of misrepresenting scientific evidence in the popular press. However, contrary to the conventions of the form, Dr Sigman has met no ill fate, only reward. His books sell, his speaking services are advertised at £3-5k a time and he indulges his passion for travel. These are not the perks of the average academic bound by research codes, ethical approval, peer review and the need to constrain opinion within the boundaries of available evidence, these are the perks of cargo cult academics. Slipshod research sells.
The solution to this is perhaps more criticism and challenge from those in academia targeted at those who prefer their theories evade review while assuming the cloak of academic respectability through the shallow use of references and titles.
In the coming year I would like to see academics becoming more proactive in their challenge of misrepresentation of their research by those in the media and I would like to see the likes of Dr Sigman under closer scrutiny regarding the evidence base for their claims. Here’s to a new year.
Dr Sigman was contacted for the purpose of this blogpost and did not respond. I hope he will do so post publication and I will update accordingly. I am grateful to Dr Simon Moore and Matt Seaton for their help and observations.
* Relating Effortful Control, Executive Function, and False Belief Understanding to Emerging Math and Literacy Ability in Kindergarten
Clancy Blair & Rachel Peters Razza
Child Development (78) 2: 647-663
Confectionery consumption in childhood and adult violence
Moore, Simon C., Carter, Lisa M., van Goozen, Stephanie
The British Journal of Psychiatry 2009 195: 366-367
Posted in bad science | Tagged: Aric Sigman, Comment is Free, The Guardian | 7 Comments »