Issue link: https://www.massageandbodyworkdigital.com/i/1256819
Science, Pseudoscience, and the Communication Battle By Sasha Chaitow, PhD As efforts to bring clarity to the "infodemic" 1 surrounding COVID-19 continue, the scientific community is realizing two key things: they stand on the cusp of an unprecedented opportunity to educate the public and, to do so, they need to communicate more effectively. The distance between the scientific and the nonspecialist world view has never been thrown into such sharp focus—the scientific community and the general public speak different languages. Clinicians seem to stand between the two, conversant but not always fluent in both. 2 It is not a simple matter to "translate" the context of the scientific method: ideas and ways of thinking that the public cannot be expected to automatically understand. Part of the problem is that many people are semi-literate in scientific thought and terminology, and this often leads them to think they have understood when they have not, to plunge into interpretations based on misunderstanding, or alternatively, dismiss them as untrue or misleading, and buy into false claims. It is all too easy even for highly educated people to fall prey to "scientistic"—rather than scientific— arguments and ideas, and from there, to quickly become convinced by—and to spread—ideas that have no basis in science. Equally concerning is a rapid increase in antiscience perspectives (also known as science denialism) 3 and activism emerging among allied health professionals as well as the wider public, frequently couched as "free" or even "critical" thinking. As a result, a growing number of educators and researchers in the sciences are calling for reforms and expansion in the training of young scientists in order to equip them for "science public engagement and outreach." 4 A widely shared opinion piece in Nature World View by Canadian research chair Timothy Caulfield at the University of Alberta issues a strongly worded call to scientists to address these issues as follows: "First, we must stop tolerating and legitimizing health pseudoscience, especially at universities and health-care institutions . . . If a respected institution, such as the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, offers reiki—a science-free practice that involves using your hands, without even touching the patient, to balance the 'vital life force energy that flows through all living things'—is it any surprise that some people will think that the technique could education SOMATIC RESEARCH boost their immune systems and make them less susceptible to the virus? . . . [T]he idea that a spinal adjustment, intravenous vitamin therapy, or homeopathy could fend off an infectious disease was nonsense before the pandemic . . . There is some evidence that alternative treatments and placebo effects can relieve distress—a common justification for tolerating unproven alternative treatments. But it's inappropriate to deceive people (even for their benefit) with magical thinking, and it is inappropriate for scientists to let such misinformation go unremarked. Second, more researchers should become active participants in the public fight against misinformation. Those pushing unproven ideas use the language of real science—a phenomenon I call 'scienceploitation'—to legitimize their products. It is, alas, all too effective . . . We need . . . all scientists from relevant disciplines to provide simple and shareable content explaining why this hijacking of real research is inaccurate and scientifically dishonest." 5 Regardless of your initial response to this excerpt, I would strongly encourage all readers to read the full article—carefully, calmly, and critically—and then consider its implications. It is part of a larger, older debate that appears set to continue in coming months and probably years, and has the potential for repercussions across the health professions, particularly those whose evidence base is still in the early stages of development. It is evident that this author has thrown out the wheat with the chaff, but we can expect a lot more of it in the N e w ! A B M P P o c k e t P a t h o l o g y a t w w w. a b m p . c o m / a b m p - p o c k e t - p a t h o l o g y - a p p . 43