Science Wooseum Revisited

Time for an update on the Science and Art of Medicine – Living Medical Traditions exhibit in the Science Museum, London!

If you’re not familiar with the backstory, do check out these posts or listen to my report in the Pod Delusion live 2nd birthday episode – go, make some tea and a sandwich while it’s on or something

Briefly, we’ve been trying to improve the Science Museum’s alternative medicine exhibit as there were some serious problems with it. It largely came across as promoting alternative treatments, even advertising practitioners and generally being worryingly uncritical, with no reference to the results of reliable studies (i.e. that most of the ‘treatments’ are no better than placebo and many carry serious risks) – and indeed no mention of the wonderous placebo effect at all.

I’ve highlighted some of the original displays and issues in this photo gallery, now with some new photos – though a lot of them are appallingly blurry, apologies – in this new set.

Important statement

We are extremely glad that the Science Museum has chosen to listen to these complaints and do something about them. To take a second look at something (that people have worked hard on and are likely proud of) with an objective eye, receive criticisms, consider them and make some changes – that is admirable, it’s scientific and what we might expect from such a great institution.

I think in summary, some very important changes have been made, which is excellent. But more could (and should) be done as it’s still far from the resource it could be (I’ll come back to this at the end*).

Proposed Changes

Last year the museum proposed some changes, based on discussions with Simon Singh and the rest of us. They decided the main sections to focus on were homeopathy and acupuncture – while I agree these were the ‘main offenders’, the whole gallery exudes quite a credulous vibe, but I am completely accepting that a total overhaul would take a lot of time and money so let’s look at these two sections for now.

Homeopathy

From the correspondence:

As you know, we are already proposing to make some changes, on the advice of trustees, to make it quite clear that we are describing specifically the Indian context. In general, as far as I can see, you share the sense of what changes out to be made. You have nonetheless expressed two concerns that we should like to address. We will therefore follow your suggestion and add a parenthetical observation:

Homeopaths believe that ‘like cures like’. This means that homeopathic practitioners will give a remedy – often highly diluted (to the point that a bioscientist would say it contains no active substance at all) – that produces the same symptoms as the illness.

I presume the focus is on India because of the resources available for the exhibit. I’m not sure why otherwise, given that homeopathy was invented in Germany and is used worldwide, to varying degrees of disaster (I’m not exaggerating – keep an eye out for Martin Robbins’ experiences of homeopaths in Africa for more in that vein).

The other strange thing here, for me, is bioscientist. What does that mean? Also, chemists, physicists and mathematicians all agree that the very idea of homeopathy is ridiculous and scientifically meaningless.

The homeopathic travel kit was proposed to be removed entirely but as you can see only the caption has gone – so now people just don’t know what it is. I suppose it would be odd if it were just an empty space? Some text has been removed from the panel and now simply describes the image of a woman preparing her ‘homeopathic treatments’ at a ‘baby clinic’ – which makes me sad in itself.

They have also, as Alex suggested, changed their wording – all cases of doctor have now been replaced with practitioner. This is a good thing.

Acupuncture

From the correspondence:

You have also raised the issue of acupuncture. Taking on board all the advice we have been given we cannot agree with David Conquhoun‘s suggestion that the advice of NICE should simply be dismissed. NICE set the national standard estabilishing whether a “clinical treatment [or set of clnical procedures] is considered highly effective, cost effective and safe, as well as being viewed as a positive experience by patients.” Whilst there may be good reasons for overturning their conclusion about the efficacy of acupuncture this process has to be achieved by debate in the public arena, and that has not yet happened.

Obviously I, and no doubt David, would dispute this, but I’ll just leave that there and move on.

The old board:

New text:

Painkillers alone just weren’t helping Stephen’s knee pain caused be osteoarthritis, so his general practitioner [GP] recommended acupuncture. Here’s his story.

Stephen is a retired clinical psychologist, but still enjoys walking and travel. His knee pain was severely restricting his day-to-day activity and he was considering a joint replacement. But he was anxious to avoid surgery of that kind because of concerns about complications and the variable success of the procedure.

His doctor recommended acupuncture – this is offered by his NHS GP surgery and administered by biomedically trained medical and nurse acupuncturists.

Fine needles were inserted into acupuncture points around Stephen’s knee and areas of local tenderness and left in place for up to 15 minutes. Each treatment led to greater and more prolonged relief of Stephen’s symptoms.

After four weekly treatments at first, Stephen now comes to the acupuncture clinic every 6-8 weeks for a ‘top-up’ which keeps his symptoms under control. Aside from reducing pain and the need for painkillers, the acupuncture has allowed Stephen greater mobility, which itself is important in managing the symptoms of osteoarthritis. As a result Stephen thinks his quality of life has improved.

The last sentence no longer says ‘…his quality of life has improved enormously‘. Finally, a new caption underneath:

Acupuncture has been rigorously tested by medical researchers for a variety of ailments. These tests have shown that acupuncture can relieve pain and this is why it is available as a treatment on the NHS. The NHS summarised its current judgement in a review published in 2010 on the internet at:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/acupuncture/pages/evidence.aspx

So osteoarthritis of the knee is cited as a condition for which positive evidence exists. Rheumatoid arthritis, on the other hand, has been shown to be unaffected by acupuncture treatments. What’s important to note is the qualification on this page:

this evidence does not allow us to draw definite conclusions…More research is needed to investigate whether acupuncture works for these conditions.

So I’m still not sure the exhibit expresses the weakness of the current evidence – but at least there’s a link.

Most pictures have been removed, as have captions suggesting GPs endorsed the treatment as effective. For some reason the (presumably fictitious) patient’s name has been changed from Ian to Stephen and he’s now suffering from osteoarthritis in the knee instead of shoulder/neck pain, presumably due to a quick read of the above link.

Mention of Stephen being a retired clinical psychologist is interesting. To me this would suggest an attempt to legitimise his choice of acupuncture as he was involved in medicine himself. Appeal to authority?

While Jonathan Freedman (top right of the old panel) no longer appears in the upper part of the new display, sadly the advertising for the St Albans clinic below remains.

Introductory Panel

Finally, another change that was accepted to be important was the wording that greets visitors on the first explanatory panel. The new is on the left (bit small, sorry) and the old on the right.

Thankfully, the following statement was added:

Contemporary research shows that many of the practices are, from a scientific point of view, ineffective.

And an important clarification has been made:

even today 40% of the population of China use Traditional Chinese Medicine clinics as their first (and often only) choice for healthcare.

Whereas before it was simply an argumentum ad populum – that loads of people use it, ergo it must work/be acceptable (bottom of the right-hand photo).

Other changes made & suggested

Most importantly, the awful interactive video display has been removed completely.

What is disappointing is that some of the things I would consider to be quite dangerous are still there. For example, this description of the herbal product Masturin, about which I can find no actual research, but oft-repeated claims of this nature:

DESCRIPTION

Uterotonic, specific for female disorders. Prepared from herbal ingredients like Saraca indica, Withania somnifera, Abroma augusta, Berberis aristata, Rauwolfia serpentina and iron acting solely on female reproductive system.

INDICATIONS

• Uterine tonic
• very effective in P.I.D.
• Relieves pain in Dysmenorrhoea

A herbal uterine tonic it tones up the nerves and ensures pain free and regular periods. Made from herbs

It worries me that this product is on display along with the claim that Joshanda ‘treats colds and flu’ – it’s this kind of uncritical exposure I take issue with. I know the anthropologists want to claim it’s about looking at culture but I really think you can do that in a safer, more informative way.

Also I was disappointed to see no changes to ‘Professor’ Shi Zaixiang’s board, relating to the claim that he was diagnosing and treating Ménière‘s disease. Also the acupuncture model at the start has not been adjusted so that it no longer claims ‘point BL-60 can be used to treat headaches‘.

*I’m not saying that it should all be a total bloodbath (which is what many ‘skeptics’ might want) but it should reflect what the research has shown – more obviously and comprehensively. It should explore negative sides to these traditions (and more recent inventions) – for example, as my friend pointed out, the devastating impact of TCM on wildlife, making many species endangered and even extinct. Also, ideally (and for me most importantly), tieing in the placebo effect with modern medicine and how the discovery and development of the randomised controlled clinical trial has revolutionised healthcare.

The main thing that drives otherwise rational and caring people to submit themselves and others to quackery when they are vulnerable is ignorance – not of the wilful kind, but most people just don’t know how medicine works. Juxtaposition of alternative ineffective treatment modalities with confirmed effective medicine is the perfect teaching tool.

I’m not trying to be patronising. I am frequently upset by hearing of parents dragging terminally ill children around the globe chasing false hopes and subjecting them to invasive, pointless treatments that often cost them their life savings and cause the child a lot of pain when they could be doing fun things and enjoying what life they have with their loved ones.

What’s a shame is that available expertise hasn’t been utilised. I find this puzzling:

The suggestion that we consult Edzard Ernst is of course a valuable one. However there seems to be little disagreement about the facts (beyond the discussion in which we turn to NICE as an authority). Instead the issue which has been very helpfully brought out in these debates is whether the exhibit can be misconstrued.

I would say that consulting an expert in alternative medicine in constructing an exhibit about alternative medicine would be useful in tackling clarity and factual issues alike.

If anything can be done to make the general public more aware of what they can and can’t trust, medicine-wise, I’m for it. I think this gallery could play a part in that – but at the moment it isn’t. To be noted is that they are planning a ‘radical overhaul’ of medicine in the museum generally so more input from funders and visitors would no doubt be useful.

—

To finish, there’s this hilarious comment in the TCM section:

You don’t have to be ill to need treatment

Well that just sums up alt med perfectly, doesn’t it!! (Also, lifestyle is important in medicine and wellbeing full-stop. Any doctor worth his salt will tell you that, and we hear it all the time; medicine IS holistic. Why do people think otherwise?!)

No Yeo Valley

My brother recently sent me some interesting correspondence he’d had with Yeo Valley reps, due to stumbling across this fairly shocking content on their website:

the routine use of antibiotics as a preventative measure to treat our cows’ ailments is not permitted.

Well yes, good, but…

As a result of this Steve, the Herd Manager on one of our farms began investigating alternative options to the use of antibiotics and began studying a course on homeopathic treatments. Since then, Steve has been implementing what he has learnt by using homeopathic treatments and remedies to treat his cows for a number of issues, including warding-off flies and easing the cows’ stress levels when having their feet clipped.

The treatments have so far proved successful and, unlike with antibiotics, cows don’t build up immunity to these remedies. In fact, they encourage the cows’ immune systems to fight bugs themselves.The use of homeopathic treatments not only helps to develop a more robust immune system, it also means no withdrawal periods for milk and meat while the animal is being treated, as would be the case when antibiotics are used.

Argh. Seriously?! What a load of tosh.

So, ma bro sends them an e-mail.

Homeopathy huh – won’t be buying anymore of your products then if you believe in treatments with no scientific proof. What other woo might you be trying I wonder.

A little terse, but hey. They did reply, beginning with:

Thank you for your recent email, we always appreciate hearing from our consumers. We are always pleased to get feedback and thank you very much for your comments.

Sadly they went on to copy-paste from their website the chunk I’ve quoted above, followed with some more from the website:

However, this doesn’t mean we completely avoid more conventional treatments; if we need to treat an animal quickly and effectively we will always choose the treatment, either conventional or alternative, that will be most beneficial to the cow to aid its recovery and this may involve antibiotic use.

Oh good! That’s a relief.

Steve’s convinced that homeopathic treatments offer a viable, practical option so he continues to favour treating his herd homeopathically whenever appropriate. I shall pass your email along to the farm and they will contact you in due course if interested. 

Is he now. Sounds like he needs reporting to the appropriate welfare board to me.

I would like to reassure you that we operate the highest level of animal welfare standards on all of our farms.  Not only are we strong supporters of the welfare system developed by The Soil Association for cattle producing organic milk, we also take care of the environment in which we operate and act responsibly and ethically in how we do business. Organics standards strictly admonish zero grazing techniques; cows cannot be permanently housed, but must spend the majority of their lives outdoors. The cows must have appropriate bedding and adequate space when they are brought indoors during bad weather during the winter months.

All very reassuring yes indeed, thanks.

Being an independent, family owned British business, we value our reputation and the loyalty of every one of our customers who buy our products.  We have built our reputation on a combination of quality and word of mouth and would never knowingly do anything to jeopardise this.

Thank you once again for writing to us.

Kind Regards

Sally Laurie – Marketing Team

Unfortunately (for the company; fortunately more generally) plenty of people are well aware that homeopathy is bunk, it has no effect, being just water/sugar, and using it instead of actual treatments is simply irresponsible. Even if it is used in addition to proper treatment when required, this is still unnecessary, a complete waste of money and possibly traumatic for the animals depending on how it’s administered.

Interestingly, Zeno also contacted them back in January and received a very similar response from ‘Sally’.

Disappointing that a company claiming to value its customers’ views cannot answer such questions more effectively, but hopefully in time and with enough pressure, such ridiculous ideas will no longer be entertained and people won’t be employed to peddle such nonsense.

Edit: see also this correspondence between some of the Brighton Skeptics and the Soil Association regarding their use and support for woo in farming.

Complementary Responsibilities

I’ve just stumbled upon this article via the Twitters. It’s a blogpost by the Leukaemia and Blood Foundation about some complementary therapy workshops (by @drshaunholt) in New Zealand.

I just want to take some bits from their post and add my own comments as it’s raised an issue in my mind that maybe isn’t condsidered too often in the various ‘communities’ of relevance; medical, skeptical, patient-centred and so on.

Who has responsibility for complementary therapy education?

That’s the question I’ve been pondering, admittedly since about 10 minutes ago so apologies if this isn’t very well-formed.

The therapists?

An obvious candidate would be the provider of said ‘therapy’. However, since we have the unknown quantity of deliberately misleading, fraudulent individuals who are simply out to make money, this is an unwise group to rely on.

This by no means includes everyone working in the ‘field’ but I think we can safely assume that asking a chiropractor if you should pay them to crack your spine because it hurts will result in a resounding “Yes!” in most (but not all) cases.

The patients?

This is the group that most skeptical activities seem to focus on. Sense About Science, for example, aims to arm the public with the tools to ask the right questions and protect themselves against potentially damaging offers of hope, sometimes where none really exists.

We often talk about the people who read the papers and believe poorly-worded articles. People who forsake validated medical treatments in favour of something their mum’s friend’s brother’s daughter recommended and DEFINITELY WORKED. This is another goal of SAS, to address poor science reporting in the media – also mentioned by Dr. Holt.

We’re keen that fewer people allow themselves to be misled and taken advantage of – and I continue to believe this is an important mission, if one that usually feels somewhat futile. If you know your stuff and can be assertive, you can stand up to a barrage of nonsense and come out of difficult situations largely unscathed, and without lining the pockets of charlatans.

What about healthcare professionals?

Here is a group of people oft ignored in this complementary confusion. Regarding the aforementioned Dr. Holt, the blog states:

Shaun is not afraid to tell it like it is. He has had well-publicised battles with both the chiropractic and homeopathic communities due to the lack of evidence that these treatments are effective in helping cancer patients.

Excellent. We need more of these. The diagnosis of a serious illness has to be one of the most traumatic experiences anyone can go through. Healthcare professionals are the ones to break this news and to offer advice and support as people take it in and make their choices about what to do next.

Having clued-up doctors has to be a priority if we’re to help people make sensible decisions for themselves and their families, that will avoid needless suffering and false-hope chasing.

This doesn’t just apply to cancer but to all manner of debilitating and/or potentially life-threatening illnesses:

It is completely understandable that cancer patients will do anything possible to maximise their quality of life and chances of recovery but it does appear that at times certain complementary therapies can interfere with medical treatment.

One of the most famous cases is probably St John’s Wort, a plant and its derived herbal products well-known for supposed anti-depressant properties. However, its active ingredient is also known to interfere with prescription drugs and if people are taken in by those purporting the benefits of ‘all-natural’ treatment approaches, it can lead to disaster.

Something that pro-CAM people will often argue is that there is a place for complementary therapies and patients should be informed of these and given access to them. This may be true to an extent,

Shaun’s research indicates that around five per cent of complementary therapies have real merit in helping address the symptoms and quality of life of cancer sufferers. These therapies include acupuncture, aromatherapy, meditation, art therapy, yoga, certain herbs and vitamins.

However, it should be made abundantly clear that these things are not alternatives, they are not treatments and they will not cure. As Shaun and the blog report lays out,

What must be stressed however, is that complementary therapies can not cure cancer, and it’s really important that patients do not delay seeking conventional medical treatment which may save their lives!

I would like to see a nomenclature change here; therapy can be be somewhat of a misnomer, since we would also apply this term to effective interventions – chemotherapy for example.

These are therapies in the sense that a cup of tea is therapy. Yes, there can be real, measurable benefits but it’s in a more general sense than the treatment of a specific problem in a known, targeted manner.

No one is suggesting we deny people access to lovely things like massages, foot rubs, mugs of tea, candles and fluffy pillows. God, I love candles – my university peers can attest to this (I filled my gigantic room with them and frequently pissed off my housemates with incense. But they let the kitchen descend into a hazardous-to-health state so much it’s not really possible for me to feel bad about it!).

The point is, while it’s good to support ourselves emotionally in difficult times with these little things that can make a big difference in day-to-day life, medical professionals should be clued-up on the associated dangers of fields that make claims bigger than what they can deliver. They should not be shepherding patients in the direction of ‘therapists’ without full explanations of the reality.

Homeopathy will not fix your RSI. Aromatherapy will not sort out your cataracts. Sure, doctors are largely intelligent individuals who won’t fall for any of this stuff, but an alarming number do not know what homeopathy is (or more importantly, isn’t), let alone be able to explain it clearly to someone who’s under considerable emotional stress and may well know nothing at all except hyped-up anecdotes from concerned friends and relatives.

As pointed out by Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst in Trick or Treatment, healthcare professionals hold a lot of responsibility in the drive to educate people about CAM and perhaps it’s time we teamed up with those who are already doing a fantastic job to spread their knowledge so that more doctors can help their patients with these  decisions more effectively.

‘Living Medical Traditions’

Another update to the Science Wooseum story.

I took some time to document more of the exhibit, which is indeed tucked away on the top floor, sandwiched between two very good (and bigger) displays relating to the development of modern medicine. Some really amazing pieces in there. I’ve made a web album of the photos.

Mm, appeal to tradition.

The Living Medical Traditions section is definitely worrying. It has a completely different feel.

In contrast to the display just around the corner, Living Medical Traditions are presented as credible practices simply because they are old and lots of people still subscribe to them.

There’s no educational value in this, and some of it is just wrong. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst did a better job of researching the origins of alternative medicines (e.g. the possibility that acupuncture actually originated in central Europe) – why was Ernst not consulted*?

In the Before Modern Medicine exhibit, the practices of ‘Western’ physicians that are now discredited (such as blood-letting) are openly mocked, complete with caricatures and categorical statements that people were frauds making money out of the vulnerable. We still see plenty of that going on today.

Renaissance practices that don’t fit in with the scientific knowledge we’ve gained since (such as alchemy, astrology – which plenty of people still believe in – blood-letting and so on) are presented as ‘magic‘ and folklore. There are also some beautiful artefacts chronicling some of the medical advances borne out of closer studies of human anatomy and disease.

The tone is very detached; people used to do these things. Wasn’t that silly! Look how absurd and how far we’ve come. But then when you turn a corner, it’s completely different – everything is addressed to you, telling you what you could try and what the practitioners of these traditions could use based on your needs. It all reads like one big advert.

The advertising is far more blatant in some instances though. The whole of the ‘personal stories’ interactive panel, for example (apologies for the snide comments and shrieks of horror at the cupping – not for the faint-hearted!):

To look at a couple of the main offenders (ignoring for now the Geri DVD that had us laughing):

An e-mail address to contact the seller. Excellent.

No discussion of the conflict between hospitals and alternative practitioners, how politics, corruption and various other factors can come into these ‘choices’, the problems of herbal medicine; even if it does work, do we know why? Is it safe? Drugs that have been derived from plants and are widely-used e.g. aspirin and those that are deadly – no mention.

I can’t see this as anything other than a promotion. A commentary on how some traditions are clawing their way foil-clad into the ‘modern age’? I don’t buy it.

David Colquhoun already mentioned one of the most obvious free advertising elements; Parkbury House Surgery in St Albans probably gets a fair bit of custom out of this.

It seems Professor Shi Zaixiang wrote or at least heavily contributed to his own exhibit.

It explains that he ‘treated’ people who seemed to have Ménière’s disease, which can be serious in some cases and there is not currently a cure – though this is not mentioned on the display.

There are other concerning claims dotted around the board.

It seems that the Living Medical Traditions  gallery goes against some of the Wellcome Trust’s own proposals for how an exhibit should be put together:

1. Exhibitions should be research-led, not a form of dissemination

Research into alt med effectiveness – both the negative and positive results – is not discussed here. I overheard one girl at the acupuncture ‘interactive display’ saying “yeah this actually works doesn’t it, because these bits are sort of connected…” and later “You could probably do it at home if you had needles thin enough, right?!” – worrying.

2. A scientist should always be involved in the exhibition, a technologist if it is about technology

It doesn’t seem that any scientists were consulted here. *Professor Ernst would have been the obvious choice.

5. Never show ready-made science

Focus on the processes of science: science in the making; the triumph of discovery; the frustration and blind alleys explored along the way. Also, look at the social and cultural processes of scientific ideas becoming accepted and embedded.

For me, the exhibit doesn’t do that. It shows ideas people have just because… well, they’ve had them for a long time. It doesn’t tie in at all with the generation of evidence-based medicine or why people are questioning the ethical acceptability of these practices.

That brings me neatly to the comments from John Beddington, the government’s chief scientific adviser. Obviously it’s probably not that sensible to compare pseudoscience to racism or sexism – so it’s better to read his comments in New Scientist for a more considered piece.

It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence. We must make evidence, and associated uncertainties, accessible and explicable… We must also be confident in challenging the misrepresentation or exaggeration of evidence and the conclusions it leads to. Where significant consensus exists, it must be made obvious.

He is essentially issuing a rallying cry to challenge pseudoscience, from misplaced scepticism to deliberately misleading and fraudulent claims.

the serious public debate required to drive progress is being undermined by individuals or groups who cherry-pick facts to drive their own agenda

I believe the Science Museum’s tactic here is contrary to this; of course, my view is distorted by the circles I move in and we’re all more concerned about it than Joe Public, but I’d almost see that as another symptom of widespread ignorance of what evidence-based medicine and the scientific method actually are.

Once again, I have no issue with examining alternative medicine in a museum setting, I simply have a problem with the way this is presented; more interesting avenues have been shirked in favour of what mainly comes across as promotion largely due to the language employed.

I’m not sure what the next step is, if anything – hopefully the post and the photos give a better idea of our particular objections to this exhibit.

Links:

Zeno’s blog on the MHRA and homeopathy. Relevant, seeing as the Museum can’t even get it right when it comes to homeopathy. It’s not minute quantities, it’s nothing at all. Even the New Zealand Institute of Chemistry are joining in now.

https://picasaweb.google.com/noodlemaz/ScienceMuseum#5575163246467307730

Science Wooseum update

I said watch this space so here’s some stuff to fill it!

What’s happening?

It’s been a pleasingly eventful week; recovering from QEDcon (see previous 2 posts and links therein) and watching this discourse with the Science Museum unfold.

Many thanks to everyone who’s been sharing the story, stating their views etc. and particularly to Martin for hosting our post on his Guardian science blog. It’s a reply to the Museum’s official statement that I linked to previously.

There are a lot of good comments on the post now; some of my favourites including:

the museum could have a permanent room for Homeopathy along with astrology, tarot card reading, crystal gazing, tea leaf reading, internet urban myths and radionic arse scratching. A sign saying ‘Welcome to the Wibble Room’ could be placed over the entrance.

No one “values” “alternative” medicine. Poor people will be stuck with it, and can’t get any proper medicine; while rich westerners use it as an extension to their cool lifestyle.

One might as well put flying carpets in the transportation section.

Science is science, irrespective of locale. The same as truth, and proof.

Alex’s original post has been linked to by Regan Forrest and I’ll put my comment here (and expand on it):

Why bring it up?

I hosted my colleague Alex’s post on my blog because I thought it was important to share with people who, like yourself, hadn’t had a chance to see the exhibit yet – but would be interested by its content.

My reply to the Museum’s official statement is now on the Guardian science blogs site.

We posted this on the same day as David Colquhoun’s research and criticisms: http://www.dcscience.net/?p=4066

I’d like to go through your points and share my views…

Does an audience’s expectation-arising-from-reputation mean that science museums are obliged to present only a scientific, empirical view of the world in their exhibitions?

When that museum is the Science Museum, I’d say the clue is in the name, so yes.

the writer seems to be just as vexed by the location of the exhibition (in a science museum) as he is about the exhibition’s content.

As was carefully pointed out in the original post, it is not that the Science Museum chooses to talk about alt med that is the problem. The problem is the way in which it is presented; in terms of the content. For more on this, I recommend DC’s post in particular. On why homeopathy is not medicine, jdc posts.

Of course ideas in medicine that don’t stand up to scrutiny, have fallen by the wayside over time etc., have their place. There are many practices that have been and gone.

Hopefully many things still popular today will dwindle into obscurity too – but just because they haven’t yet, does not mean we need to pretend they’re just as effective as validated medicine. To do so seems to me more like trying to avoid offending people instead of educating them (the latter being, in my view, what museums should be doing).

Implicit in his statement is the assumption that the science museum is vested with a sense of authority, and from this comes a responsibility to ensure only scientifically verifiable facts are presented.

Yes, I do believe the museum has a responsibility to be truthful and educational with its content. Otherwise the authority and respect it (rightly) commands would be somewhat without cause.

Mission Statement

From the Museum’s site:
“The Science Museum is the world’s pre-eminent science museum. It houses outstanding collections relating to science, technology and medicine, and is one of the most prestigious and respected organisations dedicated to the promotion of public science and technology.”

the problem seems to be that the exhibition is presented in the context of ‘science’, more than the fact that the story is being told at all.

Exactly. Because research, as the exhibit says, has been done into many alt med practices, and found them to be ineffective. There was and is good reason for the Evidence Check report and its results are why many are unhappy with the NHS’ spending on homeopathy and other complementary medicines (see many great posts on the EvCheck, listed by @xtaldave)

Again, it is the way the exhibit is presented, not the mere fact that it is about CTM, acupuncture etc.

the ’march of progress’ narrative which is often implicit in science and technology exhibitions makes some people feel a bit uncomfortable.

I don’t think the prospect of making people uncomfortable is good reason to shy away from facts, especially in this context. What if there were a holocaust denialism exhibit in a war museum?!  Quite a few high profile people subscribe to that ridiculous ‘theory’. I expect the WW2 atrocities make a lot of people uncomfortable, but that is no reason to twist and distort the truth – indeed, it is even more reason NOT to do so.
(Have I just Godwinned myself?! Crap.)

let’s bring it back to visitors. What do they expect from a science museum?

Can we (not just yourself, a lot of people are doing it) stop trying to insert a crowbar between ‘scientists’ and the rest of the population? 1) It’s not only scientists that are annoyed by this exhibition 2) we’re just people too, you know!!

The scientific method is not the sole domain of scientists; it’s used in many fields (including history). It’s a philosophy. An aim of skepticism is to promote critical thinking and the scientific method not just among the scientific community but in the wider sense – to arm people with the tools to… well, detect BS.

Anyone can comment on this and many are. See also the comments on the official statement (e.g. Chris Richards) – many visitors are unhappy about this, for the reasons I’ve outlined and more. People do expect the Science Museum to show science, and where they’re showing things that are unscientific, to make that very clear.

display does not necessarily mean endorsement, but visitors may take what they see at face value unless authorship is made extremely clear.

Indeed, and again referring to DC’s post and the guardiansciblogs piece, I do not think it is clear at all and would leave many visitors with a sense that Alt Med is pretty good stuff – precisely the kind of misinformation that campaigns like 10:23 etc. have been working hard to correct.

—

To expand on the point made in the Guardian piece, legitimisation of ineffective medical ideas can do a lot of harm; such as in this case, in which parents wish to treat their paralysed child with non-medicine, because one of them has some kind of ‘qualification’ in it. The courts are having to step in. Unfortunately that does not always happen in time.

DC wrote of the power of blogs – the internet has changed the way we do things. Those with the power to make changes will listen if enough people are talking. If you’ve seen something that really should be addressed, don’t just talk about it – get it out there!

Further to that point, Mark Henderson (science editor at the Times) and Dr Evan Harris were at Westminster Skeptics this week – Mark’s writing a book called the Geek Manifesto about the ‘rise of the geeks’, if you will. The biggest achievements to date (such as the libel reform campaign), its potential  as a political force and changes that might be  facilitated, the ethos behind the ‘movement’ and so on. It’s interesting stuff and I look forward to reading it, but for now Mark’s still scouting for ideas about what to include (it’s a fairly expansive topic!).

Someone’s written a nice little post on the event and stated how they feel the skeptical movement isn’t just beneficial to Science but also to the Arts, which I’m inclined to agree with.

—

Links:

Alex enjoying the power of blogs.

Maria Wolters writes her thoughts very coherently, going into some more detail on the potential problems of claiming such approaches as the museum has and the difficulty we have reconciling that with what is actually on show.

Criticism of the criticisms at http://whewellsghost.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/what-are-science-museums-for/

My reconnaissance assistant, @anandamide with his views.

A contribution from a Finn (sorry, poor Google translation!)