Debates about the fundamental assumptions underlying the Western scientific method are underway among those doing research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). According to the Western tradition, interventions should be standardized, responses should be reproducible, and “non-specific” effects, including study population variability and the influence of investigators, should be minimized or eliminated. By contrast, individual variability in manifestation and treatment of disease, and the healing power of the provider-patient or researcher-subject relationship are central to various complementary modalities. The broad question is do you rob a form of healing of its integrity when you extract it from its cultural roots and subject it to assessment according to the rules of a different culture? In this paper, I will explore: (1) the philosophical assumptions underlying the western scientific method and their implications for CAM research; (2) whether there is inconsistency (a double standard) in the standards that are being applied to the conduct of research in the conventional and complementary contexts; and (3)whether there are compelling ethical justifications underlying each of the above questions. If our studies of complementary medicine fail to demonstrate efficacy because we have asked the wrong questions, developed the wrong research design or measured the wrong outcomes, it will be a morally indefensible use of scarce resources.
Learning Objectives: Attendees will be able to identify and discuss some of the challenges to conducting research in the area of CAM and their implications for public health.
Keywords: Bioethics, Alternative Medicine/Therapies
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.