I suppose there is a "caveat emptor suckerus" element to some things
that have no empirical evidence in favor of them but I argue in favor of
debunking these things by noting that following the false but easy
(miracle diet) route will often obscure the way to the true but difficult (eat
sensibly and exercise) route. If research money is involved, we must
make a decision as to where to spend the finite amount of research
dollars.
When this topic came up on one of my class e-mail lists earlier this
semester I wrote:
"I think that the people who make money off of such [desperate] people
are true bottom feeders making money off of the false hopes of dying
people. I can't really blame the parents and people in the situation
because that is all they may have to cling to . . . . However, we have to
distinguish between how loved ones may feel and what scientists
should do. Scientists and researchers are in the business of evaluating
claims rationally and objectively. There may be no way to change the
minds of those who are sold out to [a} technique . . . . But scientists
and researchers need to allocate their limited time and money into more
promising areas and stop trying to beat a dead horse.
The placebo effect is another issue. Look at the ads for Propecia some
time. I want some of that placebo. It evidently has almost no side
effects and grows a measurable amount of hair. And I have to assume
the placebo has no possibility of causing the birth defects that the
actual drug does. If the placebo actually has a positive effect, is it
ethical to inform the person they are on a placebo?
Rick
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 8 Feb 99,:
> Hello, TIPS.
>
> In my research methods class, we recently discussed the work of Ben
> Franklin and the Royal Commission of investigators in Paris who used
> scientific methods to show that the patients cured by Mesmer in the 1780s
> were responding to the power of suggestion rather than to the power of
> "animal magnetism." The discussion moved on to more modern "cures" that
> have been heavily advertised, such as using magnets to ease joint pain or
> using a particular diet to cure cancer and so on. I tried to make the
> point that magnets may very well ease pain but that rather than making
> decisions based on anecdotes or ads and spending resources on something
> that may be a waste of time and/or money, treatment decisions should be
> based on scientific research on whether the treatment works or not, and
> what kinds of magnets, and what kind of pain, and under what circumstances
> etc.
>
> A couple of my students responded with comments along the lines of "If you
> show that it doesn't really work, you've taken away something. Even if it
> was only the power of suggestion, that actually helped some people, and by
> taking that away, you've taken away something that had some value." They
> were making the "if it doesn't actually hurt anyone, and it just costs a
> little money, and it may help some people, then where's the harm?"
> argument.
>
> I argued that society is better off overall if we debunk such false
> treatments because the time and effort and money that go into marketing
> and producing and maintaining the illusion of the false cure would be
> better spent developing a true cure.
>
> Some of the students didn't seem to buy that response.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing how you respond to the "where's the harm?"
> argument when it comes up in your classes.
>
> (Hope this email makes sense!)
>
> Nathalie Cote
> Belmont Abbey College
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dr. Rick Froman
Psychology Department
Box 3055
John Brown University
Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.jbu.edu/sbs/psych
Office: (501)524-7295
Fax: (501)524-9548
Thought for the day:
Intuition (n): an uncanny sixth sense which tells people
that they are right, whether they are or not.
