Tradition and Science

[Guest guest]

In a rather peripheral way I am tentatively joining the fascinating

discussion on vitalism and science and traditional herbalism. I would like

to suggest that there might be more rapprochement between holistic and

orthodox practitioners than we think.

I am currently doing a Masters degree in Human Nutrition and like have

my ³nose chained at the scientific coalface² what with molecular biology and

the physiology of the digestion etc. I must have looked at dozens of

clinical research papers over the past six months, and have met, talked to,

and/or had lectures from, a large number of orthodox biochemists and

clinicians. There are a lot of very, very large studies being done in

nutrition at the moment ­ using literally thousands of participants, and

data having been collected over decades. And you know what? They are coming

out with COMPLETELY conflicting results. One of the most interesting

assignments I have had to do was a Powerpoint presentation in the form of a

debate. The class was divided into teams who each had to take a subject

which is controversial in the nutrition field at the moment, and argue

either for or against it. And it turns out to be possible to argue perfectly

convincingly, EITHER WAY, based on the results of these major surveys, for

things like, do homocysteine levels have anything to do with heart disease,

does dietary fibre protect against colorectal cancer, does folic acid

protect against cervical cancer. I realise that these questions are not

really to do with herbalism. My point is really, what price ³evidence-based²

medicine when the biggest, most robust clinical trials, analysed as

rigorously as statisticians know how, can come out with completely opposite

results like this? And nutritionists are wringing their hands and wondering

why they are wasting their time trying to formulate meaningful dietary

guidelines when ³there's just no evidence " as my prof said?!

After six months of learning about nutrition from scientists it seems to me

that, rather than being completely happy with the idea of research ONLY

being valid if it¹s forced through the unyielding sieve of the double-blind,

placebo-controlled clinical trial, they have been gradually and unwillingly

pushed into that corner, and feel more or less constrained by it. And there

are some maverick clinicians out there too (thankfully). People like Malcolm

Peet, a psychiatrist who ten years ago suffered derision at the hands of his

colleagues for suggesting that Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation might be

good for people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, but had the courage

and conviction to go on working with it, and has now received an award for

his work. He began his lecture by talking about the non-effectiveness of

antidepressants. Only 56% of patients are helped by them (and I¹ve seen even

lower estimations), and of those, they report only up to 50% improvement in

mood, and the issue of side-effects is huge. (After his lecture someone (not

me) asked him what he thought of St. ¹s Wort in depression. He said, if

he ever got depressed that is what he would choose to take.)

Another promising snippet (if you¹ve got this far) was a review of a book in

the New Scientist the other week, mentioned in an article discussing

Lovelock¹s Gaia theory. The book, Animate Earth, is by an ecologist, Stephan

Harding. To quote the article: ³His new book Š begins with a discussion of

one of his first research projects, a study of the Reeves muntjac deer in a

wood near Oxford Š In the midst of .. Œmind-numbing number gathering¹,

Harding would relax and feel himself merge with the environment, until he

came to realise that he was learning more in this way, as a Œsensing

organism¹, than through factual analysis. His conclusion is that a

scientific approach to ecology must be tempered with a deep reverence that

allows our powers of intuition to bring us into contact with the natural

world.² (Interesting also in view of the parallel thinking of our

forthcoming keynote speaker at conference, Harrod Buhner.) Until

very recently a New Scientist journalist would have put a disrespectful,

ironic slant on that review, but seemingly not any more.

Scratch the surface of many a hardcore ³scientist² and you may often find a

human being with all the hopes, fears, spiritual yearnings, and willingness

to think outside the box, of any of us.

Jan.