This is an interesting blog I found on Women and Skepticism, trying to find an answer to the question "Why are there not more women skeptics?" The author outlines a brief history of Womens' contributions to skepticisim. Among some other ideas, she broached the idea that skeptics have the potential to be mostly men, 'macho' and condescending, and that women are turned off by that, and would rather spend their time with their supportive friends who believe in the paranormal than hang around a bunch of rude men they agree with.
I've had this problem, and not all skeptic communities are very good. I've had some bad experiences with the Rational Response Squad, which might be said to be more of a militant atheist group than a skeptic society. But their tactics involve ridiculing debate opponents, and I don't agree with that at all. Ad hominem attacks are rarely a good idea. The debate we were having was over feminism and chivalry. I suggested that treating someone in an overly kind and chivalrous way just because you desire to have sex with them, and then getting angry at them when they're not interested is sexist and patriarchal. It was infuriating to hear a group of otherwise intelligent human beings spew the most sexist s***.
It turned out they weren't that skeptical after all. But this is a problem, one I think the author of the blog linked at the top handles quite well.
The Bay Area Skeptics are not the only ones to confront the problem. In response to an article by physicist George Lawrence in Rocky Mountain Skeptic, John Wilder (1988) wrote: “For all of the author’s [Lawrence’s] scientific, academic and intellectual credentials, he displays a level of disrespect for others that, in my opinion, is completely inappropriate. . . . The author succeeded only in subjecting a group of sincere . . . people to outright ridicule” (p. 8).
Would a less ‘ridculing’ attitude in fact help both genders? Why, I ask myself, must women in skepticism be particularly ‘mobilised’ or what have you? Are there particular needs that women skeptics have that aren’t going to be bolstered by already-existing Science for Women initiatives - or are they pointedly shut out right now from the embrace of social communities of skeptics, humanists, what have you?
This is a good point. A lot of skeptics are used to having been outsiders their entire lives. They're used to being ridiculed or bullied. But a lot of skeptics, male and female, can come off as condescending and rude, and this drives people away from skeptic groups. Even women skeptics come off in the same way. I know from my experience that being the only person in a group who doesn't believe in God or mystic cults of fantasy can be a real social downer. 'What? You don't believe in chakras? Shame on you, you close-minded person. History was written by rich white men who had a vested interest in squashing belief in feminine-based medicine, you're only bowing to the altar of patriarchy and science, blindfolded.'
Or is this just a situation that faces women in general in society anyway - and skeptics in general full-stop?
I'd be more inclined to believe that male and female skeptics have more in common than not. It's just that women, we _know_ we're being discriminated against, the oppression of women is written on the pages of history. But feminism isn't something you have to prove empirically. It's a movement where women demand equal respect and treatment, not a scientific theory of how the world works. I happen to think that there are probably innate differences in men and women's psychology. But cognitie differences do not equal cognitive deficiencies. And for anyone who hasn't read Simone deBeauvoir, her chapter on female mystics is quite interesting. Quoting again from the blog at the top:
Certainly, I know - research does suggest that women are more superstitious than men (Gallup & Newport, 1991) and that females hold a greater range of paranormal beliefs than males (Wolfradt, 1997; Rice, 2003; IPSOS Mori, 2007), although men express greater belief in UFOs and extraterrestrials (Rice, 2003). According to Blackmore (1997) a possible reason for this is that males are encouraged to engage in science, while females are more encouraged towards social and religious issues which emphasise fantasy life. Studied have demonstrated that there has been a documented increase in belief in various items like Extra-Terrestrials, ghosts, hauntings, communication with the dead and astrology (National Science Foundation, 2002).
It's my current belief that encouraging women to believe in fantastical things is one of the tools of the patriarchy used to keep women from expanding their minds and competing with men intellectually.
Thanks, this was my first post.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women Skeptics.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11767
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I've been a skeptic for a long time. Rational discourse is only effective if the listener is interested in rational discourse. Most woo-woo belief is faith based, not reason based, and you cannot reason someone out of something they did not reason themselves into in the first place. Ridicule rarely convinces the listener. That you are right about. However, ridicule is very useful in pointing out just how absurd a belief is to an observer. It also helps blow off steam after a frustrating conversation with someone who thinks the root cause of illness lies in blocked innate intelligence.
I don't share your belief about encouraging women to believe in fantastical things. My observation is that there are as many men in the woo-woo community as women, and men are frequently visible practioners.
Dear joyfuldinosaur, thank you for referencing my blog.
I'm probably one of the few female skeptics active (occasionally!) online who has contributed to a major paranormal/pseudoscience/conspiracy theory study - and I'm currently writing up my thesis upon it.
This is why I cannot write at length right now; but you can certainly find more resources from the past on my Podblack site - such as the 'Women and Superstition' series:
http://podblack.com/?p=488
Thus I have become very sensitive to the 'why' rather than the 'how could you?' approach, and seek to find an approach that acknowledges factors that influence belief.
I do not endorse ANY particular 'female skeptic' sites, by the way. I do have a blogroll of wider reading, which features many women from many backgrounds, that might be of interest however.
I do appreciate that people involve themselves at different levels, but as you can see from that post, when talking about this particular topic, I endorse research rather than polemic - for me, it's not just a hobby or popularity-seeking pastime!
In response to your concerns and some of the others, I agree that there is a sense of 'militant atheist group than a skeptic society'. I associate more with those who take a step back from such tactics - which recently included completing a Parapsychology certificate and joining a podcast, The Skeptic Zone, to learn more about all facets of belief and claims.
The Deist Skeptic is a post on my blog too that can be found here: http://podblack.com/?p=1167
I also do not agree that someone must be atheist to be a skeptic and have written at length on that matter. Confusing the two has led to division amongst skeptics and one certainly doesn't have to belong or endorse any 'clique or club' to be 'truly' be skeptical (female or otherwise).
In response to Aerik in regards to forum boards; the overt censorship and heavy-handed moderation that endorses sexist stereotypes led me to the conclusion that that particular venue was not worth the effort. Yet I'd suggest that any like-minded people in such places can certainly be urged to try other resources and ventures like meetups, Facebook, and the like.
There is no 'one particular shoe must fit all' when it comes to skepticism. I have contributed to a future publication coming out soon by Skeptic.Com, on this matter.
Thank you again for highlighting that post - it took some time! - and thanks to commentators for being supportive or at least interested in skepticism.
Feminists interested in skepticism should check out the Skepchick blog: http://skepchick.org/blog/
They are an awesome community (Rebecca is my favorite!) and they even have a teen version to encourage younger women to think critically about science: http://skepchick.org/teen/
i love that blog, thanks for bringing it up. another one i like is thebeautybrains.com, cosmetic chemists explaining how lotions, creams, shampoos and cosmetics work in a non-condescending manner. they're super.
i think it's very important for women to be educated about the scientific method and to be skeptical of pseudo-science. sometimes i get a little dismayed because it seems that women more often than men seem to fall prey to ridiculous ideas and magic.
i'm glad that there are so many scholarship opportunities out there for young women to venture out into the world of medicine and science. a thick skin has got to be developed though~peer reviews are full of tough and sometimes rude skeptics and crying about hurt feelings is going to get one nowhere fast. they've got to be tough though, in the world of engineering and medicine, somebody could get very hurt or killed due to ideas that weren't throughly scrutinized, tested and proven.
it's good to know there are other skeptics on here.
I'm an atheist because I'm a feminist. I rejected religion when it became obvious it was a tool of patriarchy. God was easier to reject because there' no reason to believe in him.
That said, I have rarely felt comfortable on atheist blogs and/or forums. The level of sexism displayed on them is startling. Recently, a post on Ann Coulter generated a slew of responses that focused on her appearance (she's a dog!) and/or gender identification (she's actually a man!). Now, Coulter is a horrible human but what makes her horrible is everything she says and believes, not the way she looks or her gender identity. When I pointed that out, I was called 'stupid' for thinking that the commenters were sexist. Obviously, I was wrong because they couldn't be.
That pretty much clinched it for me. I deleted the bookmarks to those sites and haven't been back since. I don't need to read blogs to remind myself that I'm an atheist.
I'd say it was significant that it does NOT mention Skepchiqes or other such groups. Which is why it says "already-existing Science for Women initiatives" are more successful, have a higher profile, are preferable and deserve our support, etc. If such groups are being primarily attended by a majority population of males, admired and reinforced by mostly males and garnering an audience at their conferences and talks consisting of (you guessed it) males, it would be understandable why some women may be turned off them. The cheesecake element only goes so far.
In the meantime, scholarship programs, science outreach with valid and accountable checks and balance systems inherent, non-profit status and endorsed by more than just a fringe group, are indeed attracting women and working on doing a better job. Goal setting for more than just a few key women, benefiting more than just a handful of 'elite'.
There is a sense of 'pack-mentality' on forums and blogs, as Sandra said, that is a big turn-off. I've seen skeptics adhere to the argumentum ad populum, even when they were wrong about things, more often things that had nothing to do with skepticism and more about personal preferences to do with pop culture - and you ABSOLUTELY get a bunch of men sail in and attack because the 'chosen' skeptic women are such queens to them -- no, being 'awesome' is just not good enough to bow down to that altar. Nor should young women be exposed to that as being the status quo for skeptical women and their behavior. It's not how a group should work, so I personally turn elsewhere, as Sandra does.
I know many atheists and agnostics of both sexes. (For the record, I am a Wiccan, but I don't feel I have been coerced by the patriarchy to accept fantastical beliefs or any such thing. If anything, I believe the established patriarchal structure would prefer to steer me away from this.)Most of them are very cool, repectful, live and let live sort of people. But there are the occasional few who must browbeat, ridicule, and, well, say things like that my choice to believe in a spiritual dimension is somehow a tool of the patrarchy to keep me down. however, since most of the relaxed atheists are just going about enjoying life, it's mostly the more condescending and ridiculing ones who get heard, and this in turn shapes most people's opinions of atheists as a whole. Ad hominem attacks and ridicule are not going to make people want to open their mind to your cause. This is just common sense!
So what needs to be done to change this perception? Maybe the less militant atheists need to speak up a bit more. Maybe campaigns that highlight the accomplishment of science, rather than state that "all believers are deluded" as a billboard in Seattle recently claimed. Because let's face it, whether you're Atheist, Wiccan, Christian, Muslim, what have you, not everybody in the world is going to believe just what you do. I think it's great that "non-believers"(along with others) were acknowledged in Obama's inauguration speech. I think there's room for us all.
I like podblack, but every time she gets wind of me fighting misogyny at forums.randi.org she tells me not to bother. "It's too late for them" like it's a terminal illness or something. Even though I can find a couple other feminists there.
Did it really say that? Please post an article or image to show this. I'm calling B.S. on that.
@katmcgee:
Forget the skepchicks. Do you know why? I blogged about it here: http://onlyaerik.blogspot.com/2008_09_01_archive.html#3259516496958670840
More thoughts from me in the haloscan comment thread:
Every week I listen to Rebecca Watson, the most prominent SkepChick, join the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast and go along with some really sexist jokes, often enough even rape jokes.
So you know what it's like when somebody wants to talk about feminism and skepticism and you suggest the skepchicks? It's just telling feminists "go sit at the girls' table, cootie carrier!" It's kinda like when anti-racist activists want to talk about racism in the media and they're just told to go watch BET.
No need to accuse me of BS. Simple googling "atheist sign controversy Seattle" produces several articles about it. Turns out it was Olympia, I mistakenly thought Seattle because that's where the friend who told me about it lives.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008475714_atheist06m.html
The attacking element of the sign was this:
"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
Compare that with the less judgmental, but more thought provoking campaign by the American Humanist Association in Washington DC, where a bus ad reads:"Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/26/atheists-bus-ad-campaign-gains-global-momentum/
To me there's a difference. One poses a question and offers a suggestion of goodwill, the other makes assumptions about anyone who doesn't hold the same views as the sign's writer.
As for why the gender discrepancies in atheism/skepticism, I'm not sure. Maybe it's just part of the sort of general sexism I encounter among groups who identify themselves intellectually(And many atheists I've met do pride themselves on their intellectual and reasoning capacity). There a certain sort of dude who likes to pontificate on subjects they feel especially informed about, and is often dismissive of the thoughts and opinions of others, particularly women. if they can't jockey for alpha male position on the football field, they'll do it in the intellectual arena, but the mentality it produces is sort of the same under the surface.
'What? You don't believe in chakras? Shame on you, you close-minded person. History was written by rich white men who had a vested interest in squashing belief in feminine-based medicine, you're only bowing to the altar of patriarchy and science, blindfolded.'
This quote made me day!
This was a really interesting post and I'm going to have to do some thinking before I come up with a fully intelligent reply. Some quick thoughts:
I am an atheist and I think a skeptic, but honestly I don't really know the difference between atheist and skeptic.
I'm both atheist and feminist and don't belong to any groups for either one. That doesn't mean I'm not one. So I think that a lack of women in skeptical groups does not directly relate to a lack of skeptical women.
I have the "outsiders" impression that atheist groups are largely confrontational and condescending. I attempt to be a live-and-let-live sort of person when it comes to religion. I feel disrespected when I'm preached to, so I don't do it to others. (Although I am prone to defending and explaining science apologetically.) For these reasons, I haven't cared to look into these groups. I have no idea if my desire to not criticize other people's religion has anything to do with being a woman.
Until this post I'd never heard of any of the groups mentioned in the post of the comments. I expect I'm going to be up late tonight with all this new reading to do.
Skeptical about what?
I'm skeptical of atheist theories, does that count?
If you are referring to spiritual skepticism I'd say more women are spiritual based on experiences with birth.
At least it reaffirmed my understanding of a universal connection to everything.
Women are allowed to be more emotional, more spiritual and more vulnerable.
We haven't encouraged to be staunch, uptight or "macho" in the past.
In spiritual communities (not to be mistaken for religious communities) men are encouraged to appreciate their personal femininity- whatever that means...
anyway these are
just some random notes on the subject that can easily be dismissed as irrational.
"anyway these are
just some random notes on the subject that can easily be dismissed as irrational."
I think a good skeptic would object to a person holding a given belief not on grounds that the person is irrational, but on grounds that the person has been inadequately skeptical. There are irrational skeptics (holocaust deniers, for instance) and rational non-skeptics too.
Believing the things that you have experienced to have the meaning that you believe they have is perfectly rational, even if a skeptic might doubt the accuracy of that meaning.
"I'm skeptical of atheist theories, does that count?"
There is no such thing as 'atheist theories.' An atheist is someone has looked at the arguments and evidence in support of the existence of a supernatural being and has found them unconvincing. So, it's not a theory so much as the rejection of a theory or, more correctly, the rejection of a belief (since theories tend to be based on evidence and beliefs exist in the absence of evidence).
Many people confuse the theories that may surround atheism (eg. feminism, evolution) as 'atheist theories' but they are not.
since theories tend to be based on evidence and beliefs exist in the absence of evidence
There are two very strange definitions involved here. My background is philosophy, and generally speaking in epistemology (the study of knowledge, belief, etc.) it's thought that beliefs are based on evidence as well. I've heard the whole "faith is the belief in things you can't see or prove..." thing, but faith and belief are generally thought to be distinct.
Yes. Thanks. I meant to type that faith exists in the absence of evidence but had 'belief' on the brain.
Also, I agree with Rachel that childbirth was not even remotely spiritual for me either. I've spoken to women who described it as an transcendent experience but it was very meat and potatoes for me. Ofcourse, I don't understand why people insist on referring to it as the 'miracle of birth' when life is sort of the opposite of a miracle.
I'd say more women are spiritual based on experiences with birth
What do you mean by this? I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious.
I don't tend to be very spiritual at all, and for me the experience of childbirth was no exception. In fact, I was even more level-headed and strategic than ever, given the fact that I had to constantly fight off the unnecessary interventions that the hospital staff was just dying to inflict on me. I would guess that if you have a tendency to invest experiences with spiritual meaning, then birth will seem spiritual to you. But if you tend to be very pragmatic and even-tempered, it probably won't. And, of course, women are socialized to be more "spiritual" (whatever that means), emotional, etc.
"It's my current belief that encouraging women to believe in fantastical things is one of the tools of the patriarchy used to keep women from expanding their minds and competing with men intellectually."
To be honest, I think that's almost as true of men as women. The people in power (who were historically often either religious leaders or claimed supernatural heritage) like it better that way...
I often get the impression that I'm being judged by other feminists for being a scientist. (It probably doesn't help that I live in a tiny hippie town on top of a mountain.) Apparently science is too "patriarchal" for them, and that I should embrace random fluffinstuff instead, because it's more "feminine." That...always kind of seemed like the opposite of what feminism tries to accomplish.
I think most of the problem with non-acceptance from the rest of society at large is that skeptics are generally considered "rude jerks," but being rude is more socially acceptable for men. Thus women are a little less likely to be vocal skeptics.
Science is deeply patriarchal, which is exactly why we need more women (and members of all marginalized groups) to go into science. It's not because of some mystical quality that's inherent in women. It's just that the more marginalized voices there are in a discipline, the less hegemonic it tends to be.
Indeed, entomology girl.
It's a self-fullflling prophecy kind of cycle.
1) Teach girls to have no interest in science. Make sure they know that boys are into science and sports, girls are into dolls and makeup.
2) Science positions then fill up with patriarchal jerks.
3) Grown women, now ignorant of how science actually works, think that switching to 'alternative medicine' is the same as rejecting patriarchy. Similar to how theists think that rejecting science is the same as rejecting atheism.
However, the universe does not react to our bigotries. No matter how much of a sexist douchebag your doctor is, that drug he's prescribing you is what you need. Strings, quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, molecules, the strong force, the weak force, magnetic force, gravity... they don't give a shit if you're a good person or not, if you feel good or not.
That's what's cool about science. It's evidence based. Not ideology-based.
Yesterday I tried to comment on erica matluck's naturpath post ( http://community.feministing.com/2009/02/naturopathic-medicine-a-femini.html ) but she won't pass my comment. Women like erica there keep women from real medical help as much as patriarchal doctors. Even moreso since they're corrupting the very science itself.
Generally speaking I agree with you, but not when it comes to bashing "alternative medicine." There are certainly some hokey things out there, but there are also natural treatments that have been developed through a scientific method of sorts over many years that are less likely to give you a stroke or cause some other awful side effects than the offerings of the deeply capitalist pharmaceutical industry. I think having an open mind and truly doing your research is the only way to navigate your way through the minefields that exist in areas like medicalized childbirth. And I, for one, don't think it's my job to shut up and let a doctor dictate to me how my body should be handled. Especially when there's a lot of research out there that shows just how wrong the western medical industry often is. It is, however, my job to research it and become as knowledgeable as I can, and this is definitely something that women are discouraged from doing.
Hello joyful,
Feminists don't share a particular ideology, as you've seen here. Perhaps when there are as many female scientists as male scientists, there will be as many female skeptics as male skeptics. And perhaps just as many of them will be bigoted jerks - after all, if we are all equal, we could all be equally jerky.
The thing about the naturopaths is that they haven't been proven to be HURTING anyone, so I generally leave them be. The placebo effect may be working in their favor.
Same with religions - if you are not hurting yourself or others or trying to force your views upon me (I
@ Geeky_girl
The specific placebo may not be hurting anybody, but the practice of letting people believe placebos are real medicine is dangerous.
Every time somebody rejects real medicine and goes for a placebo, that is alternative medicine, and they get hurt or die, it shows that this ideology is dangerous. In fact this has happened, so we already have all the reason we need to condemn this practice.
Also, treating placebo as real medicine... there's a word for that: fraud. The reason we have the FDA is to ensure that if a product makes a claim to do a specific job and/or treat a specific condition, it must pass scientific scrutiny and be proven to do what it says it does. Alternative medicine does not pass this rigor. In fact most of the time it just bypasses it by using legally vague terminology in it's marketing and/or issues disclaimers in teeny tiny writing that it doesn't do anything.
So it's not just alternative medicine lacks science. It is by its very nature anti-science. And that leads to harm.
Hey, if I post my long comment that erica won't pass, will anybody want to read it? joyful has to pass it through modque, though.
If you want to make the argument that alternative medicine is unscientific, cool, whatever. But for the love of whatever you consider holy (or for the love of your skeptical beliefs that nothing should be held holy), don't invoke the FDA as though it's some benevolent overseer handing down empirical science and health to the masses.
Consider just one example: Vioxx, (basically a painkiller). The FDA approved Vioxx despite clinical studies indicating that it significantly increased the risk of heart attack when compared with other painkillers. Vioxx was later 'voluntarily' withdrawn from the market, but only after it had caused an estimated 100,000 heart attacks (many of which were fatal) during the five years it was on the market. You have all the hallmarks of 'objective' and scientific western medicine: clinical trials, empirical data, major agency approval. But the drug was still responsible for numerous deaths.
In all, it pays to be very skeptical of the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Sure, you can make the argument that turning to alternative medicine is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Or you can make the argument that the metaphorical baby is the way that money drives western medicine (which includes the FDA and many of the medical establishments people appeal to in the name of 'objective science') and choose to investigate alternatives. This is not to say that you should blindly accept any alternative medicines, but that the virulent and absolute rejection of them is, IMO, misguided. Placebos can be dangerous, in that they sometimes distract from real cures. However, pharmaceuticals and medical intervention can be just as harmful. To me, there's certainly no harm in continuing to investigate alternative medicines to discern whether they are merely placebos or actually effective, rather than outrightly rejecting them for more traditional medicine which has been proven equally harmful. The rejection of alternative medicine has to hinge, logically, on the promotion of objective science, and by extension, traditional medicine. We should be skeptical of both forms of medicine, rather than using one to reject the other.
OK, I just read past your first sentence and realized that I posted an almost identical response...oops. Proof that great minds think alike, I suppose. =)
The thing is, the FDA is deeply corrupt. Whenever there's a revolving door between an industry and the agency that's supposed to regulate it, you have serious problems. The FDA is practically a branch of the pharmaceutical industry, which has proven time and again that it's only objective is to maximize profits. The fact that drugs like Vioxx continue to be marketed long after they're known to cause serious problems, and that research the shows a negative effect is routinely concealed is evidence of this.
And I think there's a massive overgeneralization being made here about "alternative medicine" (many homeopaths are also MDs, after all), which is really not helpful. Some practitioners of alternative medicine are anti-science, but there's a plethora of traditional remedies that have been scientifically tested and proven to be effective. Generally speaking, though, these are ignored by western medicine because of the medical industry's close ties with the pharmaceuticals. Traditional remedies are not owned by any company, so there's no money to be made in them, so the pharmaceuticals would prefer that people not know about them or use them.
I'm not saying that alternative medicine is always good and conventional medicine is always bad - it's a mixed bag. But you cannot deny the influences of profit are deep and far reaching in western medicine, and this often causes the well being of the patient to be a secondary concern.
Not what I was doing at all.
What I'm saying is that something that hasn't scientifically proven it's efficacy being sold as real medicine is fraud. The FDA has lots of ethical failures, but that's because of the people in the FDA. The FDA was not designed to be corrupt. The fact is that alternative medicines are not scientifically proven. If they were, they'd be conventional medicine. Conventional medicine would adopt it immediately.
That is what a clinical trial and peer reviewed research is for! If you're not doing that, you're not investigating it. That's what I've been saying all along. If a medicine fails scientific scrutiny, it's not medicine. If the producers refuse to put it through scientific scrutiny, they're frauds. If it fails scientific scrutiny and the push it anyway, they're bigger frauds.
You just have to learn: it's beyond unethical to sell medicine that has not been shown to do what you claim it does. This is the very definition of alternative medicine: alleged medicinal drugs that have not been tested or have been tested and fails. Therefore, alternative medicine should be rejected. Duh.
addendum:
so it's not that the FDA is the only and last source for authority on whether or not a drug works or not.
One of the most important aspects of scientific scrutiny is this: reproducibility.
If your medicine allegedly passes all the tests you say it does when you're the one doing the tests, or your cronies doing the tests, but can't pass the very structured and open standards of the federal institute, it shows that either you've done something wrong, or you're corrupt.
Finally, you have to be able to tell the difference between problems with the U.S. patent system, and problems with the FDA. Sure, some FDA douchebags and hide some corrupt data in some test results, but that doesn't make the FDA in itself responsible for price hiking.
If we fixed the patent system so that royalties and profits were limited to a realistic interpretation of the work and value put into an innovation, most of the incentive for corruption of FDA individuals is nullified.
The next step is to improve patent guidelines to require that one innovation must be markedly different from a former product so that they cannot be serving the same purpose, and that somebody cannot patent the same purposed product simply because it's just a little bit more efficient. The difference between the two products must not be marginal. They must be very significant.
In fact, we shouldn't be able to patent medicine at all. This is part of what can be accomplished with socialized medicine/healthcare. We all have a right to life once we are born. Our bodies should not serve as capital to be exploited.
-------------
I must repeat: none of these problems have anything to do with a person's intentions in purposely not-testing a drug, or pushing a drug despite it's failure of testing.
Any time private entities want to market a product to the nation that can affect the life and/or liberty of citizenry, they are required to subject to the scrutiny of a federal, and not a private, entity as the first barricade to corruption and fraud. It must be federal so that the citizenry has some kind of power to control the corruption in the national agency, even if it's as fleeting as electing politicians who can pass bills. This was the second purpose of the FDA. Ineed, the creation of the FDA spawned from repetitive and conflicting state laws being passed that needed to be adjusted to scientific consensus.
This is important because science research is highly dependent on government grants. There is good reason that scientists in the last 8 years were worried about the budget cuts that Bush kept doing to science. Science is partly tax-funded.
So I go against alternative medicine sellers because they are, by definition of their trade, against public interest, because they do everything they can to avoid *public accountability*. Because they evade or ignore the one institution that everybody in the nation takes part in.
The only difference between somebody pushing "alternative" medicine and a corrupt pharmaceutal quack is that the pharma guy's product is making claims to big to ignore and has too many big whig corroborators to pay off.
I agree with most of your sentiments. The FDA's reliance on capitalism is a big problem, and socialized medicine is an alternative I strongly believe in. Pushing drugs of any sort (alternative or not) that have consistently failed to demonstrate efficacy (or have consistently demonstrated harm) is definitely unethical. However, I do not believe this to be the case for many alternative therapies. Many of these therapies and medications have not been sufficiently researched and tested. Absolutely, testing should continue on them before they are considered efficacious. The monetary aspect of western medicine generally does not allow this. Moreover, testing criterion presents a problem for certain therapies. For instance, acupuncture is notoriously difficult to test via double-blind studies. Most will admit that many accepted medical practices face similar difficulties (surgery, more obviously physical therapy and chiropractic therapy, etc). It's very telling to me that the WHO maintains, for instance, that acupuncture is effective for specific health conditions. WHO also promotes home birth, midwifery, etc. Both of these positions are based on clinical research, presumably undertaken in European nations where socialized medicine is more accepted and capitalism less decisive in setting medical standards. This offers a huge contrast to the AMA, FDA, and other American organizations that typically reject anything outside of western medical intervention. Basically, I don't see any reason to reject alternative therapy (generally speaking; obviously some of it is outright quackery) as of yet. It is being tested and should continue to be tested. It's simply the American structure that rejects it for being untested, while preventing it from being tested in the first place. To write it off before it even has the chance to prove itself seems like a capitulation to the nasty side of western (particularly American) medical culture.
Yes, yes, yes. When I was pregnant I read tons of research on home births and other practices that are condemned by our medical industry. There are many traditional practices that have been scientifically tested and their effectiveness verified, but are still rejected by our medical institutions because, although they are healthier and present less risk for the patient, nobody stands to make a profit from them. The nurses who were present at the birth of my daughter even balked at my request to not cut the cord until the blood had stopped pumping through it (which only took 6 minutes) even though many studies have shown that babies who are allowed to get all the umbilical blood are less likely to need help breathing (the blood has heightened levels of oxygen due to the mothers adrenaline levels, if she hasn't been deeply medicated) and that babies who get all the cord blood back will not become anemic and need iron supplements until at least 6 months, when they can eat solid foods anyway. And that's just the tip of the iceberg where traditional practices that have been verified by scientific research is concerned. The problem is, much of this research was done in Europe and Australia, and medical professionals don't tend to be current on the research anyway, since much of their info comes directly from the pharmaceutical companies, who obviously have an interest in preventing them from knowing these things. Also, where childbirth is concerned, the need for institutional standardization, even to the point of standardized time frames, is a driving force in the resistance of the medical industry to make changes that would be healthier for mothers and babies. Hence the cesarean epidemic...
onlyaerik,
All good points. The people that are doing dangerous things and getting hurt due to trust in homeopathic cures deserve justice, of course.
I withdraw:
"The thing about the naturopaths is that they haven't been proven to be HURTING anyone, so I generally leave them be. "
and rephrase:
"The thing about naturopaths is that they generally don't hurt anyone, so I generally leave them be. When they do, they should be punished."
Regulations on pseudo-science could be a bit tighter, but these people really believe. People are allowed to die in hospitals when there are simple medical cures, because of religion. You are totally in the right in trying to explain to people that belief in the face of fact is silly, of course.
"Regulations on pseudo-science could be a bit tighter, but these people really believe. People are allowed to die in hospitals when there are simple medical cures, because of religion. You are totally in the right in trying to explain to people that belief in the face of fact is silly, of course."
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this quote. I agree that people needlessly die because of religion, I think it's Amish (?) who refuse blood transfusions for instance. But in the case of someone refusing medical treatment because of their religious or personal beliefs, unless a child is involved, I really don't think it's anyone's place to tell them what they believe is wrong or that their reason for refusing treatment is silly when they could be saved. I don't see a problem with explaining to them how the procedure works and why they ought to consider it, but if they don't it's not fair to call it silly. To some people belief is more important than "fact". If you are putting their ideas down or claiming they are silly just because they have to do with religion I feel like it's the exact same mind set and we're no better than fundamentalist Catholic priests who come into people's hospital rooms and telling them they need to repent or they won't go to heaven.
Maybe I read that wrong though.
I think I misread your comment, it seems from your other posts you just think that there should be more regulation and responsibility for people who practice "alternative" medicine and aren't held accountable?
I'm confused by the identification of pseudo-science with religion here. I don't think that religious groups who reject medical treatment (it's the Christian Scientists, ironically enough, who reject blood transfusions) are taking themselves to be scientists, so calling them pseudo-scientists is a bit strange.
From a philosophy of science perspective, calling something a pseudo-science means that it's theories are neither falsifiable nor verifiable, and that it doesn't produce predictions that can turn out to be right or wrong. A great example of this is evolutionary psychology, which takes something like modern gender roles and tries to infer their "naturalness" by coming up with some explanation of why we evolved this way. This involves a lot of speculation and attempts to normalize and essentialize contingent cultural practices. Whenever their theories are called into question or disproven, they just come up with a new ad hoc explanation. Thus their work is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, but it's often embraced by socially conservative people who feel threatened by the idea that social roles and hierarchies are not rooted in "nature."
Oh - if any parents out there are interested in some great science activities for kids -
http://podblack.com/?p=1217
Practical and fun educational resources for science tasks, thanks to by CSIRO's Science by Email.