Dubious Science and the National Interest - Brief Article

Unproven therapeutic claims and pseudoscientific medical practices aren't restricted to medicine for people. As Seattle veterinarian Robert Imrie, DVM, says in this issue, in veterinary medicine, as in human medicine, people now find themselves besieged with dubious claims for a variety of therapies. Imrie heads a veterinary task force appointed by the National Council for Reliable Health Information to deal with such matters, and he provides a report from the trenches, "Confronting Veterinary Medical Nonsense." While the article was in final proofs, the efforts Imrie describes and an intense letter writing campaign led the Executive Board of the American Veterinary Medical Association to revise its guidelines on alternative medical practices. The new, and more rational, guidelines are included in his article.

He started it all, and in this issue he provides his personal reflections on why and how, and what has transpired since. I refer to Paul Kurtz, the remarkable philosopher/scholar/organizer who in 1976 founded the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP). Paul also discusses the challenges and surprises we all encountered. We thus continue our 25th anniversary celebration of CSICOP and the SKEPTICAL INQUIRER with the second of three such sections this year. Following Paul's personal essay, which is a shorter version of one appearing in the forthcoming twenty-fifth anniversary volume, Skeptical Odysseys (Prometheus 2001), I offer the second part of my own personal reflections. One of my points is that I always strive to keep us close to science and bring an imaginative scientific viewpoint to skepticism. Keeping ourselves close to real science has kept us on track and guided us through otherwise difficult morasses.

When scientifically dubious ideas intersect matters of serious public interest, the results can be troublesome. Such is the case with congressional requirements to widen the use of polygraph examinations on employees at the U.S. national laboratories. Alan Zelicoff, who is both a physicist and a physician at Sandia National Laboratories, has been one of the national labs' most outspoken critics of polygraphs. In a commentary in this issue he calls them a dangerous ruse. The issue is difficult because the national labs' scientists and engineers are involved in advancing all technologies related to national security, and they take pride in being loyal citizens protective of the nation's interests. But the polygraph issue has been awkward and divisive, and Zelicoff shows why. (For an earlier SKEPTICAL INQUIRER contribution in this area see Elie A. Shneour, "Lying About Polygraph Tests," Spring 1990, reprinted in the 1998 SI anthology, Encounters with the Paranormal: Science, Knowledge, and Belief.)

Our first Science & Religion special issue, July/August 1999, was a great success with readers. We are pleased to announce that we are doing another one. Watch for Science and Religion 2001, in our next issue, September/October.

Kendrick Frazier

COPYRIGHT 2001 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group