Brain Gym
Sense About Science has been receiving calls from parents and teachers who are concerned about the use of ‘Brain Gym’ - a programme of teacher-led physical exercises claimed to improve cognitive abilities - in primary schools.
These exercises are being taught with pseudoscientific explanations that undermine science teaching and mislead children about how their bodies work.
Working with neuroscientists and physiologists we have produced a series of responses to the claims made in the Brain Gym Teachers’ Edition. Read the briefing document.
The director of Sense About Science, in association with The Physiological Society and the British Neuroscience Association, has written to local authorities to ask them to make this material available to schools in their area.
If you have any questions about the science claims made by Brain Gym please contact us by
email or on 020 7478 4380.
Newsnight programme covered this story in a report by Pallab Ghosh. You can watch the report below.
Dr Beth Losiewicz, from the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, was interviewed for BBC 5 Live on Brain Gym. You can listen the clip here (mp3, 6MB).
Experts dismiss educational claims of Brain Gym programme
British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym
Brain Gym claims to be withdrawn
Brain Gym exercises do pupils no favours
Last updated: June 19 2008
Making Sense of Testing
Leading medical bodies, clinicians and scientists are alerting the public and policy makers to the potential damage caused by health tests and scans for well people and the need for a national system to evaluate laboratory tests.
Despite the huge deployment of established laboratory tests , and the unprecedented explosion in new technologies and marketing of testing to healthy people , there is still no system (equivalent to the British National Formulary for drugs) to provide doctors or patients with evidence on performance and usefulness.
In a guide published today, GPs and scientists warn the public:
- Most tests weren’t designed for well people
- Many tests are not researched or adequately regulated
- Tests are only one part of diagnosis
- Testing can cause harm, especially in well people
The public guide , Making Sense of Testing is published by Sense About Science with the Association of Clinical Biochemistry, the PHG Foundation and the Royal College of Pathologists.
The guide is launched in conjunction with a report, The Evaluation of Diagnostic Laboratory Tests and Complex Biomarkers, from an expert summit hosted by the PHG Foundation and the Royal College of Pathologists. This report calls for:
- A national system to evaluate diagnostic tests
- A publicly accessible database to provide evidence of performance and usefulness
- Policy makers to decide who is responsible for gathering evidence and meeting the costs
In a parliamentary briefing on Tuesday they will tell parliamentarians and policy makers that this is now vital. It will improve services in the NHS and will help the public and doctors to determine the value and safety of private testing and over-the-counter products in the face of heavy promotion.
The publication of these documents follows a Wellcome Trust study and a Science Council report pointing to the lack of a structure for assessment and implementation of new diagnostic technologies in the NHS.
Comments
Dr Margaret McCartney, GP: “The advertising for private tests such as CT body scans for a ‘check-up’ can be very alarmist. People are not getting fair information about the lack of evidence for these scans doing more good than harm - or about the uncertainties and dilemmas they can result in.”
Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science: “Our jaws dropped when we first heard the inside track from doctors and pathologists about the high risks and dubious benefits of some of the tests people are buying. It was so at odds with public discussion. This guide to misconceptions has come out of their hard work to share their reasoning about testing with the rest of us.”
Dr Keith Hopcroft, GP: “Tests represent medicine’s snake in the grass. The public is not aware of the potential danger of indiscriminate testing so it runs the risk of treading where it shouldn’t and getting a nasty - or even lethal - bite. People realise they need to weigh up the pros and cons before popping pills or having an op, and they should adopt the same approach with tests.”
Dr Danielle Freedman, Chair, and Specialty Advisory Committee on Clinical Biochemistry for Royal College of Pathologists: “The public buy ‘testing kits’ over the counter and via the internet without knowing the limitations of their results. There are ‘cowboys in vans’ on the high street offering for a price a wide range of tests. Do the public know whether tests are performed to the same quality standards as laboratories routinely providing this service to both the NHS and private sector?”
Dr Andrew Green, GP: “Nobody should arrange their own medical tests. If you don’t have symptoms, then very few tests are worthwhile, and those that are can be had through your doctor. If you do have symptoms, you owe it to yourself to make sure the right tests are done, and properly interpreted.”
Professor Peter Furness, Vice-president of the Royal College of Pathologists: “Market forces only work if consumers can judge the quality of what they are getting. But even professionals find it difficult to assess the quality and usefulness of medical tests. To base an important decision only on one-sided marketing hype is surely a recipe for disaster. We need an independent system to evaluate all these tests, with its results published and easily available to everyone.”
Dr Ron Zimmern, Executive Director of PHG Foundation: “In the UK, around 1 billion laboratory tests are performed each year. NHS laboratories have sophisticated systems to ensure the technical accuracy of the tests, but no systems for ensuring that individual tests are clinically effective and useful. This is akin to pharmaceutical companies having tight control over the chemical purity of drugs, but there being no formal requirement for them to prove that the drugs produce any benefit for patients.”
Diana Garnham, Chief Executive of the Science Council: “The Science Council report made a clear case for a need for systematic and significant improvements in the way diagnostic technologies are introduced, evaluated, and expanded in the NHS and other healthcare settings. Diagnostic technologies will be crucial to the NHS in the next ten years if it is to meet its ambitions to have a positive impact on patient care pathways and outcomes, delivering the right care, in the right way, and as fast as possible.”
Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman: “At a time when the NHS can not afford to provide even all those carefully evaluated tests and treatments that are known to save or improve lives, it can not be right for there to be a “free-for-all” on tests which are of dubious value and require the NHS to spend scarce resources investigating or reassuring the worried-well. It is time for better regulation of such tests.”
Professor Stephen Holgate, Chair of the Science Council’s Science in Health Group: “After an extensive survey of the current situation, we see the need for an NHS wide integrated approach so that the very best technologies can be introduced and tested on patient pathways in a timely manner, and real effort can be made on removing outdated practice and replacing it with tests that not only improve diagnostic precision but also help patients arrive at this point earlier and more easily.”
Coverage
Fears over DIY health tests boom
Do-it-yourself tests kits ‘could put health at risk’
Scientists urge more regulation of DIY kits for health checks
Health ‘MoT’ tests are misleading and can be harmful, experts say
The public guide, Making Sense of Testing is published by Sense About Science with the Association of Clinical Biochemistry, the PHG Foundation and the Royal College of Pathologists.
The guide is launched in conjunction with a report, The Evaluation of Diagnostic Laboratory Tests and Complex Biomarkers, from an expert summit hosted by the PHG Foundation and the Royal College of Pathologists.
Last updated: March 12 2008
Update, October 2007
FUTURE OF MRI SCANS ON SAFER GROUND - FOR NOW!
Scientists are delighted with the European Commission’s announcement to postpone the implementation of a Directive that would have had disastrous consequences for clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the UK. The Commission’s decision to postpone the Directive for at least four years, while scientific reviews are conducted, follows an exhaustive campaign by scientists, clinicians, scientific bodies and research funders, to highlight the poor scientific basis of the legislation.
Full details are in the DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL document. Coverage includes an article in the Guardian, the Financial Times and on the BBC.
BACKGROUND
In 2004 the EU Physical Agents (EMF) Directive (PAD) 2004/40/EC threatened to impose significant restrictions on the use of MRI. In 2005 leading scientists worked with Sense About Science to publicise this threat and the lack of scientific evidence behind the directive. They sent a widely reported letter to then Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt, protesting about the “...over-cautious interpretation of very limited experimental data”. In 2006 the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, as part of its review of government, published their report on the Physical Agents Directive, which concluded: “We were alarmed to discover that the European Commission was prepared to rely on a ten-year-old risk assessment to inform legislation in an area of rapidly developing science and technology”. Other science bodies worked to highlight the problem across member states and in the Commission and parliament.
The UK is at the cutting edge of healthcare, introducing state-of-the-art scanners for complex cardiac and neurological procedures and diagnostics. Professor Sir Peter Mansfield, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2003 for his pioneering work on the first scans, led the 2005 letter, saying that the Directive “...will reduce the value of recent NHS investment, damage British industry...and undermine important clinical research… As researchers, clinicians, and employers, we are particularly concerned that these consequences will arise from legislation that has no apparent benefit to staff or patients...”. Had the Directive been implemented by 2008 many interventional MR procedures would have been illegal, and there would have been difficulties using the most powerful, modern scanners. Diagnosis and treatment of anaesthetised, frail or anxious patients, and children, would have been particularly affected. Patient and staff safety would have been put at greater risk from increased use of X-ray and the move would have threatened major research council, charity and NHS investment.
QUOTES
Dr Stephen Keevil, Consultant Physicist, Head of Magnetic Resonance Physics, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust:
“For several years now the MRI community has been highlighting the threat that the Physical Agents (EMF) Directive poses to clinical practice and research in our field. I am delighted that the European Commission has responded to the mounting scientific evidence by delaying transposition with a view to amending the Directive. I hope that this process of revision will result in legislation that protects workers from known hazards while avoiding unnecessary restrictions on the use and development of MRI.”
Phil Willis MP, Chair of the UK Commons Science and Technology Committee:
“In its report on the Physical Agents (EMF) Directive, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee expressed the hope that the working group established by the Commission, with MRI community representatives, was a genuine attempt to inform implementation of the Directive. I believe that this announcement today is an important step on that path. It is the result of compelling arguments over a number of years by doctors, scientists and patient advocates about the threat that the Directive posed to clinical and research applications of MRI: arguments that have been vindicated by the results of research undertaken by the UK Health and Safety Executive. I hope that the outcome of the process that the Commission has now initiated will be a Directive that accurately reflects the proven value of MRI.”
Andrew Jones, Consultant Clinical Scientist, British Institute of Radiology:
“The British Institute of Radiology (BIR) along with many other professional organisations has been very concerned about the severe negative impact the proposed EU Physical Agents Directive may have on both clinical Magnetic Resonance (MR) imaging in health care and its restriction on research and development in the field of MR. This postponement will allow essential time for further research and data to be collected on the implications of the impact of the proposed Directive on MR imaging and hopefully therefore an opportunity to produce legislation to manage the safety of staff groups working within MR in a more rational manner. The BIR continues to keep abreast of developments and input to the discussions on future plans.”
Professor Peter Jezzard, Herbert Dunhill Professor of Neuro-imaging, Centre for Functional MRI in the Brain, University of Oxford; Co-Director, Oxford Centre for Clinical Magnetic Resonance Research:
“This is good news. Clearly there is still work to be done in convincing the Commissioner of the safety of MRI, given that this only defers the problem, but the delay does at least provide the scientific community with an opportunity to assemble further evidence supporting the assertions that we have made all along.”
Dr Mark Walport, Director, Wellcome Trust:
“We are delighted that the European Commission has recognised our concerns about the prohibitive impact the Directive would have on cutting-edge MRI research, diagnosis and treatment. MRI provides crucial insights into human physiology, health and disease. However, we know from research led by the Wellcome Trust, more than half of MRI research depends on the researcher being able to stand close to the scanner to work with patients and equipment, and this work would have been prevented by the Directive.”
Tracey Brown, Director, Sense About Science:
“When scientists approached us with their frustrations at the lack of response to their concerns about the legislation, we were surprised that no-one involved in the policy had considered the public impact - not only the unnecessary threat to healthcare and research, but also the likely confusion about the relative risks of different types of scans. The scientific reasoning was largely absent but there was a lot of resistance to changing a directive already passed. Today’s announcement shows that, armed with scientific reasoning, scientists were able to convince individuals in parliament and government, and eventually the Commission, that the problem needed to be sorted out. It’s a victory for scientific reasoning over obstinacy.”
Professor Dudley Pennell MD FRCP FACC FESC, Director, Cardiovascular MR Unit, Royal Brompton Hospital, London:
“We welcome the deferral. Common sense has prevailed and we are grateful that the authorities have recognised the problems that would have arisen if it had been adopted unchanged. There is still the need to address the problems in the directive such that it is not simply reintroduced in the future unchanged. The medical and medical physics professions in this area need to be fully consulted to be certain that an amended directive is workable for medicine. Well done to everyone who has worked very hard to achieve this step.”
The Alliance for MRI, which represents a coalition of European Parliamentarians, patient groups, leading European scientists and the medical community has also pressed for change:
“It is essential that this major advance in healthcare technology is not threatened by burdensome legislation when concerns can be addressed through responsible guidance to medical and service personnel.”
Professor Gabriel Krestin, Professor of Radiology at Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam:
“I would like to welcome the European Commission’s willingness to review and amend the EU Physical Agents Directive (2004/40/EC) on Electromagnetic Fields, in view of the unintended impact on the use of MRI. The assurance of safety of workers, to which I belong myself, is without doubt an important goal. In my experience of working with MRI since more than 20 years I never experienced any effect and definitely no harmful effect being exposed to the EMF fields exercised during MR examinations. However, we as radiologists handle the safety issue very seriously and would be absolutely not willing to take any risk to our employees or ourselves. In view of the over 500 million MR examinations performed world-wide over the past 25 years we do not consider that limit values for workers above those applied already for patients’ safety would be necessary. Rather best practice guidelines including extended information and instruction of workers at MRI installations would be more appropriate. Therefore, I personally would welcome if the European Commission would recognize the need for derogation to MRI from the scope of the Directive.”
Last updated: November 02 2007
Food Additives
Sense About Science has been receiving an increasing number of enquiries from journalists, researchers and the general public about food additives and health. We have asked some of the specialists who help us on these subjects to provide some straightforward answers about the science behind food preservation, the meaning and reasons for E-numbers in food and drink, what scientists say about possible adverse health effects of specific additives, and how they are tested and regulated for public safety.
This resource is designed for journalists, commentators and anyone else interested in public discussion about these subjects. Responses to the frequent questions are listed below along with links and further resources. If you have any other specific questions that you like to have addressed, let us know and we will post them here. If you would like to speak to a scientist about your questions on diet and health, call Aarathi on 020 7487 4380.
You can also find more about food additives from the following sites:
British Dietetic Association (professional association for dietitians in the UK): www.bda.uk.com
British Nutrition Foundation (site providing healthy eating information): www.nutrition.org.uk
Food Standards Agency (government department to protect the public’s health and consumer interests in relation to food): www.food.gov.uk
Food and Drink Federation (voice of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry):www.fdf.org.uk
Want to speak to a scientist?
Sense About Science is a charity that promotes evidence in public debates about science and medicine. We help journalists, civic groups, NGOs, institutions and others get in touch with scientists.
If you need scientific information or help with a story about additives, you can contact Sense About Science on
020 7478 4380
What are food additives?
Additives are ingredients used in the preparation of processed foods. Some of these are extracted from naturally occurring materials, others are manufactured by the chemical industry. But like every other component of food, all additives are chemicals. Preservatives, colours and flavours are the best known additives but antioxidants, emulsifiers, stabilisers, gelling agents, thickeners and sweeteners are also commonly used. The most important additives are preservatives, without which food would quickly go bad.
John Emsley, chemical scientist
“Many agents that are essential for commercial food preparation and storage have their analogues in the kitchen”Paul Illing, toxicologist |
What is an E-number?
Since 1986, food additives — colours, preservatives, antioxidants, stabilisers, gelling agents, thickeners, etc. — have been identified in food labels, either by name or by E-number. An E-number says that it has been approved for its intended use across the European Union. Approval depends on scientific testing and monitoring and is reviewed in the light of new scientific information. Additives have been around for centuries. Nitrites and nitrates (E249-252) have been used as curing agents. Baking powder (bicarbonate of soda [sodium hydrogen carbonate], cream of tartar [potassium hydrogen tartrate, monopotassium tartrate, E336] and starch) is a 19th century additive. Pickling is an ancient method of preservation that uses vinegar (acetic acid, E260) to prevent microbial spoilage.
Many agents that are essential for commercial food preparation and storage have their analogues in the kitchen. Caramel (E150a), a colouring agent, can be made at home by heating sugar. Gelling agents include pectin (methylated ester of galacturonic acid, E440) for jams. Preservatives include benzoic acid (E210), present in high quantities in cranberries. Some additives are clearly beneficial: in 1941 calcium was added to flour to prevent rickets; and anti-oxidants (necessary to prevent the fats in all prepared foods involving meat or pastry from going rancid) include ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300) and the tocopherols (vitamin E, E306-309).
Paul Illing, toxicologist
“It is notoriously difficult to assess whether additives really affect behaviour”Judy More, paediatric dietician |
Benzoic acid and food colorants
Benzoic acid is a natural chemical which is found in cranberries, bilberries, plums, cloves, and cinnamon, some of which are said to be particularly beneficial on health grounds. It is added to processed foods to protect them. It does this by preventing the growth of microbes, and in particular pathogenic moulds and fungi. Even if the food colorants which were part of the new FSA study were removed from foods I would not like to see benzoic acid removed unless an equally effective chemical were to replace it. If it was simply removed then I am sure there would be an increase in cases of food poisoning among young children that might well be more harmful to them than a possible reduction in their bad behaviour.
John Emsley, chemical scientist
Food additives and children
There is an unclear link between food additives and hyperactivity. Whilst many parents report artificial colours and preservatives to trigger hyperactivity in their children, randomised controlled trials have failed to demonstrate a link. A recent study carried out by Southampton University suggested that some artificial food colours, together with the preservative sodium benzoate, could have a negative effect on some children’s behaviour. Whilst it is not clear which individual colours are to blame, the Food Standards Agency has suggested that parents of children showing signs of hyperactivity try eliminating the cocktail of colours investigated in this study - Sunset yellow (E110), Quinoline yellow (E104), Carmoisine (E122), Allura red (E129), Tartrazine (E102) and Ponceau 4R (E124)—to see it this leads to any benefits. It is however important to remember that many other factors are likely to be involved.
Sara Stanner, senior nutrition scientist
Some children may be susceptible to some additives and other children to different things. It is notoriously difficult to assess whether additives really affect behaviour because there are so many other confounding factors that would have to be taken into account: things like low blood sugar, tiredness and whether they had been subject to psychological stress in the time frame of the study. Asking parents to assess their children can additionally introduce the element of bias — all these factors make it very hard to look at the effect of particular additives in isolation.
Judy More, paediatric dietician
“With our increasingly complex food supply food additives play a vital role. Never before has the range and choice of foods been so wide either in supermarkets, specialist food shops or when eating out.”Nigel Denby, nutrition consultant |
How is the use of food additives controlled?
There are EU-wide regulations that list the additives which have been tested and shown to be safe for use in food. These regulations list the foods in which each permitted additive is allowed, and its level of use. The list is first provided by the European Commission but the final decision is taken jointly by elected representatives of all EU member states and members of the European Parliament. Testing for levels of permitted additives considers differences in body weight and the needs of vulnerable members of the population e.g. the ill, elderly. An EU approved additive is denoted an ‘E’ number and can be referred to on packs as this or by its full name.
Safety tests
Safety tests include animals being given the additive, mixed with their diet, at much higher concentrations than will occur in human food. The tests are designed to give information on any possible effects from short-term or long-term exposure to the proposed additive, including whether it may have any potential to cause cancer, affect reproductive processes or the development of the embryo or fetus if consumed by a pregnant woman. Tests are also carried out to assess its ability to interfere with genetic material in the body, which could lead to the development of cancer or adverse effects in future generations.
The results of the safety tests are assessed by independent experts (now European Food Safety Authority, EFSA) and used to calculate the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for humans. The ADI is defined as: “an estimate of the amount of the food additive, expressed on a body weight basis, that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable health risk” and is expressed on a milligram per kilogram bodyweight per day basis (mg/kg bw/day). The ADI concept is used extensively by regulatory bodies throughout the world, such as the US Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the European Community (EC) to confirm that ingestion of all additives remains within safe levels. It applies to people of all ages, children as well as adults.
After approval, additives are subject to continuous monitoring and review.
See http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/guidance.pdf
E stands for Europe“An E-number says that it has been approved for its intended use across the European Union.”Paul Illing, toxicologist |
Can additives lead to allergies/intolerances?
Additives cannot cause allergies but at high doses they can cause reactions or intolerances in some sensitive individuals. But the number of people suffering a reaction is small when investigated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and much rarer than an allergy/intolerance to a natural food.
Are there banned additives?
Yes, some additives that were approved for use have been withdrawn from the food supply (e.g. E103, E105) because the safety tests on them are constantly reviewed.
How are dietary intakes of food additives monitored?
Food surveillance studies looking at levels in samples of foods and using national data (e.g. National Diet and Nutrition Survey, NDNS) to estimate intake in highest consumers versus ADI were carried out in the UK by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) and now by the FSA. The FSA are responsible for monitoring their use and taking appropriate steps to ensure that intake does not exceed recommended levels. Reports on intakes are also published by the European Commission.
Why do medicines containing some artificial colourings carry health warnings when foods containing the same additives do not?
The labelling of additives in medicines and foods is controlled by different legislation (the information on additive health warnings on medical products is published by the European Commission in Guidelines for Medicinal products for human use - excipients in the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use). Medicines need to alert consumers of any possible reactions to any of their ingredients. However, as there is no evidence that our intakes of these additives from foods and drinks cause any problems for the majority of the population, health warnings on foods and drinks are unwarranted.
Sara Stanner, senior nutrition scientist
“Even organic foods can contain additives — currently 29 additives are approved for use in organic foods.”Nigel Denby, nutrition consultant |
The cocktail effect
Concern has been expressed about the multiplicative or ‘cocktail’ effect. Safety tests look at the effects of levels of one additive. Although less is known about the cumulative effect of exposure to multiple additives, chemically speaking, such effects are rare and scientifically well-understood. What the cocktail description usually implies is that, while individual substances may be considered safe at current levels of exposure, they may interact with each other and create unforeseen effects. But the natural world is a ‘cocktail of chemicals’ so our bodies are used to dealing with a mix of substances. The same processes of storing, neutralising, breaking down and excreting occur when we encounter new substances.
Food additives are not a new phenomenon
For centuries people have enhanced their food with naturally available flavourings, preservatives and dyes.
With our increasingly complex food supply food additives play a vital role. Never before has the range and choice of foods been so wide either in supermarkets, specialist food shops or when eating out. As consumers we are demanding more variety, choice and convenience alongside higher standards of safety and wholesomeness at affordable prices. Meeting these consumer expectations can only be achieved using modern food processing technologies which include the use of a variety of food additives proven effective and safe through long use and rigorous testing.
Without additives bread would become stale very quickly, fatty foods would turn rancid and most tinned fruits and vegetables would lose their firmness and colour. Even organic foods can contain additives — currently 29 additives are approved for use in organic foods.
Nigel Denby, nutrition consultant
Read Nigel’s full article here
Last updated: April 10 2008
Update, July 2007
Since the beginning of 2007, there has been continued pressure on the European Commission from medics, academics, parliamentarians, government and industry to seek a resolution on the Physical Agents Directive and its impact on MRI.
At present:
- The Directive is unlikely to be implemented in 2008; more likely 2009 or 2010 with amendments
- The results of two recently published studies demonstrate that the limits the Directive imposes are too low and are being routinely broken by MRI scanners in clinical and research settings. The results of the study commissioned from Professor Crozier by the UK HSE showed that the problem is more extensive than the HSE had expected
- These results, which bear out the concerns that the MRI community has been expressing for the past four years, were presented to the European Commission and Parliament in May. As a result, the Commission has indicated to the Advisory Committee for Health and safety that it will propose an amendment to postpone the implementation date of the EMF Directive. The amendment is expected to be tabled at a meeting of the College of Commissioners shortly. It will be subject to co-decision, but has the support of all member states and is expected to go through the institutional consultation procedure speedily. The Commission has spoken of delay of up to 2 years. In the meantime, further research into exposures funded by the Commission will be completed, and updated advice is expected from ICNIRP
- they understand that there is a problem with the Directive regarding MRI
- they are waiting to see data from studies that are assessing the extent to which current clinical use of MRI exceeds the limits as set out in the Directive
- if the data suggest that there is a problem they will be prepared to address it, not excluding a proposal to amend the Directive
- The remit of the EMF working party is probably being extended from just implementation of the Directive to include the MRI issue as well.
- Commission officials have accepted that if research shows there is a problem then either the exposure limits will have to change or implementation of the Directive will have to be delayed, such a move would require political agreement of member states.
- It is now known that Finland will implement the Directive with a specific exclusion for MRI, Germany will ‘issue guidelines’, Poland and Netherlands are also very concerned, and there is movement in France now. France is considered the key country to win over.
- HSE are lobbying the European Parliament in case a change needs to go through the co-decision mechanism.
- John Hutton, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is going to visit Brussels later this month and will lobby DG EMPL officials and Commissioner Spidla.
Last updated: July 11 2007
MMR vaccines
The main concern about the MMR vaccine is allegations of there being a connection with autism.
Sense is a charity which provides support to deaf-blind people, many of whom have been disabled by rubella. They have a good information resource on MMR research. Their policy briefing describes the history of the vaccine and the latest research on MMR. Read the briefing here:
In February 2008, the National Library for Health reviewed an evaluation of the evidence base for measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders:
The NHS also provides a factsheet about MMR:
The National Autistic Society has a document on the myths around MMR:
National Autistic Society: myths
Last updated: February 07 2008
Update, May 2007
Since the beginning of 2007, there has been continued pressure on the European Commission from medics, academics, parliamentarians, government and industry to seek a resolution on the Physical Agents Directive and its impact on MRI.
The Director Generals of DG Employment (who are responsible for the Directive) and DG Sanco (the health Directorate) recently jointly wrote to member governments to say that:
The preliminary results of two studies that are awaiting peer review suggest that the limits the Directive imposes are too low and are being routinely broken by MRI scanners in clinical and research settings.
The results of the study commissioned from Professor Crozier by the UK HSE will be in the public domain in May, and we expect a response from the Commission soon after.
Last updated: May 03 2007
Science for Celebrities
People in the public eye are often drawn into promoting theories, therapies, and campaigns that make no scientific sense. This leaflet shows how easily some mistakes could have been avoided. Now it’s possible to check the facts before going public. Hundreds of scientists from many fields are available to help you get it right for the public. It costs a phone call.
In the first week of January 2007, we released Sense About… Science for Celebrities, a leaflet that was elegantly abridged by the Sun: ‘Profs rap dim stars’! Download the leaflet (pdf) and read about Madonna’s, Joanna Lumley’s and Chris de Burgh’s brushes with nuclear physics, oncology and physiology.
Here is some of the coverage:
Stars urged to check facts (real player)
Tracey Brown, Director of Sense About Science, on
Radio 4’s Today programme, 3rd January 2007
Stars must ‘check science facts’
BBC Online, 3rd January 2007
Neutralise radiation and stay off milk: the truth about celebrity health claims
James Randerson, Science Correspondent
The Guardian, 3rd January 2007
Celebrities told to embrace the facts, not bad science
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
The Times, 3rd January 2007
Scientists warn about celebrity mumbo-jumbo
by Nic Flemming, Science Correspondent
The Telegraph, 3rd January 2007
Celebrities sent to the back of the science class
Clive Cookson, Science Editor
The Financial Times, 3rd January 2007
Profs rap dim stars
The Sun, 3rd January 2007
Academics ask celebs to button it
by John Dunne
The London Paper, 3rd Jaunary 2007
Quackers! Science v celebrity
by Michael Hanlon, Science Editor
The Daily Mail, 4th January 2007
I’m A Celebrity, Let Me Give You Some Inaccurate Advice
by Sarah Freeman
The Yorkshire Post, 4th January 2007
Last updated: January 09 2008
The Sense About Science Lecture 2007
Were you looking for details of the 2008 lecture by Alan Sokal? Click here.
Longer, Healthier, Happier?
Human Needs, Human Values and Science
by
Professor Raymond Tallis FMedSci
Chair: Phil Willis MP
Our second annual lecture took place on 1st March 2007. Professor Raymond Tallis, Emeritus Professor of Geriatric Medicine at University of Manchester, philosopher, author and poet (and a very active and appreciated member of our Advisory Council), treated us to a challenging, illuminating and entertaining journey through the achievements of modern science and its central part in our humanity.
You can listen to the lecture as a podcast on The Times’ website. Just click on the multimedia link on the left hand side of the page—it’s embedded in Professor Tallis’s opinion piece. You can also download a transcript of the lecture (pdf) and download the slides (ppt).
The following day, Professor Tallis spoke to Alok Jha about the dangers of junk science on The Guardian’s weekly science podcast. Download it here.
This event was generously supported by
Last updated: March 10 2008
Weather and Climate
On Saturday 17th March 2007, leading weather and climate scientists launched our guide to weather and climate predictions for the public at St John’s College, Oxford. The presenters gave a fascinated audience a whirlwind ride through the complex world of numerical models, including recent techniques for combining predictions and making probabilistic forecasts, and helped them to make sense of the IPCC assessments of the impact of CO2 on the climate.
Download a copy of the document: Making Sense of the Weather and Climate (pdf, 1.2MB).
NOTE: The speakers’ slides are subject to copyright restrictions.
PROGRAMME AND CONTRIBUTORS
What do we know about predicting the weather?
MR KEITH GROVES has been Head of Forecasting at the Met Office for the past three years. In over 30 years with the Met Office he has undertaken a variety of jobs, including atmospheric chemistry, operational forecasting, observations and several roles in support of the defence area of the Met Office.
Download Keith Groves’ slides (ppt, 3.7MB)
DR TIM PALMER FRS is head of division, European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. He was lead author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report and coordinator of two recent EU Climate Prediction Projects. Tim is co-chair of the World Climate Research Programme CLIVAR international scientific steering group and a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Download Tim Palmer’s slides here (ppt, 4.1MB)
Some of these slides have moving images. To view them properly you will need to download the files below. Warning!—Some of these files are extremely large. Do not try to download on a slow connection. If you do have a fast connection they are worth it! (You must keep the file name the same and save them to the same folder as the ppt file.)
Download File 1 (avi, 52.4MB) A model of global precipitation
Download File 2 (avi, 58.3MB) A model of typhoon formation
Download File 3 (avi, 5.90MB) A model of cloud formation
Download File 4 (avi, 11.8MB) A graph demonstrating chaos theory
Download File 5 (avi, 10.9MB) Two weather forecasts using nearly identical initial conditions that lead to: (a) a dull October day; and (b) the 1987 storm
Download File 6 (avi, 11.0MB) Illustrating the chaotic nature of weather. Imagine each magnet is a type of weather (e.g., hot, cold, wet, dry).
Download File 7 (avi, 13.9MB) Climate change pushes a wedge under the magnet platform, so although the weather still varies there is a trend towards one type of weather pattern
Download File 8 (avi, 52.4MB) Another model of typhoon formation
Download File 9 (avi, 13.2MB) A model of global cloud patterns
Why do they get it wrong?
HURRICANES
DR JULIAN HEMING graduated from the Reading University Meteorology Department in 1988 and joined the Met Office, initially working on observation impact assessment. In the early 1990s he started examining the Met Office global model’s capabilities in tropical cyclone forecasting. This culminated in him developing a new tropical cyclone initialisation scheme that improved the Met Office global model’s forecast tracks by 30%. Since then he has worked as the Met Office’s tropical cyclone specialist dealing with a diverse range of matters from model development to forecast verification and advisory production to media briefings. He is the Met Office’s prime contact with all the regional tropical cyclone forecast centres around the world.
Download Julian Heming’s slides (ppt, 3.1MB)
FLASH FLOODS
PROFESSOR CHRIS COLLIER is a physicist and professor of environmental remote sensing at the University of Salford. After 27 years working in the Met Office in research, operational instrumentation and commercial services, Chris joined Salford in 1995 becoming Dean of the Faculty of Science, Engineering & Environment (1999-2003). He was President of the Royal Meteorological Society (2004-06) and has published over 80 refereed journal papers, two books on radar hydrometeorology and over 100 conference papers and reports. He has chaired and served on many national and international committees.
Download Professor Collier’s slides (ppt, 2.4MB)
SEVERE WINDS
DR PETER CLARK is head of the Met Office Mesoscale Modelling Group in the Joint Centre for Mesoscale Meteorology, Reading University. This group is responsible for developing future very high resolution forecast systems aimed at very short range forecasting of severe weather such as thunderstorms. He spent 13 years at the environmental research group of the Central Electricity Generating Board measuring and modelling the causes of acid rain and photochemical oxidants. From 1996 to 1998 he was head of Local Forecasting R&D at the Met Office.
This session was chaired by
PROFESSOR PAUL HARDAKER is a mathematician by background. He spent 14 years at the Met Office in a variety of roles, including heading the observations development branch, directing the science and technology development programmes and, latterly, as a policy advisor to Government on climate change and civil contingencies. Paul is now Chief Executive of the Royal Meteorological Society. He also chairs the NERC programme on the Flood Risk from Extreme Events.
What does the future hold?
WEATHER FORECAST FOR MAY DAY 2080
PETER GIBBS was born in Sunderland, grew up in the English Lake District, studied Physics and Geography at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, and then worked at the British Antarctic Survey based in Cambridge. Peter initially trained an worked in the Antarctic as a weather observer, but joined the Met Office in 1983 as a trainee forecaster. He spent several years in the forecast office at RAF Honington in Suffolk. In 1989, Peter moved to the Norwich Weather Centre and began television broadcasting as a forecaster with BBC Norwich’s Look East in 1993, and moved to the BBC Weather Centre to join the BBC World team in October 1997. He began forecasting for other BBC channels from November 1998 and has also appeared on BBC TV’s Breakfast News. He now broadcasts across all BBC channels.
Download Peter Gibbs’ slides here (ppt, 11.7MB)
Some of these slides have moving images. To view them properly you will need to download the files below. Warning!—Some of these files are extremely large. Do not try to download on a slow connection. If you do have a fast connection they are worth it! (You must keep the file name the same and save them to the same folder as the ppt file.)
Download File 1 (mpeg, 3.66MB) A model of predicted changes in temperature based on the high emission scenario
Dowload File 2 (avi, 46.7MB) A model illustrating the formation and progression of Hurricane Katrina
Dowload File 3 (avi, 2.93MB) A model showing changes in sea ice coverage
NEW CLIMATE PREDICTION SCENARIOS FOR THE UK
DR GEOFF JENKINS works at the Hadley Centre, the division of the Met Office that undertakes research into climate change. He worked on the first science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, and he now manages the new climate scenarios for the UK, which are due out in 2008.
Download Geoff Jenkins’ slides here (ppt, 3.7MB)
DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE
DR PETER STOTT is Manager of Understanding and Attributing Climate Change at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change at the UK Met Office. He leads the Hadley Centre research program in the area of detection and attribution of climate change. He is a contributor to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report. He is a Lead Author for the chapter on ‘Understanding and Attributing Climate Change’ in the Working Group I report. He is also a member of the Core Writing Team of the IPCC Synthesis Report, which synthesises the findings of the three Working Groups of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, and which was published in late 2007. He has published many papers on attribution of climate change on global and regional scales. His paper on ‘Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003’ published by Nature in 2004 was chosen by Nature in their end of year issue as one of their 10 highlight papers of the year.
Download Peter Stott’s slides here (ppt, 1MB)
The final session was chaired by
DR BILL BURROUGHS is a professional science writer. After seven years at the UK National Physical Laboratory researching atmospheric physics, Bill spent three years as a UK Scientific Attache in Washington DC. Between 1974 and 1995 he held a series of senior posts in the UK Departments of Energy and then Health. He has published 11 books on various aspects of weather and climate and written widely in newspapers and popular magazines.
The symposium and the briefing document, Making Sense of the Weather and Climate, were produced in association with
Last updated: April 25 2008
SAS Logos
SAS Logo (tif, 45Mb)
SAS Logo, please use the top one (pdf)
Last updated: February 01 2007
Sense About… Science for Celebrities
INTRO TEXT
WARNING! Mumbo jumbo is sometimes dressed up to sound ‘scientific’
GILLIAN MCKEITH PIC
Dr Steve Rawsthorne
Plant Scientist, John Innes Centre
This is a nice idea Gillian, but you’ve taken it too far. A seed has stored proteins, starch and oil that are broken down when water is added to give it the energy and molecular building blocks to start the germination process and grow into a seedling. To become a fully formed plant the seedling then needs sunlight and more water. When we eat seeds we don’t break down the stored products like a plant does and so we do not get the same balance of energy and nutritional components that the plant benefits from.
JENNY SEAGROVE PIC
Professor Nancy Rothwell
Physiologist, University of Manchester
The mistake is understandable, Jenny, but micro-dosing is a technique for measuring how small doses of drugs move around the body. It has not yet been properly validated, but in the future it may replace some animal tests. Unfortunately, if we want new medicines for diseases like cancer or cystic fibrosis, there are some cases where there are no alternatives to using animals.
MADONNA PIC
Dr Nick Evans
Environmental Radiochemist, Loughborough University
Radioactivity comes in many different types: some last for a billions of years, others decay away in a few minutes. Radioactivity cannot be ‘neutralised’, it can only be moved from one place to another, until it decays away at its own rate. There are no magical solutions.
etc.
Last updated: December 15 2006
Update, November 2006
Government response
At the end of October the Government and Health Protection Agency (HPA) responses to the Science & Technology Select Committee’s (STC) report on the Physical Agents Directive (PAD) were published (get the STC’s report here). You can download the responses here.
Although they defer as much blame as possible, it is significant that both the Government and HPA accept fault in some of the processes and procedures that led to PAD.
HSE Working Party on MRI/PAD
On 8th November the HSE Working Party on MRI and PAD met. The following notes were provided by a member of the Working Party.
Work in Europe
The meeting was attended by someone from HSE International Branch, who represents HSE in Europe and is currently chair of the Commission’s Advisory Committee on Health and Safety. He reported that
Research
A report on Stuart Crozier’s initial results was presented, although not the detailed results themselves. This work confirms that the exposure limits are exceeded close to the scanner, vindicating the position taken by the MR community.
The Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs has produced a large document on implementation of the Directive which highlights the impact on MRI. It contains no new results, but nevertheless it does acknowledge that there is a serious problem.
HSE consultation
HSE will be going to public consultation on implementation of the Directive in the New Year. They have yet to decide how to approach the MRI issue and are concerned that they will be overwhelmed by complaints from the medical community. While a joint response of the MR community could be arranged, no-one would want to prevent others from expressing concerns individually as well.
Department of Health involvement
DH has produced a note on the impact on MRI, suggesting that 5% of MRI exams may be affected and patients may have to have CT instead with resulting radiation dose.
European Commission Expert Group on MRI/PAD
On 14th November the European Commission Expert Group on MRI and PAD met in Brussels. As with the recent meeting with the HSE, it was a very positive meeting and there are clear signs of movement.
Research
The specification for the exposure measurements that the Commission is going to fund has been agreed. A contractor will be appointed in April following a tender process, and the first results are expect in the late summer of 2007. MR members of the Expert Group will be fully involved in selecting the contractor and reviewing the results. Four MR centres in different European countries have been nominated: it is thought that these represent ‘worst case’ for exposure in MRI (ultrahigh field, GA at 3T with staff in room, intervention on a high-field open system, paediatric GA at 1.5T). This research will complement the work already being carried out by Stuart Crozier for HSE.
A change of emphasis
Commission officials have said that the aim of the Directive is to protect workers, not to jeopardise medical practice. They have accepted that there could perhaps be a relaxation of the limits.
If research shows that there is a problem the Commission could propose delaying implementation for medical MRI until agreement on this is reached. Such a proposal would have to be considered by the Parliament and Council of Ministers (so lobbying member states remains very important). This is a dramatic change from the Commission’s previous, hard-line position.
Last updated: December 04 2006
Sense About Science Comment on the Regulations
(Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1952)
Tracey Brown, Director, Sense About Science (Sense About Science is a registered charity promoting good science and evidence for the public).
“We have a fantastic regime for licensing medicines in this country, highly attuned to assessing the nuances of scientific evidence for efficacy and safety. So it is incredibly frustrating that while the Government is agonising over what constitutes evidence-based policy in so many areas, the MHRA-its leading light in the development of evidence-based medicine, on whom we all rely each time we get a prescription-is charged with implementing a new licensing regime that recognises homeopathic ‘provings’ as legitimate data. Provings are observations that a substance induces the same symptoms as a disease, like watering eyes or headaches. We might as well test medicines by dropping them in a muddy puddle to see if they float.
The exemption of homeopathic products from provision of evidence of their efficacy is grossly irresponsible. It is further evidence of the slide of the UK into a state of sloppy-minded political correctness. We are now part of the post-scientific society and ripe for historical oblivion.”
Sign our statement of support for evidence based medicine (just click at the bottom of the pdf).
For further information, or on 020 7478 4380.
Last updated: November 15 2006
Individuals Comments on the Regulations
(Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1952)
Professor Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery, University College London
“This is like licensing a witches’ brew as a medicine so long as the bat wings are sterile.”
Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman, said:
“It’s wrong that this country’s medicines regulatory arrangements, which need to be scientific and rigorous, are being diluted and polluted by processes which allow ineffective products to be licensed as medicines without having to provide any scientific evidence of effectiveness. There are very tight standards for proper medicines for very good reasons—the need to protect vulnerable consumers from exploitation.”
Dr Harris, who has worked with Sense About Science to expose the false claims of homeopathy, said:
“The multi-million pound homeopathy industry should not be allowed to make health claims for its products without proper evidence of effectiveness, especially when reliance on ineffective homeopathic ‘remedies’ may delay access to proper diagnosis and treatment of serious conditions.”
Dr Harris, who discovered the Statutory Instrument, said:
“Parliament has never had a chance to debate this significant law change because the Government only laid the Instrument in the last week that Parliament sat with a implementation date—today—in the middle of the recess. We now know what the Government was trying to sneak through.”
Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology, University College London
“The new government regulations allow claims to be made that sugar pills can treat illnesses when there isn’t a fragment of reason to believe the claims are true. This is simply government-endorsed lying.”
Professor Edzard Ernst, Professor of Complementary Medicine, University of Exeter
“This makes a mockery out of evidence-based medicine.”
Professor Gustav Born, Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, Kings College London
“A statutory instrument giving official sanction to homeopathic preparations, which have no therapeutic effects other than placebo, is a subversion of the nature of evidence.”
Professor John Garrow, Emeritus Professor of Human Nutrition, University of London
“I thought the MHRA existed to protect the public from fake medicines that do no good. It is disgusting that they should accept as evidence of efficacy the so-called ‘provings’ of homeopathic products, for fear that otherwise it “would inhibit the expansion of the homeopathic industry”. It is not the job of the MHRA to support any industry. Their duty is to reassure the public that any medicine which has a licence has been shown by proper controlled trials to be effective. It seems that they have now failed in this duty. Unfortunately, clinicians will not trust them in the future.”
Professor Tom Addiscott
“The exemption of homeopathic products from provision of evidence of their efficacy is grossly irresponsible. It is further evidence of the slide of the UK into a state of sloppy-minded political correctness. We are now part of the post-scientific society and ripe for historical oblivion.”
Dr Mark Atkins
“In addition to the comments made in the statement of objection, it is clear that homeopathic preparations will not comply with accepted quality control procedures as they should all only contain water. It is not physically possible to measure and control the amount of “active” ingredient present, therefore all of the labels will be incorrect and misleading. This legislation is sanctioning widespread fraud. It is NOT within the remit of the MRHA to concern itself with consumer choice.”
Dr Geoff Butcher
“Homeopathic remedies have been recommended for malaria - this is extremely dangerous. It suggests there is no effective control or monitoring of claims by individual practitioners.”
Dr Christopher Cates
“If an exception is made for the normal requirements of evidence of efficacy for homeopathic treatments it will devalue the whole regulation process.”
Catherine Collins
“Whilst I agree that there needs to be some control on the preparation, sale and usage of alternative health products, this regulation gives homeopathy a legitimacy it does not deserve, and infers that homeopathy works to the same degree of efficacy as conventional medicine. This is misleading and untruthful. The only plausible explanation for any objectively determined benefit of homeopathy is the placebo effect. I assume that the regulations would, therefore, legitimately be extended to cover Smarties used for similar ‘treatment’ purposes?”
Dr Peter Ewing
“I have read the MHRA’s impact assessment and press release, and I can scarcely believe that it is issued by an organisation tasked to ‘safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work’. In a classic example of muddled thinking, they have chosen to regard homeopathic provings and case reports as evidence of efficacy, even though they are no such thing. I find the constant references to the benefits to the homeopathic industry very disconcerting. The MHRA appear to have simply abandoned their original remit in favour of another.”
Debbie Gamble
“As someone who uses some homeopathic treatments both for myself, my husband and my 7 year old son who has a chronic condition, I do believe that some homeopathic rememdies can be helpful. However, I am horrified that the regulations being amended will allow them to make medical claims without scientific proof to back these up. Many vulnerable people may be mislead and misinformed and I feel very strongly that this should not happen.”
Dr W G Herrenden Harker
“I feel strongly that the use of medicines must be based on scientific evidence in order to safeguard patients from fraudulent and potentially very damaging ‘treatments’ on offer by numerous alternative medicine practitioners. The investigation into the claims by homeopaths concerning malaria highlights this need very clearly.”
A Morris
“A contributing factor towards this current nonsense is that academic medicine - i.e. as taught in medical schools - has for some time now, with the encouragement of organisations such as the GMC (’Tomorrow’s Doctors’ ), been moving away from emphasising scientific medicine towards social medicine. This develops an atmosphere where rigour is lost. ‘If it works for me, it must be right’, forgetting post hoc ergo propter hoc.”
Joe Parker
“I harbour no bias against homeopathy (or any other therapy) should it be proven effective by protocols that stand up to internationally-accepted standards of academic scrutiny.”
Nick Ross
“Sometimes politics must take priority over science. After all, Galileo capitulated to the Inquisition. But what instruments of torture threatened members of the MHRA - or were they simply intellectual cowards? The MHRA exists to guarantee safety and efficacy. Certainly nobody much questions the biochemical toxicity of homeopathy; but by their dismal capitulation to politics MHRA members have now given an ineffective treatment an official stamp of approval. Let us hope that people who are ill take it only for trivial conditions. What next for the MHRA? Can they equally be bullied by the pharmaceuticals industry?”
James Sykes
“While MHRA might defend it’s press release as reassuring the public that approved treatments are harmless, they should also require labelling to declare that there is no evidence that they are beneficial. The irresponsibility of the MHRA scheme is demonstrated by Penny Viner’s statement that the scheme will ‘enhance the consumer’s understanding of their benefits’.”
Professor Anthony Trewavas FRS
“Government policy should always be based on the best available knowledge not superstition. After all what else is there other than knowledge to base reliable policy on?”
Roger Turner
“All medicines should be tested by the same set of regulations without any special treatment being given to any type of product.”
Sign our statement of support for evidence based medicine (just click at the bottom of the pdf).
For further information, or on 020 7478 4380.
Last updated: April 16 2008
Powerpoint presentations and videos
Cardiff presentation
Cardiff presentation TB
Last updated: March 28 2007
Homeopathy
Homeopathy is marketed as a safe, natural and holistic treatment for a range of ailments and illnesses, including arthritis, asthma, depression, eczema, diarrhoea, hayfever, headaches, insomnia and toothache. Homeopathic products and services have become a large industry.
Despite this, it has not been embraced by medical science. The scientific evidence shows that homeopathy acts only as a placebo and there is no scientific explanation of how it could work any other way.
read on... (pdf)
Last updated: September 22 2006
EBM Support form - thank you
Thank you for adding your name to the statement of support for evidence-based medicine.
Use the menus to continue using the site.
Last updated: October 10 2006
Respond to the regulations
Sign up to our statement of support for evidence-based medicine
Last updated: September 27 2006
Coverage of the new regulations
Homeopathic remedies can today be licensed as medicines (Real player)
The Today programme
Fears over homeopathy regulation
BBC News Online, 31st August 2006
Doctors attack natural remedy claims
By Nigel Hawkes & Mark Henderson
The Times, 1st September 2006
Homeopathic licensing alarms doctors
By Alok Jha, Science Correspondent
The Guardian, 1st September 2006
On the Lords debate...
Will the Lords be able to annul medical licensing rules allowing homeopathic products to make health claims? (Real player)
The Today programme
Scientists attack homeopathy move
BBC News Online, 25th October 2006
Lords debate new homoeopathy rules
By Nigel Hawkes & Elsa McLaren
The Times, 26th October 2006
Homeopathy rules attacked
Healthcare Today, 26th October 2006
Latitude granted to homeopathy infuriates medical establishment
By Alok Jha, Science Correspondent
The Guardian, 27th October 2006
Alarm as homeopathic treatments are free to make health claims without trials
By Fiona MacRae, Science Reporter
Daily Mail, 27th October 2006
Last updated: October 31 2006
Comments on the regulations
(Statutory Instrument 2006 No 1952)
The following organisations have commented on these regulations. Click on the links to see their comments.
The Academy of Medical Sciences
British Pharmacological Society
The Institute of Clinical Research
The Royal College of Pathologists
Society for Applied Microbiology
Additionally over 700 individuals have contacted us with comments about the regulations. You can see a selection of them here.
Sign our statement of support for evidence based medicine (just click at the bottom of the pdf).
For further information, or on 020 7478 4380.
Last updated: November 23 2006
New regulations on licensing of homeopathy
The Medicines for Human Use (National Rules for Homeopathic Products) Regulations 2006
On 1st September 2006, new regulations came into force that permit homeopathic products to make medical claims but exempt them from providing any scientific evidence that they are effective. This is the first time in its history that the regulation of medicines has moved away from science and from clear, meaningful information for the public. What is more, it happened without parliamentary time or public debate.
The need for evidence-based medicine needs to be restated as fully and publicly as possible. Sense About Science has produced a statement for signing online (just click at the bottom of the pdf).
On 9th October, Sense About Science summarised for parliament hundreds of responses. These were instrumental in pressing for the debate that was held in the House of Lords on 26th October. The serious concerns of the scientific and medical community were raised by Lord Taverne (Chairman of Sense About Science), Lord Rees of Ludlow (President of the Royal Society), Lord Turnberg, Lord Jenkin of Roding, Lord McColl of Dulwich and Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve. You can read the debate here and see some of the media coverage here.
Efforts are being made to continue this debate in the Commons and to bring the objections directly to the attention of the Government and the regulatory authorities. Please do continue to
- sign the statement and send in comments (click at the bottom of the pdf)
- contact medics and scientists and urge them to do the same
- ask your organisation what it is doing on this matter
If you have any questions, please or on 020 7478 4380.
The regulations
The mission of the UK’s licensing body, the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), is to ensure “that medicines and medical devices work, and are acceptably safe”. However, with the introduction of the new rules for homeopathy, it now accepts homeopathic provings as evidence of efficacy. A ‘proving’ is the method homeopaths use to determine the symptoms a substance causes (with a view to treating diseases with similar symptoms). Provings are not carried out on the finished product and are nothing to do with efficacy.
The regulations also mean that, for the first time in more than 30 years, homeopathic products will be able to make medical claims such as “For the relief of...”. Such claims, however worded, imply efficacy where none has been proven.
The MHRA did not have to change the regulations in this way. It was not required to do so by EC Directive 2001/83. The MHRA set out four options to government, including doing nothing. It chose to eliminate the old, stricter licences in order to facilitate the “expansion of the homeopathic industry” through new products.
The MHRA has designed the regulations to respond to pressure from the homeopathic industry, which wants to expand (see impact assessment right).
Last updated: April 16 2008
Some media coverage of Professor Baum's letter to NHS Trusts
NHS told to abandon alternative medicine
The Times, Mark Henderson
Tuesday 23 May 2006
Doctors attack ‘bogus’ therapies
BBC Online News
Tuesday 23 May 2006
Doctors’ letter sparks NHS alternative therapies row
Guardian, Sarah Boseley
Wednesday 24 May 2006
NHS Should Stop Funding Alternative Therapies, Say UK Top Doctors
Medical News Today
Wednesday 24 May 2006
Prince defiant over alternative medicine after doctors’ attack
The Times, Jenny Booth and Mark Henderson
Wednesday 24 May 2006
All in the mind?
The Times, Anjana Ahuja
Wednesday 24 May 2006
The letter provoked lots of comment:
Homeopathy is bunkum
Guardian, Sue Blackmore
Tuesday 23 May 2006
Snake oil - or NHS tool?
Daily Mail, Michael Hanlon
Wednesday 24 May 2006
Last updated: July 14 2006
Press coverage
Malaria advice ‘risks lives’
By Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight, 13th July 2006
Malaria risk for tourists who trust alternative practitioners
By Mark Henderson, Science Editor
The Times, 14th July 2006
Homeopathic practices ‘risk lives’
By Pallab Ghosh, BBC News Science Correspondent
BBC Online, 14th July 2006
Do not rely on homeopathy to protect against malaria, doctors warn
By Fiona MacRae, Science Correspondent
Daily Mail, 14th July 2006
Homeopaths ‘endangering lives’ by offering malaria remedies
By Alok Jha, Science Correspondent
The Guardian, 14th July 2006
Alarm over alternative malaria remedies
By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor
The Independent, 14th July 2006
Homoeopathy: voodoo on the NHS
By Jamie Whyte
The Times, 15th July 2006
Last updated: September 18 2006
Comments
From the scientists
Dr Ron Behrens, Director, Hospital for Tropical Diseases Travel Clinic
We are urging the public to take on board this warning at a time of year when many people are planning to travel. The misleading travel advice being given by homeopaths is not a trivial problem. We have treated people at the Hospital for Tropical Diseases who thought they were protected by homeopathic medicines and contracted malaria. Giving malaria preventative advice involves assessing the risks associated with the destination, length of stay, the person’s plans and their own medical history, and selecting the most suitable and effective combination of antimalarial drug, detailing bite prevention measures and symptom advice. That homeopaths can promote unproven alternatives to this tried and tested process undermines all efforts to educate the travelling public about malaria and its prevention. The messages given by some homeopaths are inaccurate, counterproductive and place lives at risk.
Dr Geoff Butcher, Parasitology, Imperial College London
If the government and insurance companies can insist on accredited service and MOTs to reduce deaths on the road, why is it that homeopaths are allowed to remain in business? They should either be educated about malaria and licensed to give correct information and dispense standard antimalarials that have been tried and tested in the usual way, or they should be put out of business.
Professor Brian Greenwood, Clinician and Epidemiologist, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine; President, Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
Malaria is a major risk to travellers to the tropics, especially in the most malarious parts of Africa. It can strike quickly and kill within 2 or 3 days of first symptoms. Anti-mosquito measures give some protection but, especially in high risk areas, it is advisable to take anti-malarial drugs too. These can cause some side effects but provide a high level of protection. These decisions require discussion with a knowledgeable person who can assess the risk and benefits. The use of homeopathy creates a more dangerous situation than taking no precautions if the traveller assumes that s/he is protected and does not seek help quickly for any illness that might be malaria.
Professor Hilary Hurd, Director of the Centre of Applied Entomology and Parasitology, Keele University; President of the British Society for Parasitology
It is very worrying that the majority of consultations provided no advice on bite prevention as this is the most effective way of preventing infection. As the anopheline mosquitoes that transmit malaria bite in the evening and at night, travellers should be advised to wear long trousers, socks and long sleeved shirts after dusk, to sleep under a bed net, ideally impregnated with insecticide, and to use an insect repellent on exposed skin.
Professor Geoffrey Pasvol, Infection & Tropical Medicine, Imperial College London
It is remarkable that the homeopathy fraternity are prepared to put peoples lives at risk without any evidence that their remedies work. Medical practitioners would be sued, taken to court – and found guilty for far less! What this investigation has unearthed is appalling.
Dr Jeremy Sternberg, Parasitologist, Aberdeen University
Malaria is a deadly disease. Especially with P. falciparum, you can’t take these kinds of chances. Homeopathy doesn’t offer any protection and I’m alarmed that anyone would gamble with people’s lives in this way.
Professor Nicholas White OBE FRS, Tropical Medicine, University of Oxford; Chair of the Wellcome Trust SE Asian Units and of the WHO antimalarial treatment guidelines committee
This is very dangerous nonsense and needs to be stopped. In SouthEast Asia, where I am working, we are battling against a rising tide of counterfeit antimalarials which kill, create public uncertainty and diminish faith in truly effective medicines. The prescribing of homeopathic remedies to prevent malaria is another reprehensible example of potentially lethal duplicity.
Other comments
Tracey Brown, Director, Sense About Science
At Sense About Science we are constantly being made aware of examples where the public is misled about scientific evidence. The public needs access to the best information and they should be alerted when claims are not supported by evidence or good science, particularly on important matters of public health like this.
Professor David Colquhoun FRS, pharmacologist at University College London
The source material that homeopaths use (e.g. common salt!) has been so diluted that not a single molecule is left in the medicine. The medicines therefore contain no medicine. To sell pills that contain nothing whatsoever and to pretend that they will protect you against malaria strikes me as nothing short of criminal. In the EU in 2000, 15,528 cases of malaria were reported to the WHO in returning travellers.
Professor Edzard Ernst, Laing Chair in Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School
There is not a single piece of published scientific research to show that the homeopathic remedies protect patients from malaria or any other infection. The advice given by homeopaths therefore is a serious threat to patients’ health.
Simon Singh, science writer and broadcaster
Homeopathy is not just useless, it is worse than useless in the case of malaria because it dupes people into thinking that they are protected when they are not. I was shocked that there was such willingness to give advice and sell products that would leave people exposed to a highly dangerous disease…
Beforehand I suspected that one or two homeopaths might offer pills to protect against malaria, but it turned