“When do we want it?”

“AS SOON AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE VIA THE PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW!”

By James Cole

Skeptics have long been vocal in their beliefs, and there is a proud history of individual skeptics and nerds attempting to right wrongs, but this year also saw the unprecedented 10:23 and libel reform campaigns gather massive support.

Also in 2010, we have seen the launch of the Skeptical Voter site and campaign, and we have also launched the campaign against NHS funded quakery. It seems that “skeptivism” (skeptical activism) has arrived on the scene and may well be here to stay, but who or what should be targeted by skeptivism?

Who should be the focus of such activism?

In my opinion, skeptical activism is best focused on those who have power or influence. It is, I think, better to criticise (for example) a member of the Royal Family, or a journalist who has a wide audience, for their daft pronouncements than to criticise (for example) a ‘Mom Blogger’ with a small audience who has been fed misinformation about vaccination.

I would also feel more comfortable criticising an organisation than an individual. It seems to me that an industry body or a national newspaper should be accountable and responsible in a way that an individual perhaps should not.

While the mainstream media escaped almost without criticism from the MMR hoax that they perpetuated, Dr Andrew Wakefield was subject not only to fierce criticism to a GMC hearing on the basis of his behaviour in conducting research.

However blameworthy Wakefield was, the national press were to an extent themselves culpable for the drop in vaccine coverage – yet they were among the critics of Wakefield in the final reckoning and valiantly ignored the great lengths they had gone to in order to fan the flames, scaremonger, promote unpublished research, and ignore evidence that was contradictory to the narrative they pushed.

The media tried to duck their responsibility for the MMR hoax and pretty much got away with it.

When it comes to alternative treatments such as chiropractic, I would feel more comfortable criticising a trade association (say, the British Chiropractic Association) than an individual chiropractor – yet I have done both.

Despite my reluctance to criticise individual practitioners who have not previously come to my attention, I do not consider that individuals should have a “get out of jail free” card, and I believe I can justify my criticism of individual chiropractors.

Some points worth bearing in mind when considering my actions:

• The individual chiropractor I criticised was contacted by email and could simply have amended their website – I would then have had no basis for considering a complain to the GCC and my correspondence with the individual would have been considerably briefer than was the case.
• Individual chiropractors were crowing about the situation Simon Singh found himself in when sued by the BCA. Prior to this case (and similar cases such as the New Zealand incident), chiropractors had been under my radar. Suing an individual for criticising the promotion of treatments (or crowing about such a writer being sued) will tend to draw attention.
• Whatever my personal feelings about criticising individuals, the fact remains that chiropractors were making claims on their commercial websites that did not comply with ASA advice. This was contrary to the Code of Practice that their regulator enforces and these chiropractors really should have known that. There is no excuse for their promotion of claims that did not comply.
• That so many chiropractors were potentially in contravention of their own Code of Practice, yet had seemingly avoided any action from the GCC brought the worth of the GCC as a regulator into question. If the regulator does not regulate (at least when it comes to unsubstantiated claims), then perhaps some nerd will have to do the job for them.

I support the action taken by Zeno and Simon Perry. Their complaints to the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) about members of the BCA were well-founded and if as a consequence of the complaints we see the removal of unsubstantiated claims, then the result is that the public are protected from misinformation they would otherwise have been subjected to.

I posted an account of my own involvement with skeptivism and chiropractic here on my blog Stuff And Nonsense. I didn’t go quite as far as Zeno and Simon Perry – but perhaps I should have.

I find it is easier to find examples of appropriate targets than to define “appropriate targets for skeptivism”. Although one may feel uncomfortable in criticising an individual or reporting them to the relevant authority, it would be wrong to allow someone with influence to peddle misinformation.

Jenny McCarthy on vaccination, Prince Charles on CAM, Nadine Dorries on… well, pretty much any subject I’ve heard her speak about. These are people in the public eye who have more influence than the average individual – and who use this influence to disseminate nonsense. These are people who should be subject to scrutiny, not exempted from criticism.

Of course, there are organisations that are even easier to justify criticising or reporting to regulatory bodies or the appropriate authority. I reported a commercial enterprise to the MHRA for making medicinal claims that seemed to me to be contrary to the Medicines Act – step forward and take a bow Principle Healthcare.

Then there’s the British Chiropractic Association, a trade association for chiropractors. Or one might look to the CNHC (in danger of lending an air of legitimacy to quacks by regulating nonsense) or the FIH (a group set up by Prince Charles, which is trying to promote alternative medicine – and does not respond well to criticism, as Edzard Ernst has discovered), two organisations that have come under scrutiny from the Bad Science bloggers.

James blogs regularly at Stuff and Nonsense

Related Posts:

• HAW No!
• Reflex Reaction
• Homeopathic “Training” Scrapped at Gartnavel