When Herbs, Science, and Tax Dollars Don't Mix
Jan. 20, 2000 (Washington) -- Even though it's estimated that one-third of the American public used some sort of alternative treatment in 1997, including the comedian Rodney Dangerfield, these therapies still "don't get no respect" from many in the medical mainstream. Many clinicians hesitate to acknowledge even a potential use for alternative and complementary therapies. And now the medical experts are debating the appropriateness of research funding for these relatively new arrivals to the world of traditional medicine.
A case in point is a $1.4 million grant awarded to Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) to study the effectiveness of coffee enemas and enzymes in pancreatic cancer patients. NCCAM is a division of the National Institutes of Health. The National Cancer Institute also is underwriting the research. In spite of this backing from prominent agencies, many experts dispute the approach, and a state medical board has sanctioned Gonzalez, a Manhattan cancer specialist.
Victor Herbert, MD, a medical doctor and a lawyer who teaches at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, testified in court against Gonzalez. Herbert decries the trend to alternative therapies, which he says can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. "Scam sells, science sucks. We all know that," he tells WebMD.
Whether you love them or hate them, it's clear that alternative treatments have friends in high places that have helped them get more and more federal dollars. Since 1992, when the then Office of Alternative Medicine was born, the alternative and complementary therapies research budget has increased from $2 million to $68.7 million this fiscal year. NCCAM's 37% growth rate is the highest of any NIH center or institute.
But NCCAM Director of the Division of Extramural Research, Training, and Review Richard Nahin, PhD, bristles at the suggestion that congressional backers of alternative treatments are twisting the arms of NIH officials to push pet projects -- an idea that was raised in a recent WashingtonPost story on Gonzalez and his research. "Congress doesn't really interfere with us. They've never told us to study a particular product," he says.
When Herbs, Science, and Tax Dollars Don't Mix
Jan. 20, 2000 (Washington) -- Even though it's estimated that one-third of the American public used some sort of alternative treatment in 1997, including the comedian Rodney Dangerfield, these therapies still "don't get no respect" from many in the medical mainstream. Many clinicians hesitate to acknowledge even a potential use for alternative and complementary therapies. And now the medical experts are debating the appropriateness of research funding for these relatively new arrivals to the world of traditional medicine.
A case in point is a $1.4 million grant awarded to Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, from the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) to study the effectiveness of coffee enemas and enzymes in pancreatic cancer patients. NCCAM is a division of the National Institutes of Health. The National Cancer Institute also is underwriting the research. In spite of this backing from prominent agencies, many experts dispute the approach, and a state medical board has sanctioned Gonzalez, a Manhattan cancer specialist.
Victor Herbert, MD, a medical doctor and a lawyer who teaches at New York City's Mount Sinai School of Medicine, testified in court against Gonzalez. Herbert decries the trend to alternative therapies, which he says can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. "Scam sells, science sucks. We all know that," he tells WebMD.
Whether you love them or hate them, it's clear that alternative treatments have friends in high places that have helped them get more and more federal dollars. Since 1992, when the then Office of Alternative Medicine was born, the alternative and complementary therapies research budget has increased from $2 million to $68.7 million this fiscal year. NCCAM's 37% growth rate is the highest of any NIH center or institute.
But NCCAM Director of the Division of Extramural Research, Training, and Review Richard Nahin, PhD, bristles at the suggestion that congressional backers of alternative treatments are twisting the arms of NIH officials to push pet projects -- an idea that was raised in a recent WashingtonPost story on Gonzalez and his research. "Congress doesn't really interfere with us. They've never told us to study a particular product," he says.
SHARE
