[EAS]Mind and Body

[pjk]

Mail*Link® SMTP               Mind and Body

FYI  --Peter Kindlmann

--------------------------------------
Date: 10/5/01 4:34 PM
From: What's New
WHAT'S NEW   Robert L. Park   Friday, 5 Oct 01   Washington, DC

1. ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE: SO WHY NOT JUST MAKE IT MAINSTREAM?  Any
physician entering practice today must deal with patients who use
alternative therapies.  Would it not make sense, therefore, for
medical schools to educate doctors about unconventional therapies
that their patients may already use? Georgetown University's (GU)
medical school is the first in the nation to announce it will
integrate information about such therapies into the curriculum,
but scientists are troubled. By definition, these therapies are
scientifically unproven; if they are proven, they cease to be
alternative.  The standard of proof used by proponents, however,
is often lax.  James Gordon, chair of the White House Commission
on Complementary and Alternative Medicine, directs the Center for
Mind-Body Medicine at GU.  Is there a mind-body effect?  Sure
there is.  I doubt if Gordon can increase women's breast size by
hypnotism, as he claims in his book, "The New Medicine" (WN 4 Aug
00), but just reading the book made me physically ill.

2. ALTERNATIVE PREGNANCY: YOU BETTER PRAY THIS STUDY IS WRONG.  A
study of in-vitro fertilization finds that women who have people 
praying for them are twice as likely to become pregnant from the
procedure as those who don't.  It was intercessory prayer, with
prospective mothers in Korea, unaware they were prayees, while
the prayers were women in the US, Canada and Australia who did
not know the women they were praying for.  The researchers were 
at Columbia, and also knew nothing.  Science Daily magazine
called the results "surprising," but that's much too timid.  We
can now expect studies on what sort of prayers are most effective
and to which god they should be directed, followed by lawsuits
against anyone who prays for pregnancies that turn out badly.

3. RANCID PORK: SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY.  Two weeks ago, Mitch
Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, called
on the science community to pressure Congress to abandon science
earmarks (WN 28 Sep 01), that is, science programs that have not
undergone peer review or been requested by a science agency. 
Most earmarked funds go to projects in the districts of powerful
members of Congress.  We need an audit of what, if anything,
earmarks do to advance science.  The APS opposes earmarks
http://www.aps.org/statements/91.5.html.  But this week, former
Senator Bennett Johnston, now a lobbyist, urged scientists to
ignore Daniel's request.  It's only $2B, he snorted, and by
opposing such projects, scientists may alienate powerful
appropriators.  He described pork-barrel science as the price of
doing business.  The price of ignoring it is our integrity.

NEXT WEEK: SHOULD WE USE THE NUCLEAR THREAT AGAINST TERRORISM? 
We will get into the growing debate over the responsibility of a
super power in a world of unrestrained terrorism.
 
THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY and THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND. 
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the
American Physical Society or the University, but they should be.

------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by design.eng.yale.edu with SMTP;5 Oct 2001 16:33:58 -0400
Received: (from whatsnew at localhost)
	by tron.aps.org (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA22182;
	Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:44:35 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:44:35 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200110052044.QAA22182 at tron.aps.org>
To: pjk at design.eng.yale.edu
From: "What's New" <whatsnew at aps.org>
Subject: What's New for Oct 05, 2001