Tomfoolery Blog

Finally, we have received the government’s response to the Science and Technology Committee’s Evidence Check on Homeopathy. It’s not good. Rather than act on the recommendations to stop NHS funding and MHRA licensing of homeopathy, the government have completely copped out and kept the status quo, whist somehow agreeing with the evidence check. The government seems to be trying to pander to both scientists and homeopaths, and as such the response is horrible to read. I’ll go into detail later, but in the meantime I’ll leave it to Martin Robbins at the Guardian.

The response is being discussed in the media, and last night our own Michael Marshall from the Merseyside Skeptics Society and 10:23 campaign appeared on BBC Radio 5Live (1:48 in). He was joined by presenter Tony Livesey, and not one, but two homeopaths: Dr Brian Kaplan, a medical doctor and fellow of the Faculty of Homeopathy, and Mary English, a “qualified homeopath”.

Brian Kaplan came across as rabid, massively overplaying the government’s decision on homeopathy. Mary English seemed nice and polite, but as expected she only bought anecdotal evidence to the table. The debate felt unbalanced, even for the BBC’s standards, and seemed like an ambush, although Marsh did well to keep a level head and put across his points calmly and succinctly. To be fair, the first two callers made good points about the studies of the efficaciousness of homeopathy. However, support for homeopathy was taken from a couple of callers, who again could only come up with anecdotal evidence.

Which brings me to my first issue: why don’t the BBC train their presenters in the basics of critical thinking? For example, you do not counter systematic studies and randomized double-blinded controlled trials with a couple of personal anecdotes! The presenter, Tony Livesey, actually said “That wasn’t an anecdote, that really happened!” when Marsh pointed out that a caller’s story about his daughter’s experience with homeopathy was an anecdote. Is it unreasonable to expect a BBC presenter to know what an anecdote is? He also seemed impressed by authority, noting that Brian Kaplan is a medical doctor, and accepting that Mary English had trained in homeopathy for five years. In my opinion, the qualifications of the debater are irrelevant, bullshit is still bullshit. If you ever hear me saying anything like “Trust me, I’ve got a PhD”, then please shoot me.

My second point is to do with the BBC’s obsession with ‘balance’. Now, balance is fine if you are discussing something subjective like an art exhibition or Mel Gibson’s latest crap film, but when discussing scientific issues, things are different.  Science should be recognized and discussed by people who have at least a modicum of scientific understanding, not pseudoscientists with vested interests. If the BBC were discussing the rights and wrongs of murder, would they have the Prime Minister squaring up to Peter Sutcliffe? Would you see the head of the NSPCC discussing the merits of child abuse with a catholic priest? I think not. Sort it out BBC!

Tony Livesey: well meaning, but could do with a little scientific training

One Response to “More imbalance at the BBC over homeopathy in parliament”