Scientific bias between cultures

OK, faithful readers. It's been a long time since my last rant, and I'm feeling the need to vent again. Well... perhaps vent isn't the proper word to use this time. No, this time I think I'll be quite rational when I point out this particular brand of prejudice that infects Western medicine.

Just a few days ago, the American Stroke Association heard from Beijing University of Chinese Medicine researchers studying the comparative effects of a combination of the Chinese ginseng (Panax ginseng) Panax notoginseng (also know as Sanqi), versus Duxil, a prescription medication used in dementia treatments in individuals with Alzheimer's. This study marks the first time the combination of P. ginseng and P. notoginseng have been studied for their effectiveness in treating mild to moderate cases of dementia. However, both herbs have long histories as tonics for the elderly.

Interestingly enough, the study concluded that the herbal combination was significantly more effective than the pharmaceutical.

"The patients in the group taking the ginseng showed a significant increase in their average score on five memory tests, including immediate and delayed story recall, delayed word recall, verbal learning and verbal recognition.

Their total memory score was significantly higher than for the group taking Duxil..."

Sounds like a win, yes? Well, no. Not here. You see, in the West, our researchers just can't accept the results of this test. Now I realize that one test doesn't mean the findings are gospel and that future results may very well show conflicting evidence. But that's not the issue in this case.

Western researchers have a significant philosophical difference with Eastern researchers in the composition of the tests. You may have heard the term "double-blind" in reference to tests. Simply put, neither the researchers nor the participants know if the subject receives the test material or a placebo until after the trial is over. This is done, ostensibly enough, as to not influence the outcome of the trial period. As such, one half of all research subjects will not receive anything other than a sugar pill in most cases.

This is an abomination of medicine in the eyes of Eastern researchers. They simply cannot understand why one half of the subjects don't get any treatment. As such, they test against known effective substances. For them, it's not a question of "does it work?", but "how well does it work?"

Chinese researchers will often take this a step further, ending trials midway through when one group is obviously improving to a much greater degree than the other. Rather than have people suffer in the name of "science", they truly wish good health to be achieved by all subjects. I suppose you could say they don't treat them like subjects at all, but more like real live human beings.

Now before you jump up and start defending double-blind studies, let me take it to an extreme. Let's say that Black and Decker builds a new hammer. If the company adopted Western scientific principles, they'd need to set up a test where the new hammer was compared against a placebo. "Group A, you'll be pounding a nail into this 2x4 with our new hammer. Group B, just use your fist." I hope they have plenty of pain-killers nearby! OK, sure I glossed over the "blind" part, but you see my meaning.

At what point will Western researchers accept empirical evidence gathered outside of the lab? When will compassion for their patients, the people presenting the illness before them, take center stage? I for one welcome the Eastern research with open arms, and look forward to more studies like this. Of course, we won't see many coming out of this country, as nearly all research is conducted by pharmaceutical companies... and there just isn't any profit in an un-patentable herbal compound.

Posted by Evo Terra at February 17, 2003 09:01 PM | TrackBack (0)