Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2003; 8: 379–80
The Laing Chair in Complementary Medicine was established in 1993. Its financial basis is provided by an endowment from the Maurice Laing Foundation. The Clinical Research Unit was founded in 1994 and the Department of Complementary Medicine in 1996. Since 2001 ‘Complementary Medicine’, as we are now called, has been part of the Peninsula Medical School of the Universities of Exeter and Plymouth. The unit now employs 13 researchers and three administrative staff with wide-ranging areas of expertise and professional backgrounds.
Our aims were defined early on and have, by and large, remained constant through the last 10 years. They can be summarised as follows:
The overarching aim of all our research is to maximise the benefit and minimise the risk of CM for the patient.
Rather than ‘riding hobby horses’ we decided from the beginning to focus on the most prevalent complementary therapies in the UK:
In addition to this ‘strategy A’ we soon realised that, being a fairly unique unit, we also needed a second approach (‘strategy B’), which aims at researching CM as widely as possible. Thus we have occasionally ventured into areas outside the focus of ‘strategy A’: flower remedies, spiritual healing, aromatherapy, reflexology, massage, meditation, hypnosis, autogenic training, and many more.
Any 10th anniversary is a welcome opportunity to look back at what has been achieved. Perhaps our most outstanding achievement is the high output of research papers in the medical literature – well over 700 (a complete list can be obtained from Julie.ann.morgan@pms.ac.uk). An independent analysis of CM research centres of excellence concluded that, based on simple Medline searches, we publish more than half of the total output of the seven leading units worldwide.1 We also compile and update every 6 months a summary of the clinically most relevant articles entitled ‘The Evidence so Far’ (obtainable at cost price, e-mail as above).
Our annual scientific conference, which also has its 10th anniversary this year (http://www.exeter.ac.uk/FACT/sympo), has quickly grown into the CM meeting worldwide. This year we are expecting around 400 delegates from all corners of the world who will attend well over 170 presentations.
Our book, The Desktop Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine,2 has found much acclaim, for example, receiving favourable reviews in most leading medical journals. Recently it was nominated for the Prix Prescrire 2003, an honour that has never before been attributed to a book in a non-French language in the 15-year history of this award. We hope that it is the accessible, evidence-based reference text for busy clinicians that it was meant to be.
FACT readers obviously do not need to be told about the creation of this highly successful review journal which is now in its eighth year. At a recent editorial meeting it was decided that FACT shortly will become available online.
Few CM experts would deny that, during the last 10 years, the climate for CM has changed dramatically. The change might be summarised by stating that evidence-based CM is no longer a contradiction in terms. I am not deluding myself in thinking that this is purely our doing. I am, however, hopeful that our work towards this climate change is a noticeable, positive contribution.
I have always felt that, in the long run, CM will be as strong or as weak as the evidence that supports it. Evidence can only be generated in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality if adequate funds are forthcoming and well-trained scientists (rather than CM enthusiasts with a mere veneer of science to hide their biases) conduct the research. Furthermore, I think that we require this evidence before rather than after integrating CM wholesale into routine healthcare. I am well aware how politically incorrect these statements might appear to some. Yet, political correctness, I strongly believe, comes a poor second to the needs of our patients. I am as convinced as ever that patients are best served by rigorous clinical research and that the biggest challenge is to investigate whether CM ‘does more good than harm’.
