THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Science has been a latecomer in the world's
history. Up until the 20th century, there was no precise testing of
any treatment. If the patient didn't die and did recover, there was
acceptance that whatever treatment was given must have worked. Most
of what was done for the patient was ineffective but harmless. At times,
it was downright dangerous. For instance, our founding father, George
Washington, was bled in 1799 when he had pneumonia, undoubtedly hastening
his death. Benjamin Rush, the great Philadelphia physician of the 1770s,
likewise, treated almost every ailment with purging, i.e. laxatives,
helping none and probably hurting many. In the 1800s, things hadn't
really changed very much. And why? One main reason was that there were
so few really effective treatments for any medical condition. Even as
late as the 1950s, the effective
medications could almost be counted on one hand: the heart medicine
digitalis, aspirin, sulfa and another new antibiotic called penicillin,
a few toxic diuretics, some hormones, Maalox for indigestion, lots of
laxatives and an herb called belladonna (in Spanish it means beautiful
lady - the girls put the liquid in their eyes to dilate their pupils
and attract men to their large luscious eyes). Belladonna in gastroenterology
was used as an antispasmodic to relax the intestinal tract. Even though
there was little to offer (we didn't really know it at the time)
patients still came to see physicians. And, despite our ineffective
treatments, patients did get better.
So what is the Scientific Method on which all modern medicine and,
indeed, much of science and technology are based? Simply put, it means
that a treatment or a hypothesis is subjected to rigorous testing to
see if the treatment works or if the hypothesis is true. For instance,
a scientist hypothesizes that a drug will be effective in treating a
certain disease. The fact that the scientist wants to believe it does
not make it so. Objective testing must be done. Where possible, the
double blind test is performed. Neither the patient nor the researcher
knows who gets the active drug and who gets the placebo sugar pill.
This eliminates biased reporting on the part of both individuals. The
results are measured and then the code is opened to see if the treatment
did anything good. When there is a significant difference as measured
by a complex statistical formula, then we can say the treatment works.
Sometimes, it doesn't work or it actually makes the patient worse. Still,
it is the best system we have. All scientists, not just doctors, use
this technique in one form or another. The federal Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) uses these scientific guidelines to approve new treatments. So
whenever someone or some published article mentions a great treatment
for some disorder, we need to scrutinize the data. Testimonials by individuals
don't really mean much. They can sound great but, from a scientific
viewpoint, they are almost meaningless. In fact, they may actually be
damaging as there may be a serious underlying problem such as cancer,
which is not discovered early.
The FDA gets a lot of bad press. However, they do an enormous amount
of good. To the extent possible, they assure us that the food we eat
is safe. They brought us the new food labels that provide a great deal
of valuable information for the consumer on calories, fat, sodium and
other nutrients. They regulate medical devices such as heart valves
and kidney dialysis systems. We would never buy a heart valve from Radio
Shack and ask a physician to insert it just because a friend said it
was great. Likewise, the FDA regulates the pharmaceutical drug industry.
These manufacturers, at times, become frustrated with the FDA's regulatory
and bureaucratic burden. But believe me, the public benefits by being
assured that the prescription medicines they take and the medical devices
used on them have undergone rigorous scientific testing, the Scientific
Method. Who would want it any other way? So, remember the Scientific
Method in the rest of this essay.
Frank W. Jackson MD
© 1998 fwj
updated
8/2006
fwj@comcast.net