Fringe Science

Key Concepts: Not all subjects neatly fall discretely as "science" or "pseudoscience". Some concepts in the borderlands of scientific understanding (the "fringes of science") need to be carefully examined. Some historical cases moved from becoming potential mainstream science well into the pseudoscience category, while others have indeed become part of our understanding of the Universe and its operations. Additionally, the public understanding of what is mainstream science, what is fringe science, and what is pseudoscience is sometimes at odds with the actual nature of these concepts.

Not all Science begins as clearly correct, nor does all non-science begin as clearly wrong. What happens to discoveries and theories over time that might move them from the borderlands of science (the "fringes") into or out of Science? What factors and institutions might be inovolved in keeping real science in the fringes or keeping non-science in the mainstream? We'll take a look at several case studies.

Case Study 1: How Do Medical Substances Affect the Body?

Homeopathy started as a branch of medicine invented by Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). The name means "same badness". Its premise was called the Law of Similars: similia similibus curantur ("like cures like"). This law postulated that the best way to treat diseases is with extremely small amounts of substances that produce similar symptoms. In one context, this could be thought of as a precursor to the idea of vaccination (a small amount of the pathogen or a close relative is injected into the body, causing an immune response that increases resistance to future encounters with the serious pathogen).

However, homeopathy is something different: it is a method of treating diseases and their symptoms rather than a preventive. If you develop a fever, take a small amount of bee venom extract, since bee stings produce very similar symptoms to fevers. Hahnemann and his followers created a vast list of substances to use in treating various symptoms.

Homeopathy was contrasted with "allopathy" ("other badness"), in which symptoms are treated with medicines which counteracted those symptoms, not duplicated it. The two can be compared and contrasted:

However, allopathy rather than homeopathy is the origin of modern medicine. Why is that? Let's look at homeopathy's premise with regards to dosages.

Homeopathic "cures" are delivered at dilutions of "nX" or "nC" (where "n" is an integer).

At the time no one really understood the size of the atom nor the nature of compounds, so there was no real understanding of the limits of dilution. This changed due to the work of Lorenzo Romano Amedeo Carlo Avogadro, conte di Quaregna e di Cerreto (1776-1856) He was the first to recognize distinction between molecules and atoms (1811), pointed towards method of determine number of molecules in a given amount of substance. Rough estimate calculated by chemists in 1860, modern version (6.023 x 1023 molecules/mole) by early 20th Century. (NOTE: Avogadro NEVER knew Avogadro's Number!!).

Let's see how homeopathic dilutions stand with regards to Avogadro's number:

In other words, homeopathic "cures" are nothing but the inert material!! They are just water, or sugar pills! There is no "there" there!

Homeopathy was just rejected by Science. It started as a possible scientific theory, comparably reasonable to its alternative. However, it moved out of Science as Chemistry itself was developed. Furthermore, it has repeatedly failed time and again in double-blind studies. Homeopaths have tried to develop explanatory models for their work, which get more and more ludicrous.

However, while pushed beyond the fringes by Science, it still has mainstream acceptance. Since it doesn't produce any side effects (or, indeed, effects!) it is less scary than real medicine. It is widely practiced in Europe, and is protected by the US FDA through support by congressmen generation after generation. It is a large industry--not as large as "allopathic" pharma, of course, but a for-profit industry nevertheless. So there are social, political, and economic forces that keep it within a form of "mainstream" long after Science rejected it.

Case Studies 2 & 3: Vaccinations & Vaccination-generated Autism
The idea of vaccinating--using material from a similar but weaker version of a disease to inoculate people against the more lethal version--has been around since ancient times. However, widespread advocacy for its use starts mostly with Edward Jenner in the 1770s. In this particular case, material from the boils of people infected with cowpox was injected into healthy people, who became immune to the (otherwise incredibly dangerous and infectious) disease smallpox. (Incidentally, this connection with cows is where "vaccination" gets its name: "vacca" being Latin for "cow".)

Vaccination is one of the most successful aspects of public health in history (along with the recognition that people need clean drinking water separate from their sewage!). It has successfully wiped out or greatly reduced a number of once-fatal and pandemic diseases: smallpox, diptheria, polio, rubella, measles, etc.)

However, from the beginning there have been anti-vaccination movements. For example, in many places the idea of mandatory vacinations were seen as intrusion of the public into private affairs. But in the last several decades the strongest active resistence to its use in the Anglophone world (US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc.) is due to the anti-vax movement based on the work of Andrew Wakefield.

Specifically, Wakefield and colleagues published a paper in the medical journal The Lancet in 1998, claiming to show a correlation between the use of the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and the appearance of autism-spectrum disorders. (Later investigation showed a conflict of interest in this paper: Wakefield was already in the process of developing his own separate M, M, & R vaccines and so had a financial reason to try to discredit the use of the combined form. Much more importantly, subsequent reanalysis of the published data showed statistical manipulation by the authors, so that on 2 February 2010 The Lancet retracted the original article.) Additionally, independent tests failed to show any statistical link between MMR and rates of autism.

During this same interval, others raised questions about the use of thimerosal (which contains Hg) in some vaccines, which people argued was producing autism in children. This too failed to actually be supported either by the chemistry/neurobiology or by any statistical examination; nevertheless, the CDC and other medical groups have removed it from most vaccines under the precautionary principle.

As a result of strong campaigns by Wakefield's supporters (especially in the entertainment industry and/or in organized "mothers groups"), there is a substantial fraction of the public in Anglophonic countries who are against the use of vaccinations. They continue to cite the Wakefield and thimerosol "evidence": at on point this might have been arguable, but the resistance remains even though the evidence for these as causal agents in autism has vanished.

Closing Thoughts
We find that instead of a firm "science/pseudoscience demarcation", there can be fuzzy boundaries and miscomprehension by the public. For instance, we find:

It is an important part of science communication and science education to help people understand the distinctions, and how we use observation, evidence, and reason to work on determining which is which.