New institute to promote science-based medicine

Nov 30 2009 Published by under Medicine

The struggle to promote the scientific practice of medicine and the fight against pseudo-science and quackery just got a big boost. The newly-announced (but long in the making) Institute for Science in Medicine was launched this morning with an inaugural press release calling attention to quackery in the current U.S. health reform bills.
Many of the folks involved in the Institute are familiar names, and represent an international effort to keep health care safe and effective.
So help spread the word, and keep an eye on this space and the ISM website for more updates and for ideas on how you can help.

5 responses so far

  • science-based humanist says:

    Great! My only fear is burn-out for you all 🙂

  • Mu says:

    Looking at the member list, don't expect too many donations from Jenny McCarthy and David Kirby. Might want to buy some adds on the HuffPo's medical site so, just for fun.

  • St Thomas says:

    Great! can we get some of them to blog on HuffPo........

  • James Sweet says:

    I was surprised how many names I recognized, even though I am not part of the medical or scientific community at all (I'm a lowly engineer even!). I just read a lot of skeptic blogs..

  • TheDissenter says:

    Sounds more like professional jealousy than anything else. Doctors constantly try to elevate "science" to some lofty perch whereupon they can all watch in awe as "science" gives them all the easy answers to all the hard questions. However, humans make mistakes and are often confused by emotion, politics, money, ego or any number of other things. It is those same humans practicing the "science" of which you speak. There is more bad science than good science out there by a large measure, and these days science is even more prone to corruption in medicine through the profit motive. Putting all your faith in science is just as ridiculous as putting all your faith in God. Humans created both, and as such they are both subject to the prejudices of the human mind.
    Wasn't it "medical science" that recently determined that the N95 masks were much more effective at preventing H1N1 than the standard issue surgical mask that were a tenth of the cost? Which was more "scientific", the study or the redaction?