This editorial introduces a revised set of publication requirements for papers, submitted to Homeopathy, that involve animal experimentation. Journals that publish studies involving animal experimentation have a major role to play in the maintenance of ethical standards because researchers are reliant upon them for publication of their findings. With an increasing global trend towards greater transparency and accountability in animal experimentation, many academic journals, such as the British Journal of Pharmacology, 1 and 2 are taking action to improve reporting standards. (...) In recognition of this need, members of Homeopathy's Editorial Board have been working together to examine the scientific rationale and the most relevant ethical guidelines for the use of animals in research. In addition, they have examined existing published studies in homeopathy research and current practice within the broad domain of medical research. Each of these aspects has informed the revised publication policy, whose overarching objectives are to maximise the ethical standards and scientific quality of animal research in homeopathy, and thereby ultimately to avoid any unnecessary suffering of animals used in such research. The following description details the background that was considered, the rationale for this development, and the steps that will be taken. (shrink)

Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from ‘comparable to conventional medicine’ to ‘no evidence of effects beyond placebo’. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. (...) We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence—for homeopathy and for conventional medicine—can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the ‘crossword analogy’, we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence. (shrink)

Homeopathy is controversial and hotly debated. The conclusions of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy vary from ‘comparable to conventional medicine’ to ‘no evidence of effects beyond placebo’. It is claimed that homeopathy conflicts with scientific laws and that homoeopaths reject the naturalistic outlook, but no evidence has been cited. We are homeopathic physicians and researchers who do not reject the scientific outlook; we believe that examination of the prior beliefs underlying this enduring stand-off can advance the debate. (...) We show that interpretations of the same set of evidence—for homeopathy and for conventional medicine—can diverge. Prior disbelief in homeopathy is rooted in the perceived implausibility of any conceivable mechanism of action. Using the ‘crossword analogy’, we demonstrate that plausibility bias impedes assessment of the clinical evidence. Sweeping statements about the scientific impossibility of homeopathy are themselves unscientific: scientific statements must be precise and testable. There is growing evidence that homeopathic preparations can exert biological effects; due consideration of such research would reduce the influence of prior beliefs on the assessment of systematic review evidence. (shrink)