Descartes' carton--On plausibility.

n t odern healthcare operates under the banner of “evidencebased” medicine. The pursuit of such evidence, however, is ot exclusively driven by need, but by the vailability of funds, which in turn deends partly on the likelihood of profit. ore portentously, the pursuit of data is ounded by the prevailing conceptions of iological plausibility. This essay makes he case that such borders are not readily efined and challenges policy makers and ractitioners with this question: In which irection lies the greater risk of miscarriage or legitimate scientific inquiry and the romise of improving the human condiion—in the belief that something works hether or not it’s plausible, or in the coniction that something is implausible hether or not it works? In February 2009, the Institute of Medcine (IOM) convened the Summit on Inegrative Medicine and the Health of the ublic in Washington, DC. Proponents f integrative medicine—the blending of onventional medical practices with those f complementary and alternative mediine (CAM)—assembled in attentive celeration. Detractors convened, albeit less stentatiously, to express their disapproation and disdain. Their disapprobation is borne of a lesser harge, the disdain of a greater one. But oth impugn the link between the august mprimatur of the IOM and alleged proonents of integrative medicine. The esser charge is that CAM lacks substantiting evidence, and although legitimate in atches, it has been rebutted elsewhere nd need not concern us here. The conern is the greater charge. Much of what is spoused to fall within the purview of inegrative medicine, such as therapeutic ouch and homeopathy, is—so goes the inictment—implausible. 5