David Colquhoun Asks, "Why do vice-chancellors allow their universities to award BSc degrees in anti-science?" (March 22, 2007)

    David Colquhoun is in the Department of Pharmacology at University College, London. In a "Commentary" in today's journal Nature he writes in exasperation, "The least that one can expect of a bachelor of science (BSc) honours degree is that the subject of the degree is science. Yet in December 2006 the UK Universities and Colleges Admissions Service advertised 61 courses for complementary medicine, of which 45 are BSc honours degrees."

But in his concluding paragraph he goes beyond the pseudo-science and points to the almost universal pressures universities are facing in their scrambling to survive and which subvert them from fulfilling their roles as seats of research and learning:

Why do vice-chancellors allow their universities to award BSc degrees in anti-science? In 2003 I wrote twice to the vice-chancellor of Westminster about the teaching of such degrees, but got no response. One reason is presumably that degrees in anti-scientific subjects exist because there is a public demand for them. They are vocational degrees and people are smart enough to know that magic is a good way to make money. The universities make money too, by getting bums on seats. So what's the problem? Some vice-chancellors seem to have lost sight of what universities are for. Before 1826, universities in England, but not Scotland, were largely theological seminaries; after the foundation of the University of London in 1826 (later University College London), universities became places where people sought, as best they could, to discover the truth. They became places you could turn to for independent thought and opinions, undistorted by financial interests. The best ones still are, but that independence of thought has never been more at risk. The pressure now is not towards theology, but towards corporatization. If newspaper editors can make money from astrology columns, why shouldn't universities get in on the act? A few of them have, but in doing so they become the antithesis of what a university should be.

Edzard Ernst, a scientist and professor of complementary medicine at Exeter and Plymouth universities speaking to The Guardian said, "You can teach about homeopathy and spiritual healing and crystal therapy in a scientific way, which is dramatically different from teaching students how to do crystal therapy, homeopathy or spiritual healing. These courses are hands-on and the students come out with a bachelor of science in a subject which essentially is not science. This can only be to the detriment of the universities. They should aspire to a certain level of rigour and intellect and if that's not the case, they're shooting themselves in the foot."

And Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, was equally scathing: "If the term 'BSc' is to retain its credibility then it can not be used to give legitimacy to non-scientific subjects far less pseudo-science or anti-science, including homeopathy. I will be asking the education secretary what steps he can take to ensure that non-science is not being dressed as science in our universities. Alternative medicine is a big business and uses the cover of legitimacy given to it by some universities awarding BSc degrees and the occasional use by the NHS as a substitute for providing proper research-based evidence of effectiveness."

Defending itself the University of Westminster in a statement to The Guardian: "said its homeopathy degree satisfies quality assurance standards and focuses on teaching students the skills to communicate with healthcare professionals. More than a third of the course covers anatomy, physiology and pathology and students are taught how to critique the medical research literature. 'A research-minded and scientific approach to the practice of homeopathy is therefore embedded throughout the whole course,' it adds."