QUACKADEMIA IN FRANCE

Quackademia, a term created [as far as I remember] by David Colquhoun for the infiltration of quackery into academia, has often been discussed on this blog, e.g.:

• Quackademia in Canada: the first bachelor’s degree in Traditional Chinese Medicine
• Quackademia galore: An Oxford ‘university’ starts a course in ‘veterinary chiropractic’
• Quackademia at its most rampant: the ‘Certificate in Holistic Health and Healing Arts’ (HHHA) at the University of New Mexico
• Another blow to quackademia: TCM course at a Sydney university is to be stopped
• Vienna 2019: the end of quackademia
• Quackademia down under
• Quackademia revisited
• Quackademia

Now growing backlash against quackademia seems to finally emerge also in France – opposition against university programs that give academic legitimacy to unproven so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). The Higher Council for the Evaluation of Research and Higher Education is preparing to review these courses, after criticism that universities are lending credibility to practices that have not been scientifically validated.

Across France, more than 200 university diplomas are said to exist in areas such as reflexology, aromatherapy, auriculotherapy, hypnosis, acupuncture, homeopathy, meditation, and related practices. Critics argue that this amounts to a form of institutional “entryism,” because the university label can make such practices look medically endorsed even when they are not.

The main concern is not just whether these therapies work, but whether universities should be teaching them at all. A January report on health misinformation reportedly recommended banning the academic labeling of healthcare practices that have not been validated, and that recommendation is at the center of the debate. Experts warn that, if a SCAM is scientifically validated, it belongs in medicine; if it is not, it may still be studied, but should not be taught as an academic medical qualification. They also warn that these programs can mislead the public and create a false impression of legitimacy. Yet, some deans and faculty leaders say that certain courses, especially acupuncture, hypnosis, or mindfulness, can be acceptable when used for specific indications and when properly framed. They distinguish those from programs in naturopathy, aromatherapy, or homeopathy, which they see as much harder to justify inside medical faculties.

As the Conference of Medical Deans is preparing to examine the issue rigorously, they should – I feel – also consider the ethical implications. Teaching dangerous nonsense to naive students is not just not academic, it is deeply unethical. If done well, this excercise should lead to a major cleanup of universities regarding SCAM, or at the very least to much tighter rules about what can carry an academic label.

Having observed French quackademia for decades, I am tempted to exclaim:

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER!