CHARITIES offering unproven or pseudoscientific treatments will face new regulations from the UK Charities Commission. Will this be enough to protect vulnerable people?
There is a special role in British society for charities, especially during the season of giving. You can donate to everything from school sports days to Siberian tigers, but to qualify for tax breaks, the recipients must show, with evidence, that there is a public benefit to what they do.
Advertisement
But, last year, complementary and alternative medicine seemed to be playing fast and loose with the words 鈥渆vidence鈥� and 鈥渂enefit鈥�.
One large charity was offering to pay for autistic children to have pseudoscientific treatments to 鈥渃ure鈥� autism. Another was promoting similar treatments, including a bleach-like substance called MMS. A third claimed that Wi-Fi made you ill. There is no good scientific evidence for any of these claims.
Last week, the UK Charities Commission announced that it will be stricter in its demands for evidence. Specifically, if a group claims that alternative treatments can reduce the symptoms of, or cure, a condition, it will have to support that claim with scientific, peer-reviewed evidence.
It doesn鈥檛 mean that every charity will have to dig out a meta-analysis to prove that aromatherapy joss sticks smell nice, say. If a charity claims only to offer 鈥渞elief and comfort鈥�, less stringent forms of evidence like personal testimony will do. But those claiming they can treat cancer will need to show that what they are doing actually works.
It all seems sensible, but how will the guidelines survive contact with reality? There are actually studies showing that homeopathic treatments work. It is just there are more and better studies showing they don鈥檛. How strict will the commission be?
The guideline tightening follows a review by the , a non-profit group that promotes rational thinking. It pointed out that the old guidelines were fairly solid, but often weren鈥檛 being followed. The new guidelines look even better, says Michael Marshall at the society, but the proof of the pudding will be in how they are applied.
The regulation change is a small but significant victory in a war against quackery. Those who approach charities for medical help are often at their most vulnerable. Making it harder for unscrupulous or misguided groups to offer them snake oil can only be a good thing.
But if charities can get away with waving an underpowered study with no controls as scientific evidence, the new guidelines will have been a waste of time. It would be better for the commission to demand bodies show the preponderance of evidence supports their case.
This article appeared in print under the headline 鈥淔aith, hope and charity鈥�
