In a disturbing article in the New York Times, Amy Harmon chronicles the tale of a brave county councilman on the island of Kona, Hawaii, who refused to be steamrolled by those who categorically believe that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous and should be banned across the board. He actually took the time to look into the scientific research, to consult with scientists who know about this, and he attempted to draw a reasonable conclusion. He is faced, however, with a group of true believers, who keep repeating obscure claims based on long-discredited "research." They shout down their opponents and make outlandish claims that have no scientific basis or rationale. They demonize their opponents, and constantly shift the arguments when faced with scientific facts. Most disturbing of all was the refusal of his fellow council members to even allow scientists to testify, instead giving the floor repeatedly to unqualified zealots who continued to make broad, unsupportable statements.
It turns out, then, that it's not only climate-change deniers and birthers who maintain passionately held beliefs that have no scientific basis. Worse, it shows how repeating false claims becomes a sort of echo chamber for those with similar beliefs. Finally it shows that such behavior is not limited to Tea Party fanatics or religious zealots, but applies equally to so-called progressives on the left side of the political spectrum. I write about this because it applies as well to too much in the fields of psychotherapy, behavior change and addiction treatment.
We tolerate too much of this type of thinking in our field. How many treatment centers offer "holistic" therapies such as yoga, energy field work, Reiki, or massage, or worse, "nutritional treatment" that is not only unsupported, but may well be harmful? Why are state agencies still allowing such centers to obtain licensure? Why are people paying for brain scans or quantitative EEGs or neurofeedback? And, of course, why do so many people cling to the fiction that 90x90 is effective for most people, or that 12-step approaches are 100% effective if you follow directions? (What treatments for human maladies, short of penicillin for strep throat, can claim 100% effectiveness?)
I'm not arguing that an absence of evidence of effectiveness is evidence of ineffectiveness. There is lots we all do that hasn't been studied well, simply because it is impossible to conduct a large randomized controlled trial on every possible therapy. However, in addiction treatment we have a very large and very strong evidence base from which to draw. It's actually far better than in many other areas of health care. In order to include an approach in a licensed program, at the least, we should require 1) a scientifically plausible rationale for a treatment, 2) that unsupported treatments should not be likely to cause significant harm or cost a significant amount of money, 3) that there is not significant evidence that the approach is not effective, and 4) that there is not a well-supported approach already available.
I'm also not suggesting that yoga, meditation, Reiki, energy field work, reflexology, acupuncture, massage, etc., may not be experienced as beneficial to some people. I recently underwent Rolfing, for example, which I found to be very helpful (if painful). But I didn't expect my health insurance to pay for it, and I reject any large claims concerning what it and similar approaches might accomplish. Such approaches might be made available to clients (at their own expense), but not as presented as a scientifically based health practice.
I have been surprised at how trendy the psychotherapy community is in general, not just in addiction treatment. One current example is the spread of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) beyond its proven focus on borderline personality disorder. It seems that it's being applied to anyone and for every condition short of psychosis. Another trend is "trauma informed therapy" using eye-movement desensitization and reprocessing therapy (EMDR), DBT, prolonged exposure, or mindfulness. All of a sudden, everyone has "trauma" for which these are appropriate treatments, even though many do not meet criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD.) What was psychoanalysis if not focused on trauma? For that matter, "mindfulness" is another trendy approach, with practitioners charging for something the Buddha gave away 2600 years ago and which can be had for free at your local Buddhist meditation center.
At the same time, I seldom encounter high quality cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) being applied to co-existing anxiety or depressive disorders, in spite of a mountain of evidence supporting their effectiveness. And too many in our field still believe that "I don't believe in it" is an adequate reason to not support anti-relapse medications that also have a strong evidence base. When we have such well-supported therapies, why aren't we using them? Why are we instead embracing half-baked ideas and approaches? Why do we tolerate so much scientific ignorance? Why do we tolerate lack of informed consent, where clients are not given information about what the evidence supports and what it does not, but instead receive biased and incorrect information that deprives them of the opportunity to make an informed decision?