In sixth grade science class we were told that it was impossible for a bumble bee to fly, according to all of the knowledge available in aerodynamics at the time. When you measured the size of the bumble bee’s wings, computed the speed of the wings and weighed the bumble bee, mathematically it was impossible for the creature to fly.
I knew an old chiropractor who was fond of saying that there were two kinds of people in the world, researchers and bumble bee watchers. There was not much research proving that he, as a chiropractor, could make asthmatics better. Yet his office was full of asthmatics that had gotten better. He would say (half jokingly), “I don’t pay much attention to scientists; I watch bumble bees.”
It turns out that after some advances in high speed photography new calculations were able to be made. Scientists were able to see that the wings of the bumble bee fill up like a parachute on the down stroke—greatly increasing the surface area of the wing. They were able to plug the new surface area into the calculations and declared that the bumble bee could indeed fly—much to the relief of bumble bees all around the planet.
Working in natural health care is an exercise in following research and looking at bumble bees. In asthma, for example, there is a fair amount of research that shows that a good diet, antioxidants, magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids can all help improve symptoms. Many of us are getting results with giving betaine HCl, improving digestion, adrenal support and chiropractic adjustments, even though there is not a lot of research to support it.
My friends who are locked into the medical model are fond of saying things like, “The research just isn’t there; you really need to be more scientific.” That statement is often enough to make many of us feel that we are somehow less than our medical brethren. We shouldn’t feel that way; not all of medicine is scientific. I usually just respond, “I will if you will.”
Most of the medical journals sell ads to drug companies, so you are not going to see a lot of research that says natural health care is good and drugs are dangerous. Take statins, for example. Statin medication is a $25 billion per year industry. The effectiveness of statins—particularly in people without prior heart disease—may be more modest than often assumed when absolute risk reduction is examined (see: [Why Statin Benefits Are Often Overstated]).
There is a difference between science and research. Anecdotal information, clinical observations, statistics and other information are part of science. Science forms theories based on earlier observations. If you know that research shows a strong correlation between oxidative stress and asthma symptoms, and you know that poor digestion leads to oxidative stress, it is not much of a stretch to expect that improving digestion will get your asthma patients better.
The point is not to dismiss research—good research is essential. The scientific method begins with observation. Clinical patterns and patient responses are often the first signals that something important is happening. While these observations may not yet be confirmed by formal research, dismissing them outright is not scientific—they are precisely what should drive further investigation and discussion.
Research is a way of focusing on a single thing and determining if your observations mean anything. Science incorporates lots of sources of information, including (but not limited to) research. Truth is truth, whether the research has caught up or not. Bumble bees flew long before we could prove it was possible.
Related Articles:
Medical Journals: Science or Marketing?
