Facing Unrelenting Dogma: The True Researcher
As someone who is actively involved with alternative healing, I find
that the very word alternative tends to run contrary to the word mainstream.
Chiropractic has been said to be both an art and a science and issues of
dogma appear to run deeply within each.
The art of chiropractic incorporates philosophy, intuition, vitalistic
properties, energetic healing, and skills in accessing and treating the myriad
of interwoven limitless possibilities presented by a patient. While there
are science aspects of most chiropractic techniques, they generally focus
on offering tools to develop and help the art of chiropractic. Often as techniques
bask in the vitalistic qualities, they reject the strictures of science and
see them as limiting. Many a time I have heard from instructors at technique
seminars, “You have to feel it” or “Suspend belief and just try” or “The evidence
for why this technique works is empirical.” Ironically, while many techniques
expect you to explore without questioning they often at the same time have
strong criticism for their “brethren” techniques of chiropractic.
The science of chiropractic sometimes appears to try to out do its medical
counterparts. At a recent “Research Agenda Conference” in Kansas City, July
2001, ironically the keynote speaker, John A Austin, PhD from the Complementary
Medicine Program at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, discussed,
“Chiropractic: Manipulation, mind body, or energy therapy: Implications for
research.” Dr. Austin’s presentation focused on encouraging chiropractic research
to include and embrace the vitalistic and subtle energies. He practically
chastised many of the chiropractic research community and encouraged them
to explore aspects of healing traditionally conceived as located in the “art”
or esoteric realm of chiropractic. At the conference, the pervading feeling
was that in an attempt to maintain objectivity possibly the chiropractic research
community might have “overshot its mark.”
While I was a chiropractic student and then when recently graduated I
explored various avenues of research and alternative healing methods. Researchers
I encountered while studying at the University of California Los Angeles medical
school profoundly affected me. While not a formal student there, I was welcomed
to sit in on classes by a few anatomy instructors. What fascinated me most
was the dialogue I would have with these particular “researchers or instructors”
and their manner of thinking. They presented to me a way of thinking different
than I had ever experienced before.
These researchers or instructors were open to any form of dialogue regarding
anatomy, physiology or methods of healthcare. They were genuinely interested
and on some level despite their PhDs and decades of study, they were interested
in chiropractic principles and its various methods of envisioning the body.
Essentially, they were open to mostly anything that had some degree of logical
explanation and were not threatened or annoyed by any challenge to their position.
On the contrary, they appeared to be animated and humble when confronted and
seemed to enjoy dialogue with the hope that maybe they might see something
in a different way or even learn something.
In most of my discussions with medical / chiropractic researchers or
administrators what was often consistent were comments that completely closed
discussion. I remember writing a paper regarding cranial bone motion and
its implications and when this information was shared, I would generally
receive two discretely different responses.
One response might be, “Everyone knows the cranial bones fuse by the
time someone is 20 years old, and therefore the whole concept of cranial
motion is ludicrous.”
While what I consider the “true researcher” would respond, “That is very
interesting, but how do you explain research that has shown cranial bones
fuse by the time someone is 20 years old.“ They would then often make recommendations
of papers I might want to research regarding cranial bone and suture morphology.
Lastly, they would ask that I contact them if I had further information and
encourage me to continue investigating cranial bone motion.
A “true researcher” in my opinion does not have to be an advocate of
a particular technique or someone who performs elaborate research studies.
A true researcher opens the door for possibilities and walks the line between
being eternally critical while maintaining an everlasting interest in learning.
As a sacro occipital technique (SOT) practitioner it is constantly challenging
for me to both accept the principles of SOT while at the same time critically
question those same principles. I endeavor to be cautious that I do not allow
my allegiance to SOT dim my purpose of helping patients and being open to
other methods and techniques of chiropractic or healing.
There is a line between having critical thinking and yet maintaining
an open interest in novel or innovative concepts. There are also personal
issues we must consider which anchor us to our particular dogma. Sometimes
fear will weigh us down if we feel safe in our “world view” or “method of
chiropractic care” or “understanding of human anatomy and physiology.” The
new or novel can create a degree of discomfort and can lead to questioning
of the very way we perceive or understand the world we live in. When we feel
safe and yet are met with the need to revamp our view on human physiology,
anatomy and diagnosis the great challenge of a “true researcher” is to remain
open and interested.
At this point in history there does not seem to be a finite time that
we can reach where we will have learned all that there is to learn. Novel
ideas and concepts have been shunned in our history for years. . Those choosing
to remain closed to new ideas met scientists such as Copernicus and Galileo
or ,to some, healthcare innovators such as Andrew Still, D. D Palmer, William
G. Sutherland, and Major B. DeJarnette, with ridicule and sometimes oppression.
Being a “true researcher” challenges us to be constantly vigilant and not
succumb to a feeling of safety or comfort but allow one to take the risk and
not be “so sure” about what is known. All this while simultaneously understanding
that this openness does not translate into blind acceptance of principles
but instead allowing one to be eternally critical and willing to humbly learn.
Replys to this Dural Connection Internet Edition:
Dr.Mark Butterworth
Dr Christopher
Good
Dr Cheryl Hawk
Dr Marc Heller
Dr Dana Lawrence
Dr Donald
McDowall
Dr Michael Menke
Dr Ed Owens
Dr Alan Powell
Dr Anthony Rosner
Dr.Ron Ruppert
Dr Joe Schwartz
Dr Eric Schweim
Dr Igor Steiman
Dr John Triano
Dr.Steve
Troyanovich
Dr James Winterstein
Dural Connection Internet Edition Index