Author: Hufford DJ1, Sprengel M2, Ives JA3, Jonas W4.
Affiliation: 1Samueli Institute, Alexandria, Virginia (Dr Hufford [retired]). 2Health Analytics, Columbia, Maryland (Ms Sprengel). 3Samueli Institute, Alexandria, Virginia (Dr Ives). 4Samueli Institute, Alexandria, Virginia (Dr Jonas).
Conference/Journal: Glob Adv Health Med.
Date published: 2015 Nov
Other:
Volume ID: 4 , Issue ID: Suppl , Pages: 79-88 , Special Notes: doi: 10.7453/gahmj.2015.025.suppl. Epub 2015 Nov 1. , Word Count: 207
Abstract
In this article, we describe barriers to the entry of biofield healing into mainstream contemporary science and clinical practice. We focus on obstacles that arise from the social nature of the scientific enterprise, an aspect of science highlighted by the influential work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), one of the most important- and controversial-philosophers of science in the 20th century. Kuhn analyzed science and its revolutionary changes in terms of the dynamics within scientific communities. Kuhn's approach helps us understand unconventional medical theories and practices such as biofield healing. For many years, these were called "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM). However, because most people use nonmainstream approaches in conjunction with conventional treatments, the National Institutes of Health and many practitioners now prefer "Complementary and Integrative Medicine" (CIM) where integrative implies "bringing conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way."(1) Biofield healing fits the integrative model well, provides a novel approach to therapeutic intervention, and is developing in a manner that can integrate with current medical science in simple ways. Yet, it still remains outside the conventional framework because of its conceptual bases, which contrast sharply with conventional assumptions regarding the nature of reality.
KEYWORDS:
Biofield; barriers; healthcare; mainstream; science
PMID: 26665046 [PubMed] PMCID: PMC4654786 Free PMC Article