Darn you dtilque I was going to mention meteorites.
Anyway, the Frech scientist Chladni was the first to propose that meteorites came from space. Needless to say this met with ridicule and disbelief. Finally, the French Academy (the staunchest supporter of rocks NOT falling from space) had to admit in 1803 that this was the case.
http://www.meteorlab.com/METEORLAB2001dev/metics.htm
(You said keep it in the 19th century (or later) and that just squeaks by) 
Low carb diets. Although still controversial, they have had enough research to gain some respect in the medical world - depending on who you talk to.
This is just a bit older than the 19th century cutoff in the OP but this is a good example (I think).
It was “folk wisdom” that people who contracted cowpox (relatively mild disease) never contracted smallpox (really bad disease).
Edward Jenner wondered if this were true and if so, could this knowledge be used to prevent smallpox? Well, the “folk wisdom” was correct and Jenner first produced a smallpox vaccine in 1796.
You might find some disagreement on this one.
Regarding the “commonly available” wristbands, I’ve seen nothing actually demonstrating their efficacy, and a couple controlled studies (like this one) that have found no effect. Sea-Band, the manufacturer of the most common band, limits itself to claiming that the band “has been clinically tested,” without mentioning the results of said testing.
Not the most controversial phenomenon is that of “The Green Flash”.
It is a rarely seen atmospheric phenomenon occurring at the last moments of sunset or the first moments of sunrise. Scientists thought it was merely psychological or even the eye playing “tricks”. For example, stare at a bright red piece of paper for a while then look at a white object. Do you see a green after-image?
Well eventually a photograph was taken of it, proving it did exist.
I don’t know who eventually got the credit for the Green Flash discovery but it is definitely a scientific fact.
Here’s a link to a chronology of Green Flash photographs:
http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/observing/photography.html
Jon the Geek
I guess you are a Green Flash fan. I have observed a LOT of sunsets and have never seen it. No problem. Sunsets look very nice with or without le rayon vert.
As I stated, this is certainly not one of the more controversial scientific topics but I figured it did fulfill the OP requirements.
The improbability drive. What? You’re joking! Really?
No cigar for this one. Angiogenesis was never pseudoscience, it was an accepted phenomenon, what took a while to catch on is the idea that preventing angiogenesis could be an effective way to control cancer. This isn’t surprising since during the same time Folkman and others were investigating angiogenesis, other equally smart scientist were working on other equally promising strategies such as stimulating immune recognition of tumors and preventing metastases.
I believe the first papers on angiogenesis by Folkman weren’t published until 1971 and the significance of angiogenesis in tumor growth wasn’t a completely new idea nor out of the mainstream (for example, Greenblatt M, Shubi P. Tumor angiogenesis: transfilter diffusion studies in the hamster by the transparent chamber technique. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1968 Jul;41(1):111-24.)
I worked in a related field in the 1970s and met both Folkman and one of his early colleagues, Gimbrone ( Gimbrone MA Jr, Leapman SB, Cotran RS, Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis: iris neovascularization at a distance from experimental intraocular tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973 Jan;50(1):219-28) in about 1975 and one of my colleagues went to work for Folkman in about 1978. Neither Folkman (who was then, IIRC, chief of surgery at Boston Children’s Hospital where he had a huge lab) was out of the mainstream nor was angiogenesis.
All this isn’t to say that the importance of angiogenesis wasn’t belittled by competitors; what would you expect? And it shouldn’t be surprising that jealous competitors were critical of Folkman himself who is, shall we say, not reticent when it comes to speaking to the press and describing the significance of his work. In addition, the funding from Monsanto (something between $10m and 20m IIRC which was a lot of money back them) was extremely controversial, opened up both Folkman and Harvard to criticism, and must have burned competitors confident that their line of research was the true path to victory over cancer.
My source for Angiogenesis was a book called Dr. Folkman’s War which I read while writing a research paper. This came to mind when I read the question in the OP because my impression was that the idea was certainly treated as you would expect pseudo-science to have been treated. Reactions to his efforts that were portrayed in the book ranged from “You’re a surgeon, what the hell do you know about cancer?” to “You greedy bastard with your corporate partnerships!” If I recall, some even described his work as “dangerous” since it diverted funds from “real” cancer research. Certainly I would expect similar reactions to pseudo-science.
As I recall, the blood supply-cancer connection first occurred to Folkman in the late fifties/early sixties (which is not to say nobody had ever thought of the same thing before) and conducted work all throughout the sixties while not performing surgical duties. The fact that he had a huge lab was (again, as I recall) basically a perk for being chief pediatric surgeon at Boston Children’s.
Nevertheless, this sort of partnership is an common and important source of research funds today. Perhaps ironically, some now view the opportunity to do research in an big-name industry-funded lab as a sign of prestige rather than of selling out. I see Folkman’s decision to get involved in industry-funding as equal parts despiration for funding (hard to secure for cancer research outside the mainstream) and confidence in the eventual success of his work. Maybe even add a dash of practicality, as it seemed that Folkman didn’t care how a cure was discovered or who made it or even who profited from it. just so long as it was found.
This practicality and perhaps a bit of naivety has caused him to go against the academian ethos in other ways as well, including speaking to the media.
Anyhow, the point is not that he was first. It is that he persisted in the face of adversities. If receiving papers back from a peer-review journal because the reviewers believed that his results didn’t support his findings is not the same as having his research called pseudo-science, its pretty darn close.
With all due respect to Cecil, he doesn’t address this particular issue - and the column was written quite a while ago. I agree with him that the ideas behind the practice are nutty, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t have some real effects.
While the article you cite wouldn’t convince me that the sky is blue. The authors state flat-out that their sample size was far too small for them to find an effect, even if there was one (they ran out of cash).
They had roughly 30 in each group, not the 75 minimum they needed for this type of statistical analysis.
A quick search on Medline (keywords: nausea, acupressure) turns up about 100 articles on the subject. I went through the first 40 or so and roughly three-quarters of the articles found statistically significant effects on nausea using the bands. The rest did not. The level of statisical significance used was often P<0.05, which isn’t stunning, but is a commonly accepted threshold.
One problem that I noted in this (fast) overview: some studies measured vomiting, others both vomiting and nausea. Most studies found more of an effect on (experienced) nausea than on (observed) vomiting, raising the question of placebo effect on people’s reported experience. Another problem was timing - it was my impression that studies which looked at long-term use (chronic chemotherapy and pregnancy) showed more statistical effects than studies that looked at short-term nausea (like briefly induced motion sickness).
Given that the majority of studies found significant effects, I’m willing to beleive the data. It’s not stunningly consistent, though, so if someone did a stronger study I’d be willing to change my mind. However, it definitely fits the criteria of psuedoscience pushing its way into real science.
mischievous
(Caveat: my mother is an obstetrician and swears by these things for her morning sickness patients, so I may have picked up a bit of bias.)
There’s still no evidence that other researchers thought the mechanism of angiogenesis didn’t exist, which is what would qualify this as former-pseudoscience. They knew it existed, but thought that it wasn’t the right way to attack. Yes, the reactions are similar, but just because reactions are similar doesn’t make two things the same.
Indeed. No offense to anyone intended, but I’ve never met anyone associated with birthing humans who’s completely scientifically rational. Obstetricians are less given to tweakiness than midwives, but still there’s a lot of superstition that seems to surround the process.
That said, the placebo effect can be very strong. If the women find this helps, go for it. I’d even recommend trying it to someone. That doesn’t mean that there’s a good causal explanation.
As for acupuncture and acupressure in general, here’s how I’d say it: acupuncture and acupressure may have certain beneficial effects unattributable to placebo effects. However, the mechanism they assert (mystical mumbo-jumbo about “energy lines” through the body) is almost certainly wrong. So, acupuncture as a whole is pseudoscience, but there is the possibility of a scientific explanation for the observed effects.
So you looked at my caveat, but not any of the evidence presented? How scientific is that?
mischievous
/me sighs
I cited your caveat because that’s all I needed to cite from the previous post. What your cited evidence shows is that it seems there may well be an effect going on. What is does not show is any explanation for the effect. It doesn’t show that the effects are not largely psychosomatic, and definitely doesn’t show that the wristbands work by altering the flow of chi through the body.
Frankly, I think I’m being very reasonable – even generous – in saying that I’d tell someone myself, “Some people find this helps. There’s not really any explanation for it and the jury’s still out, but it doesn’t seem to hurt anything so if you want to, go for it.”
Of course, some people find it helps to carry around a little leather pouch with some dust, stones, and a chicken bone in it.
I’m sorry. I meant that comment to be playful, but upon rereading, I realize it came out as agressive and challenging. Will you accept my apologies?
I think we’re mostly in agreement here - I also think that the proposed mechanism behind apcupressure is appalling tripe, but that there may be some real effect behind this particular practice of acupressure. I also think that while the preponderance of evidence at the moment supports this, the methodological limitations and inter-study inconsistencies I outlined above make me somewhat less than rock-solid certain.
I do think that people (myself included) often put a much higher burden of evidence on an effect that doesn’t make sense (like acupressure) than on one which does (like hormone replacement therapy), but I try to combat that trend as unscientific. If I beleive in well-designed studies that support my theories, I have to accept those that don’t, as much as I would like to say that a wristband obviously doesn’t affect nausea and hormone replacement therapy obviously should prevent heart attacks (despite evidence to the contrary). The only wiggle room I allow myself here is poorly designed or inconsistent studies - which currently applies to both of the above topics.
So, peace, okay?
mischievous
How many of the 30 studies had an N>75? How many were controlled and randomized? From my search, it appears almost none of them did – yet you’re willing to accept them as evidence? Why? Medline is littered with reports of uncontrolled, non-blinded “trials,” so an argument from quantity is not particularly appropriate here.
Here’s a large scale review of controlled trials, concluding acupressure results are “equivocal.”
Here is a large study that showed extremely mixed results, and makes a pretty good case for the placebo effect (a placebo group was not included). It claims a reduction only for the first 24 hours.
This study, however, finds no reduction in nausea over the first 24 hours, though it finds other indices that show “significant” effectiveness. Note that the placebo group really outperforms the control.
If these studies were presented as proof of efficacy for an investigational new drug application to the FDA, they’d be laughed out of the room. But acupressure advocate cite them as confirmatory, without bothering to explain the fact that they conflict with one another.
I’m not suggesting that acupressure be held to a higher standard – if anything, given its pretty-obvious lack of side effects, I’m happy to hold it to a lower standard (and I’m willing to accept, as Mathochist pointed out, that placebo-based remedies can be helpful in certain situations). I’m only pointing out that you’re not “believing the data” so much as going along with a rather large group of people who are mining the data to find results that confirm their previously-held beliefs, while ignoring the fact that no one can define a single condition/treatment regimen that will reliably produce significantly better effects that placebo.
I haven’t read the book but it sounds like a little sensationalism might have crept in somehow. I trust my memory of what I read in the scientific and lay press (i.e., Time magazine) as well as conversations with Folkman and many other scientists over the past 30 years.
“You’re a surgeon, what the hell do you know about cancer?” to “You greedy bastard with your corporate partnerships! If I recall, some even described his work as “dangerous” since it diverted funds from “real” cancer research.”
If the work of every scientist criticized this way is “pseudoscience” then nearly everything is or was pseudoscience.
“As I recall, the blood supply-cancer connection first occurred to Folkman in the late fifties/early sixties (which is not to say nobody had ever thought of the same thing before) and conducted work all throughout the sixties while not performing surgical duties.”
IIRC, Folkman says that he got the idea from his work as a surgeon. I think he did some research on perfusion solutions to keep kidneys viable between harvest and transplantation and in the course of that was impressed with the need for perfusion to retain viability. I know he published on perfusion of the thyroid. I forget the details of this early work but it led to his work on angiogenesis factors. BTW, he’s a clever guy and an imaginative researcher. (One paper he published was how to measure blood oxyegen concentration (this was when such measurements had to be done with equipment that was not widely available) by sucking blood into an syringe filled with acrylamide and a bead. IIRC, you turned the syringe end over end waiting for the bead to stop moving. The bead stopped moving when the acrylamide polymerized and the speed with whidh the acyrlamide polymerized was proportional to the oxygen content. Cute.
“The fact that he had a huge lab was (again, as I recall) basically a perk for being chief pediatric surgeon at Boston Children’s.”
A big desk and some kind of lab I believe. But a large lab WITH postdocs to work in it comes with grant money, not with the title of chief surgeon.
“Nevertheless, this sort of partnership is an common and important source of research funds today. Perhaps ironically, some now view the opportunity to do research in an big-name industry-funded lab as a sign of prestige rather than of selling out.”
Indeed, things have changed greatly. Whether this is all good or not is open to question.
“I see Folkman’s decision to get involved in industry-funding as equal parts despiration for funding (hard to secure for cancer research outside the mainstream)”
Please ask someone who does cancer research IN the mainstream if it is not hard to secure funding.
“as it seemed that Folkman didn’t care how a cure was discovered or who made it or even who profited from it. just so long as it was found.”
Is it your intention to malign all those cancer researchers who are not Judah Folkman?
“This practicality and perhaps a bit of naivety has caused him to go against the academian ethos in other ways as well, including speaking to the media.”
There is nothing naive about Judah Folkman and nothing unusual about scientists who blow there own horn in the lay press. But scientists who do get good press tend to annoy their colleagues (whether the good press is justified or not). Science is a very competetive business.
“If receiving papers back from a peer-review journal because the reviewers believed that his results didn’t support his findings [sic] is not the same as having his research called pseudo-science, its pretty darn close.”
That is an interesting point of view. I have refereed several papers in which I felt the authors’ results did not support their conclusions and I can’t think of a single case in which I thought that the work was pseudoscience. In my experience, it has been, each time, just a matter of the results not supporting the conclusions.
Exactly. The overwhelming problem in this thread is that no distinction is drawn between allegations of pseudoscience and allegations that a hypothesis is incorrect.
A claim of “this project would divert funds from more worthy projects” doesn’t even constitute a claim that there’s anything wrong with that project. A couple of years ago, for instance, NASA decided that they would fund either Constellation X (an X-ray mission) or LISA (a gravitatonal wave mission), but not both. They’re both valid missions, and in a perfect world, there’d be funding for both. But there isn’t, so graviational wave folks reluctantly opposed Con-X. The X-ray astronomers probably felt the the same way about us, and who can blame them?