Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Science and Research Unit, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
This article is an evolutionary defense of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), which is an approach to medicine that considers researches published in reputable medical journals as the main basis of therapeutic interventions. In this approach, physician’s personal experiences and her intuition, and mechanical explanations for medical interventions are deemphasized. Since the advent of EBM, many criticisms have been made on it. Two of them will be mentioned in this article. First, it has been claimed that the replication crisis is a threat for EBM. Second, according to critics, EBM is based on a kind of extreme empiricism, while there are many criticisms for this kind of empiricism. From an evolutionary point of view some rejoinders have been offered to these criticisms. We will also see how to update the theoretical foundations of EBM in the light of these criticisms. In this regard, a defense is presented that in two cases, medical implications can be carried out rationalistically, that is, by considering general medical theories: first, to abandon or ignore any "seemingly" harmless medical advice; and two, by rejecting unqualified articles. At the end, it is mentioned that although by doing so we may reduce the speed of new data entrance in medicine, but from an evolutionary point of view, this level of conservatism is necessary to maintain the credibility of medicine.
Keywords
- Baldini, R. (2012). Success-biased social learning: cultural and evolutionary dynamics. Theoretical population biology, 82(3), 222-228.
- Bohannon, John (2013). "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" Science. 342 (6154): 60–65
- Christensen, J., & Updatd, C. N. N. (2020). Past vaccine disasters show why rushing a coronavirus vaccine now would be'colossally stupid'.
- Darrason, M. (2018). Mechanistic and topological explanations in medicine: the case of medical genetics and network medicine. Synthese, 195, 147-173.
- Eldesouky, L. (2012). Openness to experience and health: A review of the literature. The Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology, 5, 24-42.
- Howick, J. (2016). Justification of evidence-based medicine epistemology. The Bloomsbury Companion to Contemporary Philosophy of Medicine, 115
- Jakovljević, M., & Ostojić, L. (2016). Science and pseudoscience in medicine: evidence-based vs. evidence-biased medicine. Psychiatria danubina, 28(suppl. 2), 2-6.
- Jonas, W. (2003). A critical overview of homeopathy. Annals of internal medicine, 139(8), W-76.
- Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of learning and motivation, 32, 385-418.
- Mendel, R., Traut-Mattausch, E., Jonas, E., Leucht, S., Kane, J. M., Maino, K., ... & Hamann, J. (2011). Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses. Psychological medicine, 41(12), 2651-2659.
- Nardini, C., Annoni, M., & Schiavone, G. (2012). Mechanistic understanding in clinical practice: complementing evidence‐based medicine with personalized medicine.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 18(5), 1000-1005.
- Pashler H, Harris CR (November 2012). "Is the Replicability Crisis Overblown? Three Arguments Examined". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (6): 531–536.
- Pines, J. M. (2006). Profiles in patient safety: confirmation bias in emergency medicine. Academic Emergency Medicine, 13(1), 90-94.
- Prusiner, S. B. (1982). Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science, 216(4542), 136-144.
- Rydval, O., & Ortmann, A. (2005). Loss avoidance as selection principle: evidence from simple stag-hunt games. Economics Letters, 88(1), 101-107.
- Sackett, D. L. (1997, February). Evidence-based medicine. In Seminars in perinatology(Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 3-5). WB Saunders.
- Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ,
- Zheng, C., Shao, W., Chen, X., Zhang, B., Wang, G., & Zhang, W. (2022). Real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines: a literature review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 114, 252-260
)