This could be a very short post, because when it comes to the science of biofields, there isn’t any. That’s why the NIH uses the word “putative.”*
That’s not to say there isn’t a talented scientist or two engaged in cutting edge investigation of these mysterious realities. The scientific community has fringe elements like any other community. But fringe scientists doing frontier science don’t get a lot of respect until their data–and cause–are taken up by the mainstream.
Science is a group conversation, and in any group, what matters is what most people are saying. That’s called consensus, and that’s what carries weight. Consensus can be wrong, but it’s foolish to buck it, especially when trying to establish credibility.
Unless done skillfully, reaching for science to bolster your presentation of Reiki will likely backfire. Only people who don’t need “proof” will be impressed; scientists are skeptical by nature and training, and readily find the holes in an argument. So until such time as doctors are ordering kirilian photographs instead of CT scans and MRIs, don’t risk running your argument aground by confusing frontier science and conventional science.
If you want to lean on science, be humble. Deflect attention away from biofields, and focus instead on the research into how Reiki treatment can benefit people. Acknowledge first that this investigation is just beginning, then state that preliminary data suggest Reiki can help improve heart rate, blood pressure, and immunity, and reduce pain, anxiety, and depression. We do not yet have enough research evidence to say more than that, and if you try to, you run the risk of discrediting yourself, and Reiki.
If you are communicating with physicians or other health care professionals who want more information, you needn’t do the heavy lifting yourself; just hand them the top three articles in the medical papers section.
*NOTE:
The section of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that studies the safety and efficacy of complementary therapies such as Reiki is the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM).
Here is what NCCAM says about biofields in the section on energy medicine: “Biofield therapies are intended to affect energy fields that purportedly surround and penetrate the human body. The existence of such fields has not yet been scientifically proven.”
I was the principal reviewer for the Reiki Backgrounder posted on the NCCAM website. This document has no copyright and you are encouraged to use it freely.
Pamela, thanks, this is so helpful, especially the “Reiki backgrounder,” which is very clearly written. Interesting that there are probably no double-blind scientific studies about how AA helps people with alcoholism either, and yet is the most effective method that does.
I would also like to see (or, more specifically, participate in!) a study of Reiki and addiction, and, one day, I expect this will come to pass. It has seemed like a long time coming, and yet, this entire forum didn’t exist before! Won’t be long, now!
Pamela,
You made some good points in this post. Way too many practitioners of reiki (and similar modalities) have been too eager to engage in “hand-waving” — like mentioning quantum processes — and then calling it proof. If we use the language of science, then we need to understand what it means.
But as for doubt about biofields, SQID magnetometers have been helping to demonstrate the presence of these fields.
Bruce
Thanks, Bruce, I am aware of SQID magnetometers. I believe we mentioned them in the Reiki Review medical paper that was published in 2003. However, to my understanding, they are still considered somewhat frontier, not yet recognized mainstream. Am I wrong? There had been a scientist named Jan Walleczyk at Stanford who did some intriguing work on this, but I couldn’t locate him to research it further.
Do you have a science background, enough to explain SQID? It would be great to have more explanation of how this measurement works, if that is your field and you have time.
No double blind studies exist regarding issuing parachutes to airmen either, but no self-respecting airforce would get away with not issuing parachutes, on the grounds that “they haven’t been proven to work in properly conducted, double-blind studies”.
Of course that’s true, Chris. We don’t need gravity to be scientifically documented to know that parachutes are a good idea. But how exactly does that relate to Reiki?