Guest Post. Marianne Baker is a biomedical sciences PhD student who blogs at http://noodlemaz.wordpress.com. Alex Davenport is a Research Assistant in cancer immunology.

One dark and dreary Saturday afternoon, a decision was made to satisfy a desire for some hardcore facts and scientific wonder. A trip to the Science Museum would surely deliver. Unfortunately, the story didn't have quite the happy ending that was expected. To cut a long rant short, we have a bit of a problem with one of the exhibits in The Science and Art of Medicine gallery.

The Museum has seen fit to present what is, not just in our view but also that of some high profile science communicators (and many on Twitter), a rather dubious account of some of alternative medicine practices that are still around today.

Publicly complaining about this was not a decision we took lightly as overall it is an institution that provides broadly appealing, engaging content and continues to enthuse across the generations (basically it's full of very cool sciencey stuff - respect).

Since then, they have produced an official response to our criticisms. It is good to see the Science Museum addressing visitors' concerns; it is encouraging and suggests they are interested in what people think. Unfortunately, their response leaves a lot to be desired. They don't seem to have examined the complaint very carefully or tackled most of the issues raised.

Their reply compares alternative medicine to other 'controversial' topics covered in The Science and Art of Medicine gallery – this is somewhat irrelevant; they seem to be trying to side-step the criticism of a specific section of the gallery by lumping alternative medicine in with abortion and third world health, as if this somehow justifies its inclusion.

They move on to acknowledge that this is already an 'old debate' and that 'some may consider the inclusion of these practices ... controversial.' Surely the fact that people have had problems with the exhibit from day one suggests that there may be legitimate cause to tweak it?

Simon Singh convinced the Museum to cease showing the 'Mystic India' film because he opposed its religion-promoting agenda; but that incident and the alt med exhibit ultimately caused him to quit the board of trustees. Professor David Colquhoun also made a complaint but to no avail. One would think that well-respected science communicators making such statements might have inspired them to reconsider.

The museum has devoted a 'small area' of the gallery to 'Personal Stories' without clarifying that these do not lend alternative medicines any credibility. The museum's official statement declares:

"we take an anthropological and sociological perspective on medical practices"

Is there any clear notification of this area suddenly becoming the Anthropology and Sociology section of the museum? Are there any other anthropological and sociological 'perspectives' to be found? Can we expect to see space devoted to the beliefs of moon landing conspiracy theorists and astrologers, or even creationists, in the near future?

"Our message in this display is that these traditions are not 'alternative' systems in most parts of the world. Instead they currently offer the majority of the global population their predominant, sometimes only, choice of medical care"

Whilst this is true, we see no reason why it merits displays supporting such "alternatives". Even if said support takes the form of omitting the fact that, while studies may have been carried out into acupuncture/homeopathy/TCM, the results show that they are no better than placebo.

There is no such thing as Western vs. third world medicine. Medicinal efficacy does not vary depending on where it is practised. It's either effective or it isn't; the evidence supports it or it doesn't - it is not relative to one's location. This is not a question of "choice" of medical care. It is simply tragic that many populations do not have access to proper, effective medical treatments.

For example, most people will see the problem with the organisation Homeopaths Without Borders; people who are flying to disaster-struck communities such as those in Haiti, taking homeopathic pills and solutions, giving them to the sick and dying. This is time and space that could be used delivering real medicine that would actually help people.

Indeed, we would say that the angle to take here would be one of regret and disdain - the fact that people commonly use alternative treatments in other parts of the world is not a good thing, it's indicative of wider problems in the provision of and access to healthcare.

Many organisations and individuals of dubious principle are diverting people away from the medical treatment they require to useless and often damaging (and not just for people, in the case of TCM) practices. Governmental corruption, distrust of pharmaceutical companies and advances in technology, lack of education – these all seriously affect people. It is often a matter of life and death, not choice.

They're only presenting one side of the story; people who are happy with 'treatments' they have chosen for themselves. They do not acknowledge the damage that promoting alternative medicine can do. People around the world are risking their health shunning actual medicine in favour of the 'alternatives' and the Science Museum is not helping to build people's trust (in medicine or indeed in itself) with exhibits such as this.

If the Science Museum is taking a sociological perspective on this issue, it should surely be considering these deeper issues too, rather than employing the exact same tactic that alt med practitioners do; reliance on anecdotes.

An acupuncture display at the science museum.

The museum claim that:

"We do not make any claims for the validity of the traditions we present. For example, we include the use of acupuncture but do not say the acupuncture 'works'."

This is questionable, given the content of some of the displays. For example, the anecdote of 'Ian' is displayed with a very vague reference to 'literature':

"6 treatments later, Ian takes significantly fewer painkillers and feels his quality of life has improved enormously... There has been much debate over the place of acupuncture within the NHS and a growing medical literature exploring the question of its effectiveness." "Ian's GP is one of those who believes that acupuncture can bring benefits"

We see a problem with this in that people are walking around the Science Museum and happen upon what is, apparently, one unnamed GP's opinion of a complementary/alternative treatment. The museum say that:

"independent experts were consulted when developing this gallery... advice was sought from leading academics in the history of non-western medical traditions as well as practitioners and users of these traditions"

In other words, not any scientists or qualified medical doctors, if read between the lines. However, as has been pointed out, some did offer their opinions and were seemingly ignored.

The curator's comments are included with the press statement, and make interesting reading:

"we felt it would be clear that it was the patients and practitioners who had confidence in the efficacy of these other traditions, rather than the Science Museum. We certainly did not feel that by displaying such things in the Museum we were endorsing them."

Surely one expects the museum to have confidence in all of its exhibits? They give the example of the Euthanasia Machine exhibit also being controversial, but this is not a valid comparison. It works and that is the source of the controversy, an ethical issue – not the science behind it.

It may well be the case that TCM etc. are still practised, while other ineffective medical ideas have not survived, but the Museum's presentation of them is not 'similar' to that of the more ancient traditions.

The language used appears to legitimise alternative medicines rather than acknowledging them as baseless, for example:

"homeopaths believe in the ancient idea that like cures like. This means that homeopathy treats illness with medicines, often highly diluted, thought to produce similar symptoms in a healthy person"

This appears to be a poor attempt at clarification and avoiding endorsement, using phrases like 'believe in' and 'thought to', which most people will simply gloss over. Firstly, homeopathy does not treat illnesses. Secondly, it does not use medicines. Thirdly and most importantly, they are always highly diluted, to the point where there is not one molecule of the original substance (medicine or otherwise) left.

Again, we love the Science Museum and want people to keep going. However, we are disappointed with the accuracy of these exhibits, and their failure to adequately address these concerns. The scientific course of action would be to change tack if re-evaluation of the evidence requires it; there is no shame in this. It has been done before, why not this time?

Guest Post. Marianne Baker is a biomedical sciences PhD student who blogs at http://noodlemaz.wordpress.com. Alex Davenport is a Research Assistant in cancer immunology.