Universities are the custodians of good science. Of all institutions, they are the places where science should be best understood, promoted and defended, so it is extraordinary that so many Australian universities teach and promote pseudoscience under the scientific banner. Homeopathy, reflexology, iridology, energy medicine, tactile healing and kinesiology are just some spurious health "treatments" being presented as if they were evidence-based. Many have been subjected to fierce scientific scrutiny and discredited, yet they persist in university health courses, with some of this quackery in veterinary courses as well. Universities allowing such nonsense to be taught on their campuses give it totally unwarranted credibility, and it is not just a few; more than one-third of the sector is involved. Concern over this betrayal of science recently prompted the formation of the Friends of Science in Medicine, an association supported by more than 400 leading Australian and international scientists, clinicians and consumer advocates. The association's first priority is to "reverse the trend which sees government-funded tertiary institutions offering courses in the health care sciences that are not underpinned by convincing scientific evidence". Britain recently took this step and FSM has written to all vice-chancellors in Australia urging them to do likewise. If our universities cannot, or will not, distinguish between science and quackery, or defend the legacy that hundreds of years of scientific progress has brought to the disciplines that they are now responsible for, who will?

Dr Rob Morrison, OAM, is Professorial Fellow at Flinders University. THE RESEARCHER ALAN BENSOUSSAN COMPLEMENTARY medicine treatments are used by two in three Australians each year and have been taught in universities here for two decades. The recent call by Friends of Science in Medicine to ban the university teaching of ''complementary medicine'' presents a sad view of science and a shameless push to censor learning. There are two fundamental points proposed by this group. First, that healthcare practices should be based as much as possible on sound scientific evidence. This is easy to agree with. Rigorous testing of all modalities of healthcare and the promotion of evidence-based clinical practice is essential. But ''evidence-based medicine'' is a relatively new approach. Most medical and allied healthcare practices have not been rigorously tested. Second, this group argues that abolishing the teaching of complementary medicine will somehow strengthen its evidence-based clinical practice. This is nonsense. A strong link between research and education helps communicate the fruits of research rapidly and effectively to clinicians. To impose greater barriers to this is counter-productive to quality care.

This year, Chinese medicine practitioners will be registered in Australia. To exile these practitioners and others will damage patient care, close off communication with other healthcare providers and diminish the ability to improve practice over time. There are few cardiologists who do not recognise the value of fish oil supplements in heart disease, and few geriatricians who are not aware of the importance of calcium and Vitamin D3 for bone health. Chinese herbal medicine is administered routinely in hospitals for many chronic diseases. Why would we shut our minds to these possibilities? There is no better place than our universities to rigorously discern what works from what does not. This has led to recognising herbs such as Artemisia as a proven anti-malarial and St John's wort for depression. With increasing rates of disease, an ageing population and ballooning healthcare costs, now is not the time to shy away. This disregard for patients' choice will only discourage them from disclosing complementary medicine use to their doctors. While perhaps based on some real concerns, this campaign reflects a narrow view of what is being offered and is uninformed by the great effort that has gone into emphasising science in the delivery of these courses. Sensibly, the Australian Medical Association has withdrawn support for this lobby group. Professor Alan Bensoussan is director of the centre for complementary medicine research, University of Western Sydney. THE STUDENT ROB PEARLMAN AS A medical student, I require any belief I have to be based on evidence. This may be strong or weak, depending on the maturity of the discipline in question, but there must be a plausible scientific basis at the end of it.

Modern medicine can be overwhelming to the layperson. This can result in feelings of distrust and a lack of control over their care, which may lead to exploration and engagement with practitioners of ''natural'' alternative therapies. My first qualification was in commerce. It is the economic argument that I feel best showcases the problems with offering courses in pseudoscience in government-funded universities. The first is the economic problem of freeloading. Therapies and regimes that lack a scientific base achieve legitimacy by appealing to a distrust of science and false claims of efficacy. This Trojan horse legitimacy is extended by the provision of pieces of paper bearing the seals of our great tertiary institutions. At the same time, they protect themselves by promoting ''Integrative Medicine'', an ill-defined concept where the alt-med practitioner takes you for $100 every couple of months whilst you continue to see your GP to make sure you don't drop dead on their watch. The increasing boldness of some practitioners is periodically exemplified by cases of appalling negligence, such as the 2002 death of nine-month-old Gloria Thomas in the care of her homeopath parents.

The second argument is about the misallocation of resources. Australian taxpayers are supporting students to study degrees that are utterly meaningless in the real world. They have no scientifically valid evidence base, and despite extensive research, little prospect of obtaining one. On graduation, these students cause a misallocation of private purses, as those seeking health advice go to those unqualified to provide it. An argument could be made that the provision of such courses is a product of demand. William Charles Wentworth, calling for the establishment of my alma mater, Sydney University, argued it would provide for "the child of every class, to become great and useful in the destinies of his country". Publicly funded universities have a responsibility to the most appropriate use of public funds, a use that is in the nation's best interests. It cannot be said this is now true. Rob Pearlman is a stage 3 medical student at Sydney Medical School. THE SURGEON VALERIE MALKA FOR MORE than 10,000 years, natural therapies have been used, while conventional medicine is but 100 years old. They deserve the recognition universities have given them as they have healing modalities and benefits proven by credible and peer-reviewed research. The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 80 per cent of the world's population relies on natural therapies to treat, prevent and cure diseases, yet in Australia we have closed-minded colleagues determined to damage and bring into disrepute the entire natural health profession.

Do the Americans have it completely wrong? Not only do they have dedicated courses in universities but almost 85 per cent of US medical schools offer elective courses in alternative and complementary medicine or include it in required courses. There is no better than modern medicine when it comes to surgery, emergency and trauma, but for almost everything else, traditional, natural or alternative medicine is far more effective - particularly for chronic illness which modern medicine is completely unable to treat or cure. These therapies, unlike modern medicine which focuses on symptom control, work to treat the entire person, recognising and stimulating the body's innate capability to heal the root cause of illness. Modern medicine actually suppresses and thwarts that innate healing mechanism by unbalancing the complex human organism and its systems, particularly the immune system, with the liberal use of drugs and ignorance of the importance of diet and lifestyle. With conventional medicine's birth came the slow and deliberate move by the medical profession to discredit what became labelled ''alternative medicine''. I can only presume that what lies at the heart of it is the threat to conventional medicine's power base and the unhealthy relationship it has long enjoyed with the trillion-dollar pharmaceutical industry. It is about time the Australian medical profession started educating rather than medicating. It is unfortunate that it is the public's disillusionment with modern medicine and its inability to treat many diseases, as well as the dreadful side-effects of any treatment offered, that have increased the popularity of complementary and alternative medicine. It should have been due to the interest, enthusiasm and reason of doctors, scientists, researchers and politicians. As a qualified medical specialist and surgeon, I am ashamed of the medical profession when it so blatantly displays its ignorance and persists in attacking a profession from which we have much to learn.

Dr Valerie Malka is a surgeon and former director of trauma services at Westmead Hospital. Follow the National Times on Twitter: @NationalTimesAU