--- In [email protected], "ruthsimplicity" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > TM can't *force* independent researchers to attempt > > replication of the TM studies. Such researchers are > > more likely to want to do a study that finds "adverse > > effects." (One of them counted "boredom" as an adverse > > effect, if you can imagine.) They're more interested > > in debunking than taking a chance that they'd actually > > confirm TM's results. > > I really disagree with your speculation as to the purported > motivations of the independent researchers. Generally, I > respect what you say because you do your homework, but here > all you are doing is speculating as to what independent > researchers are "more likely" to do.
Well, actually it's based on the negative studies I've seen--some of which are really disgracefully bad--and the disparaging tone of their reports, as well as the comments of other scientists. > There has been some mild interest over the years in use of > meditation techniques for treatment of various medical > conditions and for potential health benefits. Back in the > 1970s I knew several researchers who were not affiliated > with any meditation practice who were excited by the > potential of TM, biofeedback, and other "mental" techniques. > The primary goals of scientists who have looked at those > issues is not to confirm or debunk, but to inquire. I'd love to believe that, but I can't. Certainly in some, maybe even many, cases it's true. But with TM in particular, because of its huge PR hype and the proliferation of its own triumphalist studies-- and the fact that the founder is a little bearded brown-skinned dude in sheets and beads with lots of celebrity followers--I think at least some of the researchers got their backs up and decided they were going to puncture the balloon (maybe subconsciously?). Other researchers, who might have been more objective, simply didn't want to have their names associated with TM because of its image. And then there was that awful Andrew Skolnick article in JAMA back in 1991. That's a long, ugly story, but the piece did terrible damage to TM's reputation among medical professionals, including researchers (which was Skolnick's intention, as well as to advance his own journalistic career, which he did). The article was a hatchet job, one of the most deliberately deceptive pieces of journalism I've ever seen. Then Buddhist meditation and mindfulness began to become popular, and these were seen as more respectable forms of meditation to study, especially when the Dalai Lama got into the act. Bottom line, up to this point, I do think it's fair to say that scientific interest in TM has been lukewarm at best, and actively hostile, in at least some cases, at worst. Both potential > positives and negatives need to be explored. Now there is good > scientific sense to go into a research study with a hypothesis > and try to disprove that hypothesis, but that has nothing to do > with trying to debunk someone's results. Theoretically and ideally, yes, but I'm not convinced it always works that way in practice. > I think if the TMO was interested in more independent research > it would go far if the TMO cooperated in providing a subject > pool that is not improperly selected. Obtaining subjects is a > big problem for independent researchers. I agree with you there. I don't know for sure that they've been *uncooperative*, though. > As far as research on adverse effects, I mentioned in my reply > to Vaj that there is not enough research to draw any conclusions, > but there are areas of interest for further inquiry. If I was > queen of the TMO researchers, I would go out of my way to > specifically study reported effects, both those people perceive > as adverse and those perceived as positive. I would follow up > with new meditators, inquire about their meditations, obtain > information good and bad from them, and then follow up with > studies. I would do the same with experienced meditators. They've done quite a bit of that, actually. The problem seems to be that they're not willing to publish negative results. > You mentioned "one of them counted "boredom" as an adverse > effect, if you can imagine." If I was queen of the researchers, > I would pay attention if people mentioned boredom as it might > correlate with people dropping the practice. Sure, but that wasn't the point of this particular study. Boredom is a "problem" with many forms of meditation, but as far as the traditions are concerned, it tends to be seen as perfectly normal, not an "adverse effect." Similarly with coming out of meditation too quickly and feeling irritable or getting a headache. If the meditator checks those off on the questionnaire because she hasn't been taking long enough to come out, should they be chalked up as an "adverse effect"? The researchers, in many cases, simply don't know what it makes sense to ask about. Meditation isn't *supposed* to be 100 percent bliss at all times, twice a day every day (unless you're in an advanced state of consciousness, and maybe not even then). > > And do you really think independent researchers know > > enough about TM to say whether their subjects are > > practicing it as instructed? > > How can any researcher really know? They can't get in the > meditators' heads and if the researchers try they will poison > the research. No, I mean they should arrange for the subjects to get checked by a certified TM teacher on a frequent basis as long as the study lasts. There should also be some record of whether the subjects are getting enough sleep and exercise, meditating regularly for the prescribed amount of time, that sort of thing. Data from subjects who go "off the program" (to a certain degree, to be determined beforehand as part of the study protocol) should perhaps not be included. Use > a large enough subject pool who have been taught to meditate > and let them meditate. If we are going to discount independent > research on the grounds that the researchers can't evaluate > the process then we have a big problem. No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting the researchers may not know enough about meditation, and TM specifically, to realize how important it is to ensure optimal conditions. Otherwise they may not be measuring the effects of TM at all.
