Trisha Shetty

Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine

Updated on
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedIn
Discipline  Alternative medicine
Edited by  Wallace Sampson
Language  English
Publication history  1997-2007
Abbreviated title (ISO 4)  Sci. Rev. Alternative Med.
Publisher  Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health (United States)

Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (SRAM) is a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. SRAM was established by Wallace Sampson (Stanford University) and Paul Kurtz (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal). It claimed to be "the only peer-reviewed journal devoted exclusively to objectively analyzing the claims of 'alternative medicine.'"

The SRAM website states:

The purpose of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine is to apply the best tools of science and reason to determine whether hypotheses are valid and treatments are effective. It will reject no claims because it fits, or fails to fit, some paradigm. It will simply seek justified answers to two questions: "Is it true?" and "Does this treatment work?"

A statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine," welcoming the founding of SRAM, was signed by a long list of notable individuals, including five Nobel laureates. The statement expressed skepticism towards alternative medicine and the need for "objective, scientific critiques" of the field. The journal was also welcomed by Science when it launched.

SRAM was evaluated at least three times by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for Medline/PubMed indexing, but rejected each time. In an editorial published on the journal's site, Sampson says that NLM director Donald Lindberg revealed that the first review of SRAM had been performed by fourteen individuals or organizations who support alternative medicine. Sampson contends that, because SRAM critically examines alternative medicine, such a panel of reviewers would not be able to objectively consider the journal. According to Sampson, the only information he received regarding the third review was that it was conducted by NIH independent reviewers. Sampson states, "This was not what we had in mind when requesting outside review, as there was no assurance that the reviewers were either objective or authorities in pseudoscience."


Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine Wikipedia

Similar Topics
Daphne Ashbrook
Panos Panagiotopoulos
Stephen Shea