Great Expectations: The Evolutionary Psychology of Faith-Healing and the Placebo Effect

"Experimental studies have shown that placebos, as well as being particularly effective for the relief of pain and inflammation, can for example speed wound healing, boost immune responses to infection, cure angina, prevent asthma, lift depression, and even help fight cancer. Robert Buckman, a clinical oncologist and professor of medicine, concludes that “Placebos are extraordinary drugs. They seem to have some effect on almost every symptom known to mankind, and work in at least a third of patients and sometimes in up to 60%. They have no serious side-effects and cannot be given in overdose. In short they hold the prize for the most adaptable, protean, effective, safe and cheap drugs in the world’s pharmacopoeia.” Likewise, another medical authority, quoted in a recent review in the British Medical Journal, dubs placebos “the most effective medication known to science, subjected to more clinical trials than any other medicament yet nearly always doing better than anticipated. The range of susceptible conditions appears to be limitless...

My view is this. The human capacity for responding to placebos is in fact not necessarily adaptive in its own right (indeed it can sometimes even be maladaptive). Instead, this capacity is an emergent property of something else that is genuinely adaptive: namely, a specially designed procedure for “economic resource management” that is, I believe, one of the key features of the “natural health-care service” which has evolved in ourselves and other animals to help us deal throughout our lives with repeated bouts of sickness, injury, and other threats to our well-being."


Gloriously jargon-free and easy to follow, the author makes a prima facie case for the evolution of our favourable response to placebos, though the paper isn't concluded as well as it could have been, especially since there's no restatement and summation of the thesis (heh heh).

***

The Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction

"While other disciplines of science explored the periodic -- physicists with their pendulums, biologists with circadian rhythms, and mathematicians with sinusoidal waves -- chemistry, until recently, was bereft of this study. Although there had long been evidence that the rate of some reactions changed repeatedly, many chemistry luminaries thought it would be contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics for a chemical reaction to oscillate. However, applying the concepts equilibrium thermodynamics to non-equilibrium systems proved erroneous.

Yet this thinking so held the day that when Boris P. Belousov, director of the Institute of Biophysics in the Soviet Union, submitted a paper to a scientific journal purporting to have discovered an oscillating chemical reaction in 1951, it was roundly rejected with a critical note from the editor that it was clearly impossible. His confidence in its impossibility was such that even though the paper was accompanied by the relatively simple procedure for performing the reaction, he could not be trouble. Arthur C. Clarke best captured this spirit of this folly with Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.""