Royal Rumble: Doctor of Philosophy VS Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine

First, let me begin with a bit of background. As you may have realized, I am a skeptic. When I hear the term "Naturopathic Doctor" (ND) I often think of something simialr to the photo seen here on the right. Okay, okay, so I realize that is actually a photo of a drunk dirty hippy (may be sighted protesting outside our building) but for some reason I always equate Naturopaths with Hippies. Now I do recognize that Naturopaths do spend time pursuing post-secondary education to learn their trade and that they are often highly intelligent, successful people. However, the fact that individuals who advertize themselves as NDs are not necessarily graduates of an accredited naturopathic medical school and that the term ND is unprotected and may therefore be used by anyone, regardless of educational level makes me question their credentials.

Naturopathic medicine claims to help improve the body's ability to heal and maintain itself through the use of natural remedies. While I admit that medicinal herbs and nutritionally dense foods included in the diet can aid to improve overall health and that too many of us are heading to our doctor's office for a synthetic drug solution to our problem rather than simply putting down the fork and getting off the couch. I still back evidence-based medical science as the best option for treating serious aliments.

For example, a colleague of mine discussed how a member of her department was recently diagnosed with breast cancer. As a treatment option, this individual decided to start "juicing" all her foods and have 3x a week session where her blood was removed, infused with O2 and then returned to her body. Sorry honey, but science trumps your "natural remedy" in this case. Juice and O2 is not going to cure your cancer - a carefully designed plan under the supervision of your oncologist which likely includes the surgical removal of the tumor and/or chemotherapy & radiation treatments are more apt to be successful in battling the condition. 

I also find it somewhat suspicious that patients of NDs are always "prescribed" supplements/herbals/etc to heal them. Has no one else noticed how convenient it is that your ND also happens to runs a supplements/herbals/etc store where you can

purchase all your of "prescriptions"? Okay, okay, I am getting off topic. (Thanks to the Richard Dawkins Foundation Reason and Science for the little gem to the right) 


 Which brings me to my point! (Please excuse the rant and feel free to call me out on my opinion but simply stated, naturopathic medicine is not really my cup of tea.) Imagine my surprise when I was en route to a party in Charlottetown with a friend and I was advised that a number of the women who were going to be present at this party were NDs. I proceed to crack a joke about how I will have to hide my head in the sand all evening and that I will have to pretend that I work as waitress as to avoid an uncomfortable conversation about my chosen field.

All was going relatively well at this party until I head to the kitchen for a beer. At that time, the friend who invited me runs a pattern and intercepts me! She introduces me to one of the women as follows: "Hey, this is _______, she runs a naturopathic practice downtown. And this is Marcia, she's a scientist who makes "Frankenfish" for the aquaculture industry. You guys will have a lot to talk about!" End scene, she exits the room leaving me standing in front of a woman who is obviously disgusted with me. Let the Royal Rumble begin!

I tried to approach the conversation with caution as I have learned that there appears to be little support for aquaculture among many of the PEI natives. I explained that I am a salmonid geneticist, that my experience is mainly in aquaculture and that I am presently working for an aquaculture research company. What followed from there was a series of questions which to seemed be laced with some hostility.

First, I was asked what kind of research I am involved with. When started explaining the ideas of transgenics .... it just went downhill from there. "Why can't we just fish, why do you insist on farming animals that can be found in the wild?" I was asked. Well, you see, fish is a resource that is becoming rapidly depleted. "Why would you put that garbage in your body anyway? It's full of hormones and food dyes!!" I explained that exogenous hormones are not administered to fish destined for your plate and that the endogenous levels hormones are actually less than what is found in a serving of beef. Additionally, "food dyes" are not used, at least it's not what you think (picture "blue dye #2" as an ingredient listed on a juice container). I explained that Astaxanthin (a carotenoid) is used to add that red color to salmon filets, but that it is primarily produced through the fermentation of astaxanthin-producing microorganisms or via the cultivation of astaxanthin-producing algae. Microorganisms & algae are relatively benign, are they not? 

Then of course came the comments about how aquaculture is evil because it puts pressure on traditional fisheries through fish-meal production (fishing for small fishes like Herring to grind up and add to fish food for salmon). When I replied that the aquaculture industry is moving towards plant-based protein diets, I was asked, "Oh, so you think it's a good idea to take a carnivorous animal from the wild and feed it plants?!!" To which my response was, "How is it much different from what Vegans and Vegetarians do to themselves? How is it morally wrong for humans to eat meat, yet it is also wrong to replace some of the dietary protein in the diet of an agricultural animal with plant-based protein?" The response that I received was, "Well it just IS".

Moving on, the conversation turned to the addition of a single copy of the growth hormone gene to an Atlantic salmon to enhance growth. I was advised that this is also morally wrong. Actually, the quote was, "How dare we humans think that we can just manipulate animals to suit our needs!!" I paused for a second and replied, "Do you eat things like tomatoes, broccoli and milk?" To which the answer was indeed "yes". I continued with, "The source organisms for these products are drastically different from the agricultural varieties seen today. Since the origin of agriculture, both plants and animals have been altered though selective breeding and genetic manipulation to produce the food we now eat. So unless you are going out in the woods and hunting wild deer and picking native grasses, your food has been quote "altered" from its original form." 

"Well," was the response, "I, for one, will never support aquaculture". To which I grinned and replied, "Do you like Atlantic salmon?" The ND replied, "Oh yes, I love salmon. I recommend it to my clients for the nutritional omegas." I asked, "Do you realize that Atlantic salmon is an endangered species and that it is not fished commercially in North America? Did you know that ALL the Atlantic salmon that you have ever eaten has come from an aquaculture farm?" I was then advised that I don't know what I am talking about, that salmon isn't endangered and that I am lying to try and prove an ill-conceived point. 

So what did I learn from this experience? That I need to keep my profession a secret when out in public to avoid these awkward conversations. I also learned that everyone, including myself, have preconceived notions about various topics. While I feel as though I am open minded enough to engage in an informed discussion on a variety of topics (say, naturopathic medicine as an example), others seem to be so close minded and even when confronted with logic and reason they refuse to think critically. Apparently the time spent working towards my PhD was a waste - considering that "I don't know what I am talking about, that salmon isn't endangered and that I am lying to try and prove a point".