Effective and Safe Medicine: "Evidence" or "Science" Based?

Regarding the objective evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of a medical treatment, it is a reasonable assumption that "Evidence-Based Medicine" (EBM) and "Science-Based Medicine" (SBM) are one and the same. However, over at the Science-Based Medicine blog, there is a continuing battle between proponents of these two terms.

In essence, proponents of EBM seem focused on the need for Randomize Controlled Trials (RCTs), even if prior research has shown that a particular treatment in question is highly implausible. Proponents of SBM recommend considering the plausibility of a treatment prior to entering into RCTs.

You might say, "What's the big deal?" In this blogger's opinion, the importance of the difference in approaches boils down to two factors. In EBM ---

• there is the time and expense of performing trials on a matter that previously has been found to be implausible. Why the need to do trials?
• there is rarely a finding that an "Alternative Medicine" treatment just simply is bogus. Instead, further trials usually are recommended.

Unfortunately, the NIH and other research-granting organizations are essentially using the EBM approach. Thus, this policy is allowing the waste of time and money to evaluate non-effective "Alternative Medicine" treatments.

Do you feel good about such unnecessary and costly use of resources? This blogger doesn't.