By establishing the Maurice Blackmore Chair of Integrative Medicine at the Sydney University in honour of the Blackmores chairman’s late father, the company was investing much needed cash into complementary healthcare research while offering a tribute to a great pioneer of the industry.
“He dedicated his life to sharing his knowledge and published an extensive collection of observations and clinical notes,” wrote Marcus Blackmore on his blog.
“They are an interesting read given we now have the benefit of nearly 40 years of scientific exploration: sometimes he got it right… sometimes he didn’t. But he had an inquiring mind and a desire to help people, which is the same motivation that led to this Sydney University gift.”
This desire and his commitment to research would be welcome today, at a time when just 0.2% of all academic funding has been allocated to complementary health over the last 10 years, according to official figures. This is in spite of the confidence in complementary medicine by seven in 10 Australians in recent years.
“Over the next five years the Maurice Blackmore Chair in Integrative Medicine will undertake research into the impact of complementary medicines in health outcomes, including how complementary and alternative medicines interact with the current standard treatments prescribed by medical professionals,” said the dean of Sydney Medical School, Professor Bruce Robinson, on announcing the chair.
Yet in spite of the simple fact that money is being put into an important and overwhelmingly popular field of research which is hitherto unaccustomed to having much funding, still the detractors have come thick and fast.
Over the last week, there has been much sniping in the press about the ethics of corporate sponsorship in academia, with the Blackmore Chair providing the spark for the debate.
A thoughtful critique by Ken Harvey of Monash University predicted that the end result of sponsorship like Blackmores’ “is a market flooded with products of dubious efficacy promoted with hype and celebrity endorsement rather than scientific research.”
Some critics have even questioned Blackmore Senior’s credentials to have his name attached to a high-profile research chair.
“They were misguided… in stating that Maurice Blackmore was not worthy of the honour of the name of the chair, claiming he was not an advocate of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (a concept coined in the 1990s, nearly 15 years after he passed away!),” wrote Marcus Blackmore.
Though the terms “evidence-based medicine” and “integrative medicine” were not used in his time, his life’s work is still testament to these principles, he added, citing his father’s early observations of mineral therapy and his clinical applications of nutritional medicine, which he claims were the foundation of an approach to health management that is still relevant today.
“It was not unexpected that the critics professed their ‘concerns’ about the integrative medicine chair, though it was certainly ironic. After years of demanding more research, they were unlikely to commend us for our actions.”
In the politically charged world of complementary health research and regulation, it is very easy for some to criticise Blackmores’ involvement in academia.
Of course this was a very commercially viable approach by a company which will benefit from both the name and the fruits of the work of the incumbent chair, but also the investment is vitally necessary for better research that can only be of benefit to consumers.
So as the latest Blackmore in charge of the company that bears his name writes: “It’s time for the skeptics and the critics to step off the sideline and engage in furthering healthcare with a focus on prevention and wellbeing.”