Bad for our health

Without proper accountability - not only to other scientists but to politicians, the law and a cautious wider community - science becomes a form of secular religion. When that happens, scientists scoff at the subjectivity of other forms of belief while expecting that they will be shown a kind of priestly deference.

In a sense, our culture encourages us to place our 'faith' in drugs in a quasi-religious way.

Ubiquitous advertising by drug companies offers us near instant cures for even the most mundane aches and pains. In the process it oversimplifies our physical shortcomings, passes over our innermost pain and promises shortcuts to 'salvation'.

Some drug suppliers present narratives and images which suggest that our lives will improve on a wide variety of fronts, if we will use their products. They play on human aspiration in much the same cynical way as cigarette advertisers once did (and would still do, if they were allowed).

The commercial power of the drug companies is considerable. It is set to increase as we become more reliant on emerging biotechnologies, nanorobotics and the like.

We must take advantage of every reasonable possibility to end human suffering. But we must do so in an ethical way, keeping on eye on the difference between progress and progressivism.

The latter idolises pragmatism; it says, 'If a thing can be done it should be done.' It has little time for ethical debate or considered deliberation on what progress really means, in any holistic sense.

In the end, psychological and emotional wellbeing are not primarily found within the purview of the medical profession. They are not achieved with the help of science alone.

The sooner we can wean ourselves off an overwhelming reliance on pure science, the sooner we might be able to see our way clear to other important solutions for the psyche and the soul.