Just how science-minded are we?

Of course none of us have the capacity to personally undertake experiments to scientifically test all the objects and processes that touch our lives. We trust that the food we buy from the supermarket won't kill us, and the bridge that we drive over was built according to the laws of physics. Part of being in society is undertaking a contract of trust with those around you. It's a process of faith that that the truck driver carrying 5 tonnes at 120 kilometres an hour in the opposite direction believes in the white dividing line in the centre of the road as much as we do.

But the luxury of living in 2014 is that we can find that information if we want it. But do we want it?

Whether we're aware of it or not, we are all navigating between social, cultural and scientific influences every day. For example, many people have been drawn recently to the alternative therapy of acupuncture.

In 2006-07 Australians made a total of 589,796 Medicare rebate claims for acupuncture performed by medical practitioners. Based on a Chinese belief in the flow of Chi (or Qi) along pathways in the body called Meridian lines. Chi is energy in the body; illness occurs when blockages in the flow of energy occur. Acupuncture involves the process of 'unblocking' these energy flows with the use of superficial needling of the epidermal layer. The fact that no biological evidence of the existence of Chi or meridian lines exist has not limited its popularity.

The evidence behind acupuncture has confounded many people for some time, because, when assessed in trials against sugar pills or no intervention, it has routinely produced greater reported amounts of pain relief. Not until 2007 did several new methods of clinical trial start really testing the premise of acupuncture's success rates.

The German acupuncture trials are considered to be one of the largest clinical trials in the field of acupuncture. They involved a series of nationwide experiments in 2001 and published in 2006, on behalf of several German statutory health insurance companies. They consisted of one observational study and four randomized controlled trials - investigating acupuncture treatment for low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, migraine prophylaxis, and tension-type headache.

What differed in these trials from those previous was the use of a new technology; sham acupuncture needles. The needles, when applied to the skin telescoped inside themselves, not actually piercing the surface. Over 90% of patients could not distinguish the difference between the real acupuncture needle and the sham needle. Patients involved in the trial were randomised to receive the sham or the real needles accordingly. The results showed that rates of pain relief from sham and real needles were almost identical.

The second key method of testing the efficacy of acupuncture has been trials where needles are applied to points not identified in traditional Chinese medicine as pressure points. Over 30 trials have found the results of non-pressure point needling to produce identical results as needling the traditional pressure points.

The cumulative outcomes of these studies strongly suggest that acupuncture is a powerful placebo - but not a lasting one. Of the thousands of studies listed on the Cochrane collaboration website, many show that over the course of three months the pain-relieving effect of acupuncture decreases to perform no better than other placebos.

If acupuncture produces pain relief, does it matter whether or not it is due to a placebo effect? While placebo may deliver immediate pain relief, it does little to address the underlying cause of the illness or injury. Also, if doctors recommend placebo treatments in lieu of evidence-based treatments, they've undermined the key principle of medicine; the Hippocratic Oath, in which physicians and health care providers swear to undertake medicine honestly. Without this, medicine and magic become indistinguishable.

The data throwing doubt on the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment has not halted its popularity. We're not as science-minded as we like to think we are. What our friend recommends, what our mother tells us is good for us, and how something makes us feel all feed into how we construct our reality. I've come to realise there really is no distinction between the way decisions are made and opinions formed in Kenya and Australia.

That we're not scientific creatures by nature is okay. By gaining a grasp of how we shuffle, prioritise and make sense of the myriad of information that comes to us on a daily basis, we can test our conclusions and ask ourselves how we reached them. We can seek the information to best improve our health, our practices and our understanding. Science is beautiful.