As two major studies on the impact of prayer on coronary health
await publication, the debate over the power of prayer is, well,
still up for debate. The federal contribution of more than $2.3
million over the past four years and at least 10 studies on
intercessory prayer this money has paid for have done nothing to
resolve the controversy. But the important question is not whether
prayer is a healer, but whether our tax dollars should be used to
fund “scientific” studies that bear little resemblance
to science.
Medical science has acknowledged the therapeutic value of
personal prayer in influencing health, just as it has music,
laughter and general optimism. But if you catch a cold, medical
science says nothing about the power of others’ prayers (or
intercessory prayers) in helping you stop the sniffles ““ even
with previous research on the subject.
It can’t say anything because prior studies have lacked
the necessary scientific credibility. Until this changes, continued
federal research on intercessory prayer would be a misallocation of
taxpayer money, medically misleading and just bad science. The
uncertainty lies in the difficulty of carrying out scientifically
sound studies.
First, no one can define a prayer in terms of dosage. Is a dose
a few prayers a day by individuals, or one prayer by a
congregation? Will any prayer do, or should it be
denomination-specific?
Second, such studies are plagued by an overwhelming amount of
variables that obfuscate clear and reliable results. In fact, in
two studies that showed the promise of intercessory prayer, the
number of variables was such that researchers could have achieved
positive results by chance.
A third problem regards the mechanism by which prayer might
work. Is it divine intervention, mind-to-mind communication or
simply the soothing effect (think placebo) that comes with the
knowledge that others are praying for you?
Even prayer advocates question the research. Since prayers carry
different purposes and meanings, there is no way to standardize the
prayers researchers assign to an experimental group.
Some also believe that such studies cheapen their view of God by
trying to supersede God’s will. “There’s no way
to put God to the test,” says the Rev. Raymond Lawrence, Jr.,
“and that’s exactly what you’re doing when you
design a study to see if God answers your prayers.”
Praying for the relief of suffering patients is a natural human
response to disease and, because it is so common, some believe we
have a responsibility to investigate it. But this investigation
will continue to vex the medical community so long as the subject
matter is plagued with the confounding variables mentioned
above.
Moreover, spending millions of dollars on research that cannot
pass scientific muster hinders medical advancement by diverting
money away from more credible studies, or even health-care funding
for the uninsured.
This is not to say that we should not conduct research if we are
skeptical of the topic in question or if we don’t know how a
treatment or intervention works before testing it. Our medical
knowledge would not be as rich if we approached science with that
self-defeatism.
Science should ask questions of the unknown, but it must do so
scientifically. The previous studies on intercessory prayers amount
to doing research without practicing science.
Previous studies that have shown the positive effect of
intercessory prayer on health are spurious at best. Moreover, at
least one study suggests that such prayer could even be harmful.
Religious or not, one cannot take this research seriously.
I believe we should cease funding this type of irresponsible
investigation, not because I am anti-prayer, but because I am
pro-scientific method. Doing so would benefit the taxpayer, the
patient and medical science ““ and that is something we can
pray for.
Ghassemi is a graduate student in the School of Public
Health.