All three papers given in the bibliography detail the benefits of Darwinian medicine.
One example given by Nesse (2001: 358) and Trevathan (2007: 141) explain
reasons for obesity, a growing concern in today’s western societies, argued to
be due to a throwback of when we were hunter-gatherers i.e. due to the
advantageous nature of acquiring certain foods, detecting them would be an
optimal evolutionary strategy, hence the cravings for carbohydrates would
increase energy yield when eaten. However, societies such as Britain readily
sell refined, cheap sugars that can be consumed in excess. Nesse (2001: 358)
even proposes why dieting may not be an effective model for loosing weight,
with dieting activating a famine response, so that people will then tend to
overeat. Although Trevathan (2007: 147) states that there are now more
successful popular-science books on Darwinian medicine, it is hard to see this
when diets are still abundantly popular, prominent in magazines trying to sell
weight loss programmes, some diets more dangerous than useless, such as the
Atkins diet (Revill 2003). However, the three articles do not only target an
evolutionary approach to obesity, but to a range of topics, such as;
childbearing and female cancers, chronic disease and low birth weight (Trevathan
2007: 144), anxiety and panic disorders (Nesse 2001: 358). Again however,
although these ideas are thought to be reaching the public, Alcock &
Schwartz (2011) argue otherwise, suggesting that an evolutionary approach to
medicine isn’t even reaching those who apply this subject the most in their
day-to-day lives: the doctors. Even though it is recognised by most to be an
important part of teaching in medical schools, many don’t implement it, with
students in North America allowed to reject the module on grounds of religion
(Ibid: 574). A quick overview of University of Nottingham’s undergraduate
programme for medicine reveals no trace of an evolution module taught (nottingham.ac.uk),
one would imagine that Darwinian medicine would at least be an optional subject
when Alcock & Scwartz (2011: 577) give a range of ways an evolutionary
approach could merge with so many different branches of the medicinal tree. On
top of this, studies have shown that there is of course much variation in the
human species, and that to design one type of ‘cure’ for one set of people, may
not be beneficial for the rest of the world (Trevathan 2007: 143).
Evolutionary theory is not an untested hypothesis, and has
been gaining stronger evidence ever since Darwin, although this is not
suggesting that every proposal within the theory is correct. Although all three
papers give only positive reviews on Darwinian medicine, it is difficult to
disagree, surely more understanding of health through evolutionary theory,
microbiology, biochemistry etc is beneficial. Positive feedback can then
entail, as, with more students learning about evolution and how it applies to
human illness, more money will be placed into the subject, allowing more
studies and better research to be carried out.
Bibliography
Alcock, J. & Schwartz, M. D. (2011). A clinical perspective in
evolutionary medicine: what we wish we had learned in medical school. Evolution: Education and Outreach 4:
574-579
Nesse, R. M. (2001). How is Darwinian medicine useful? Western Journal of Medicine 174: 358-360
Trevathan, W. R. (2007). Evolutionary Medicine. Annual Review of Anthropology 36:
139-154
Online Sources
Revill, J. (2003). Official: Atkins diet can be deadly. The Guardian.
No comments:
Post a Comment