The first scientific study on the power of prayer to heal may have led to unexciting results, but it hasn't deterred the tenacity of those who believe. In a recent essay in Science and Theology, Dónal P. O'Mathúna, co-author of Alternative Medicine: The Christian Handbook and lecturer of health care ethics at the School of Nursing in Dublin, points out several flaws in the STEP study (study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer).

Firstly, O'Mathúna explains, the prayer study was treated like any other drug study with controls to eliminate the chance of a placebo effect. To ensure that those who were healing received the same type of prayer the "pray-ers" were asked to use a standardized prayer. All of this control, O'Mathúna says, makes the study less like what people actually do in real life. Those who were praying were also told when to pray and they were given just the first name and last initial of the one they were praying for. Those praying supposedly told the researchers that they did not pray this way in everyday life. "If researchers asked a drug company to change what its tablets normally contain, would the research tell us anything about the tablets normally used?" O'Mathúna asks. "Probably not."

O'Mathúna goes on to argue that science is based on control and prayer is ultimately about something uncontrollable. So even though the NIH considers prayer to be a CAM modality, [1] it actually may not be classifiable at all. "Research should move away from trying to test prayer as a "therapy" that can be packaged into a controlled intervention," he says. "Such an approach is demeaning to the spiritual traditions that cherish prayer, especially the personal aspects of prayer. Prayer is not a therapy to be used just when needed. It is an intimate expression of a personal relationship between a person and God, a God who loves and cares for them."

[via Science and Theology [2]]

Image: prayer.com