Britain has witnessed a dramatic uptake of alternative medicine. But it is a controversial field and so it is not surprising that BBC2's science series investigating the efficacy of acupuncture, herbal remedies and spiritual healing has triggered debate. Indeed we welcome it.
However, Simon Singh's article (Was this proof of acupuncture's power ... or a sensationalised TV stunt? March 25), made several allegations that go beyond genuine debate and contain important factual inaccuracies. It suggested that the programme makers were "under instructions from higher up" to make "a happy story about complementary medicine"; that the production could not distinguish evidence from anecdote; even that the series producer was promoting "US-style anti-science".
These allegations are completely untrue and a slur on both the producers and the BBC Science Unit. The only pressure, exerted by me, was to present good journalism supported by valid evidence.
A sequence which featured acupuncture being used instead of general anaesthetic during open heart surgery in China was alleged to be misleading by "underplaying" the use of drugs which were also administered. Not so.
The programme script was careful to say the patient was "sedated by drugs and her chest numbed". We pointed out that this did not amount to hard evidence and that there could be other explanations for what we saw. Journalists routinely use case studies to trigger further enquiry - the key is that such apparent success warranted a search for more rigorous scientific evidence, which the programme then undertook.
We were also criticised for apparently promoting the use of the herbal remedy, Sutherlandia, for Aids patients in Africa. The anecdotal nature of this treatment was made absolutely clear and signalled as a claim from a health worker's personal experience. We were clear that it was not a solution to Aids, was not tested and that moving stories don't amount to evidence. The programme's presenter, Professor Kathy Sykes, ended the sequence by saying: "The stories are really moving but ... I need to find evidence that's more solid than this."
Most worrying was the allegation that the BBC had paid for a scientific experiment to investigate acupuncture as a "TV stunt" and had "sensationalised" the results. This is wholly untrue. The experimental protocol was overseen by Professor Gary Green of the York Neuroimaging Centre at York University, who rejects the suggestion that he or his team were manipulated by the BBC. The experiment "was planned before the BBC asked to film it. It is part of a larger study and the full description of the work will be submitted for publication quite soon," he says. The scientists involved arrived at a broad agreement on the best interpretation of the results and those conclusions were reported accurately.
Alternative medicine is an important subject to many people in this country. There has been a huge positive response to the series from the scientific and medical community. It is appropriate that it should be part of a wider debate. It would be regrettable if that debate was stifled.
· John Lynch is creative director of science production at the BBC
· The Response column offers those who have been written about in the Guardian an opportunity to reply. If you wish to respond, at greater length than in a letter, to an article in which you have featured either directly or indirectly, please email response@theguardian.com or write to Response, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. We cannot guarantee to publish all responses, and we reserve the right to edit pieces for both length and content
