Post by Admin on Jan 4, 2018 15:55:26 GMT -5
Critique of Mindfulness Research 2017: Backlash or Long Overdue?
A Call for Responses
by
Dana Kenneth Lewis
Mindful Veterans Connection
Newark, Delaware
January 4, 2018
--
PREFACE: CONTEXT FOR THIS POST --
Before I launch into this, please allow me to begin with some personal context on how this post came to be….
As a mindfulness practitioner, student and teacher-in-training and as admin of this web site, I'm constantly exploring any discussion or research related to mindfulness, whether in on-line media, academic journals or various publications, venues or videos. As admin for mindfulvets.net my responsibility is to filter out 'McMindfulness' (also known as 'faux mindfulness') material, so I tend towards the 'evidence-based' aspects of mindfulness research, practical information combined with select inspirational references as they pertain to our site's themes and readership.
It is now over five years of my own personal gathering of reference material on the terms 'mindfulness' and 'mindful meditation' (and similar), the last three years done in my role as website administrator for www.mindfulvets.net. So by the fall of 2017 I was fairly comfortable with the blend of spices, herbs and nutrients in my mindfulness theory-practice stew -- that is until I came across the October 11, 2017 Newsweek piece about Mindfulness titled, Mindfulness is a Meaningless Word with Shoddy Science Behind it." , It was as though someone had tossed a bucket of habaneros peppers into my mindfulness cauldron!
What followed for me were two months of digging through the original paper(Van Dam et.al.) and all papers directly responding to it, and then on to many other discussions around intersecting points found in "Mind The Hype". Yes, it was a journey down the Mindfulness rabbit hole for me, I do confess, but I have emerged intact from all that reading only to find this gem on the edge of the rabbit hole as I poked my head out of it, a quote from Shinzen Young, an esteemed teacher and neuroscientist researcher who commented on the Newsweek article:
Shinzen Young Blog,
October 17, 2017: Mindfulness: Hype and Counter-hype
Here’s what I have to say about that. Newsweek.com is a meaningless word with shoddy journalism behind it.
Let me explain. There’s a difference between the culture of journalism and the culture of science. An easy (and unfair) way to highlight that difference is for me to do something that I personally loathe—compare their worst to our best.
The culture of journalism at its worst is about getting people’s attention, even if it means stating things in an unnuanced, distorted, and inflammatory way. The culture of science at its best works for the opposite values: fine-grained analysis based on thorough discussion and respectful disagreement. So, their worst: Clever click bait. Our best: Collegial debate.
If you look at the actual articles cited by Newsweek.com, you’ll see that in fact they are written by experts in the mindfulness field, several of whom are committed practitioners — indeed, friends and colleagues of mine. Moreover, some of the points mentioned in those articles are things that I’ve been screaming from my soapbox for years.
…. So once again, it’s all about expansion and contraction. As the mindfulness meme becomes more ubiquitous, there’s going to be irresponsible hype and also irresponsible counter-hype. Hopefully in the end, both forms of irresponsibility will cancel out, leaving a deep and helpful truth in the service of our humanity.
Shinzen Young
www.shinzen.org/about/
-----
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
--from T.S. Eliot’s “Little Gidding”
(In Shinzen Young's excellent position paper, "What is Mindfulness?",
linked to in: www.shinzen.org/mindfulness-hype-counter-hype/)
With T.S Eliot's verse in mind, let us begin our own exploration here on mindfulvets.net:
TOPIC:
Mind the Hype -- Reviews, References and Key Points for Discussion/Consideration:
A Personal Preface -- REACTIONS BEFORE RESPONSES:
So why is this Van Dam collective article such a big deal to me? My initial reaction (that thing that happens before a response, {smile} ) was, "OMG, they're trashing Mindfulness research with a broad brush, even being brutal in language choices at places, tossing out 30 years of research --Throwing out the baby with the bath." (I did ask folks at CFM for a response community.cfmhome.org/t/mind-the-hype-van-dam-et-al-does-cfm-have-a-response/3722 but no answer yet.
Granted, while much of the Van Dam discussion is over my head as far as the Doctoral and post-doc level intricacies of research constructs and process, Random Controlled Testing etc etc, but even as a layman I see many points as well taken. I am curious though what experts in the field -- especially those whose career and research have been labeled so badly -- have to say in response. Thus I introduce this thread here on mindfulvets.net which is home to a good number of Mindfulness clinicians and experts in addition to all the veterans.
But one last thought before we begin; I have another nagging issue: Surely Mindfulness/contemplative neuroscience benefits from this type of critique. But. for me. I sense lurking between the lines of this academic paper is the strong influence/power of the traditional Medical establishment; particularly that powerful segment made up of naysayers who consider Integrative Medicine (Also called, "Complementary & Alternative Medicine") as so much intellectual snake oil, not to be treated with respect, much less a dime of research money.
Traditionalists doctors who in spite of their advance technical training still operate thought-wise with a Newtonian, single-causation mechanistic world view. practicing (and researching) in a 21st Century Quantum Physics interdependent-holistic, Singularity-rising reality; these are often the same ones who can easily get big grant money for research around medications, but mock something like the use of virtual reality games in pain management for severe burn victims (cf. cit.22: J.Marchant, 2017).
But before I venture farther afield into politics, that said, I offer below what I see as key issues raised by the Van Dam paper. I extend a warm invitation for any scientists/physicians/clinicians/practitioners who chance upon this thread to weigh in on points raised and constructs offered -- or anything at all.
(Technical note: I do not have access to the full text of the responses from Davidson and Van Dam, only the abstracts, but researchers with university access etc will be able to get them, hopefully to share them here if possible; also, for brevity, citations below to "Van Dam" are to "Van Dam, et.al")
LET THE DISCUSSION BEGIN….Sitting Around the Kitchen Table:
1. In the beginning…
Let us begin with the paper that started this wheel spinning, visiting the abstract of the original research article written by a group of scientists, led by Nicholas T. Van Dam, Australia (15 co-authors):
---
Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation
First Published October 10, 2017
Article first published online: October 10, 2017
doi.org/10.1177/1745691617727529
Nicholas T. Van Dam1, 2, Marieke K. van Vugt3, David R. Vago4, Laura Schmalzl5, Clifford D. Saron6, Andrew Olendzki7, Ted Meissner8, Sara W. Lazar9, Jolie Gorchov10, Kieran C. R. Fox11, Brent A. Field12, Willoughby B. Britton13, Julie A. Brefczynski-Lewis14, David E. Meyer15
1Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
2Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
3Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Engineering, University of Groningen
4Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
5College of Science and Integrative Health, Southern California University of Health Sciences
6Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis
7Integrated Dharma Institute
8Center for Mindfulness, University of Massachusetts Medical School
9Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School
10Silver School of Social Work, New York University
11Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University
12Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University
13Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University
14Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Medicine, West Virginia University
15Department of Psychology, University of Michigan
Corresponding Author: Nicholas T. Van Dam, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia E-mail: nicholas.vandam@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract
During the past two decades, mindfulness meditation has gone from being a fringe topic of scientific investigation to being an occasional replacement for psychotherapy, tool of corporate well-being, widely implemented educational practice, and “key to building more resilient soldiers.” Yet the mindfulness movement and empirical evidence supporting it have not gone without criticism. Misinformation and poor methodology associated with past studies of mindfulness may lead public consumers to be harmed, misled, and disappointed. Addressing such concerns, the present article discusses the difficulties of defining mindfulness, delineates the proper scope of research into mindfulness practices, and explicates crucial methodological issues for interpreting results from investigations of mindfulness. For doing so, the authors draw on their diverse areas of expertise to review the present state of mindfulness research, comprehensively summarizing what we do and do not know, while providing a prescriptive agenda for contemplative science, with a particular focus on assessment, mindfulness training, possible adverse effects, and intersection with brain imaging. Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation.
2. He-Say-She-Say Stuff: Related responses, other relevant discussions, 2013-2017:
A. Response from Richard Davidson, PhD & CJ Dahl; Davidson has done much of the pioneering brain research on meditators out of his Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin since the Seventies and with the Mind & Life Institute and the Dalai Lama as well. Along with associate CJ Dahl they published a response to Van Dam et. al. dated the same date as the original paper, which I find interesting.
Davidson's abstract is below:
Oct 10, 2017: Davidson, R.J. and C.J. Dahl(PhD's). Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617718358
Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation.
Davidson RJ, Dahl C.J.
Abstract
Van Dam et al. raise a number of critical issues in contemporary research on mindfulness and meditation and offer a prescriptive agenda for future work in this area. While we agree with all of the key points made in their article, there are a number of important issues omitted that are central to a comprehensive agenda for future research in this area. This commentary highlights five key points: (a) Many of the key methodological issues the article raises are not specific to research on mindfulness; (b) contemplative practices are varied, and the landscape of modern scientific research has evolved to focus almost exclusively on one or two types of practice to the exclusion of other forms of practice that are potentially highly impactful.[/font]
B. Van Dam's Response to Richardson's response: Again, the original paper, a response to it, and a counter-response are all dated on the same day. Perhaps someone in academia can explain to me how that works:
Oct 10, 2017: Van Dam, N.T. et al. Reiterated Concerns and Further Challenges for Mindfulness and Meditation Research: A Reply to Davidson and Dahl. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617727529
Abstract
In response to our article, Davidson and Dahl offer commentary and advice regarding additional topics crucial to a comprehensive prescriptive agenda for future research on mindfulness and meditation. Their commentary raises further challenges and provides an important complement to our article. More consideration of these issues is especially welcome because limited space precluded us from addressing all relevant topics. While we agree with many of Davidson and Dahl’s suggestions, the present reply (a) highlights reasons why the concerns we expressed are still especially germane to mindfulness and meditation research (even though those concerns may not be entirely unique) and (b) gives more context to other issues posed by them. We discuss special characteristics of individuals who participate in mindfulness and meditation research and focus on the vulnerability of this field inherent in its relative youthfulness compared to other more mature scientific disciplines. Moreover, our reply highlights the serious consequences of adverse experiences suffered by a significant subset of individuals during mindfulness and other contemplative practices. We also scrutinize common contemporary applications of mindfulness and meditation to illness, and some caveats are introduced regarding mobile technologies for guidance of contemplative practices.
3. Takeways and grist for the mill of discussion:
A. What's the point?
Most of the scholarly discussions above center on the following:
1. Stated need for a scientifically based consensus definition of the term Mindfulness across disciplines.
2. Discussion of methodology, constructs, models, semantics etc and how mindfulness research should formalize and structure itself moving forward, avoiding the excesses of especially the last five years or so.
3. Changes in how researchers communicate with media and the semantics used by journalists being more specific, avoiding the umbrella term, "Mindfulness".
However, between the scholarly lines I remain curious. Here's where my curiosity on "Mind the Hype" has led me:
• Mental Medical Models of Care (Or, "Will they fund me for this wacky stuff?)
Will a symptom-based, treat-the-disease-not-the-whole-patient mental model (traditional Western Medicine) be able to connect and work with -- and given equal or greater funding to -- Complementary and Alternative Medicine(CAM) research? In her 2017 book Jo Marchant, PhD, a British scientist, shared several examples of how CAM grant requests are so often rejected over grants for research which may more easily be funded by pharmaceutical or other corporations who stand to benefit from said research. (See my review of Cure: A Journey into the science of Mind Over Body, Jo Marchant, 2017 at
mindfulvets.net/thread/223/book-review-cure-journey-science )
• States vs. Traits: Prior to the publication of Van Dam's critique two of the pioneers studying contemplative science/meditation for decades, Richard Davidson and Daniel Goleman published Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body, 2017' bit.ly/alttraits-mindfulvets . We're planning to have a full review of this book here, which addressed some of the very things criticized by Van Dam. Goleman and Richardson have been pioneers on the leading edge of this sub-field of neuroscience and its applications across world-views.
• MBSR /Mindfulness is not intended originally as a treatment for disease, with affective disorders and psychiatric diagnoses including depression, PTSD, Anxiety -- all of which are exclusionary. This surprised me -- given the origins of MBSR by Jon Kabat-Zinn-- that this exclusionary criteria for MBSR subjects is now the official position of the Center for Mindfulness (CFM)UMass. So, how does the CFM and other mindfulness researchers respond to the fact that MBSR has indeed worked (anecdotally) with all these 'excluded' groups? I know as I am one of them.
• Some specific quotes(citations omitted) follow from Van Dam, for which we invite commentary from anyone, particularly if they are clinicians and/or researchers in this field:
1. From the abstract (emphasis mine), Van Dam, p1: "Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation."
2. Van Dam, p3: "…At a philosophical level, misunderstandings of the work and its implications could limit the potential utility of a method that proposes unique links between first-person data and third-person observations…"
3. Van Dam, p6: "...we urge scientists, practitioners, instructors, and the public news media to move away from relying on the broad, umbrella rubric of 'mindfulness' and tward more explicit,differentiated denotations of exactly what mental states, processes, and functions are being taught, practiced,and investigated…."
4. Van Dam, p7: "…Reference to the 'replication crisis' in psychological science: Worries over scientific integrity and reproducibility of empirical findings have recently come to the fore of both psychological sciene and wider swaths of other basic and applied sciences, receiving considerable attention in both the scientific literature…."
5. Van Dam, pp11-12: "…The American Psychiatric Association, the US National Institutes of Health and leading researchers in the field have expressed concerns that meditation may be contraindicated under several circumstances. Numerous authors have recommended that schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and risk factors for psychosis are contraindications to participation in an MBI (Mindfulness Based Intervention) that is not specifically tailored to one of these conditions. The rationale for these contraindications is that without sufficient clinical monitoring, an intervention not designed to address these issues could lead to deterioration or worse…."
6. The Issue of Adverse Effects -- The Dark Night (of the Soul) Experience by Meditators:
ref. Van Dam, pp12-14:
Sometimes called, the "Dark Night" (see Shinzen Young's paper "What is Mindfulness?"); Van Dam's paper has an in-depth discussion of Adverse Effects(AE) of meditation on pages 12-14; I'm curious as to what sort of data there is as to how many cases of severe or serious AE are found in the research to date.
Also, Van Dam p.13: about a formal diagnosis for meditation-induced disorders -- ref. DSM 4 & 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), "…The APA also included descriptions of meditation-induced depersonalization and other clinically relevant problems in both the 4th and 5th editions of their DSM(1994,2013)…."
(See interesting discussion of 'Dark Night' effects of meditators in the June 2014 The Atlantic magazine about Willoughby Britton, PhD (2014,Brown University Medical School) www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766/
"The Dark Night Project", Willoughby Britton, Brown U. Med School (June2014)
7. Van Dam,p17, concluding paragraph: "…Only with such diligent multipronged future endeavors may we hope to surmount the prior misunderstandings and past harms caused by pervasive mindfulness hype that has accompanied the contemplative science movement."
References and citations follow the closing request.
CLOSING REQUEST:
It is my hope that there will be some response and discussion here on mindfulvets.net on all this. As of January 2018, mindfulvets.net now has a wide variety of different specialists with expertise in the areas discussed here. I have also invited some experts in neuroscience and mindfulness whom I know to add their take on all this. So we are looking forward to healthy, respectful -- and of course -- mindful dialogues. {smile]
Dana Kenneth Lewis
Site Admin
January 4, 2018
=================
References & Citations:
1. Oct 10, 2017:Van Dam, N.T. et al. Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617709589
2. Oct 10, 2017: Davidson, R.J. and C.J. Dahl. Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617718358
Sept. 2017 ver: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29016238
3. Oct 10, 2017: Van Dam, N.T. et al. Reiterated Concerns and Further Challenges for Mindfulness and Meditation Research: A Reply to Davidson and Dahl. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617727529
4. www.newsweek.com/mindfulness-meaningless-word-shoddy-science-behind-it-682008 Oct 11, 2017
'Mindfulness' Is a Meaningless Word With Shoddy Science Behind It
5. www.shinzen.org/mindfulness-hype-counter-hype/
6.www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/70377/
October 2017 ff, discussion of the newsweek article.
7. news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/10/11/mindfulness-experts-call-for-more-scientific-rigor-less-hype/
Tom Wilermon (Vanderbilt University)
re: David Vago, PhD, Oct 11, 2017 (one of the key authors with Van Dam)
8. What is Mindfulness?Nobody Really Knows and That's a Problem.
theconversation.com/what-is-mindfulness-nobody-really-knows-and-thats-a-problem-83295
Nicholas T. Van Dam (Paper's lead author presents short form of the research paper)
Research Fellow in Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne Nick HaslamProfessor of Psychology, University of Melbourne
9. www.mindfulschools.org/foundational-concepts/response-mind-hype-article/
10. centerhealthyminds.org/join-the-movement/from-states-to-traits-uws-richard-davidson-shares-latest-science-on-what-meditation-can-and-cant-do
11. www.healthspirit.co/is-mindfulness-safe/
12. www.mindfulnessteachersuk.org.uk/
13. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201710/is-mindfulness-being-mindlessly-overhyped-experts-say-yes
14.www.lionsroar.com/studying-mind-from-the-inside/
15. Video: wgbh-2.wistia.com/medias/q0rplhy6zb
(Mindfulness goes mainstream, Fall 2017 video from WGBH Boston (& CFM)
16. Mindful Magazine: www.mindful.org/10-mindfulness-researchers-know/
17. Anna North, June 30, 2014 NYT opinion, The Mindfulness Backlash
op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/the-mindfulness-backlash/
18. www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766/
"The Dark Night Project", Willoughby Britton, Brown U. Med School (June2014)
19. Huffington Post: Multiple articles as Ariana Huffington is a vocal proponent of mindfulness; but this paper is listed from 2013 about 'Beyond McMindfulness', a blog:
www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-purser/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289.html
07/01/2013 blog 'Beyond McMindfulness'
Ron Purser, SanFran U., prof of management
20. 2017 Book: Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body: Daniel Goleman & Richard J. Davidson 2017
See-buy on Amazon.com:
bit.ly/alttraits-mindfulvets
21. "McMindfulness" (undergraduate college paper for religion studies, Diane D'Angelo, student 2013)
www.academia.edu/11565176/McMindfulness
22. Book Review, Cure: A Journey into the science of Mind Over Body, by Jo Marchant, PhD, 2017
mindfulvets.net/thread/223/book-review-cure-journey-science )
Added January 7,2018:
23. December 2017 issue of Mindful Magazine: www.mindful.org/meditators-under-the-microscope/
24. Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective.
Lutz , Jha , Dunne , Saron .
Full Paper(48pp) at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608430/
Am Psychol. 2015 Oct;70(7):632-58. doi: 10.1037/a0039585.
Abstract
There has been a great increase in literature concerned with the effects of a variety of mental training regimes that generally fall within what might be called contemplative practices, and a majority of these studies have focused on mindfulness. Mindfulness meditation practices can be conceptualized as a set of attention-based, regulatory, and self-inquiry training regimes cultivated for various ends, including well being and psychological health. This article examines the construct of mindfulness in psychological research and reviews recent, nonclinical work in this area. Instead of proposing a single definition of mindfulness, we interpret it as a continuum of practices involving states and processes that can be mapped into a multidimensional phenomenological matrix which itself can be expressed in a neurocognitive framework. This phenomenological matrix of mindfulness is presented as a heuristic to guide formulation of next-generation research hypotheses from both cognitive/behavioral and neuroscientific perspectives. In relation to this framework, we review selected findings on mindfulness cultivated through practices in traditional and research settings, and we conclude by identifying significant gaps in the literature and outline new directions for research.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26436313
A Call for Responses
by
Dana Kenneth Lewis
Mindful Veterans Connection
Newark, Delaware
January 4, 2018
--
PREFACE: CONTEXT FOR THIS POST --
Before I launch into this, please allow me to begin with some personal context on how this post came to be….
As a mindfulness practitioner, student and teacher-in-training and as admin of this web site, I'm constantly exploring any discussion or research related to mindfulness, whether in on-line media, academic journals or various publications, venues or videos. As admin for mindfulvets.net my responsibility is to filter out 'McMindfulness' (also known as 'faux mindfulness') material, so I tend towards the 'evidence-based' aspects of mindfulness research, practical information combined with select inspirational references as they pertain to our site's themes and readership.
It is now over five years of my own personal gathering of reference material on the terms 'mindfulness' and 'mindful meditation' (and similar), the last three years done in my role as website administrator for www.mindfulvets.net. So by the fall of 2017 I was fairly comfortable with the blend of spices, herbs and nutrients in my mindfulness theory-practice stew -- that is until I came across the October 11, 2017 Newsweek piece about Mindfulness titled, Mindfulness is a Meaningless Word with Shoddy Science Behind it." , It was as though someone had tossed a bucket of habaneros peppers into my mindfulness cauldron!
What followed for me were two months of digging through the original paper(Van Dam et.al.) and all papers directly responding to it, and then on to many other discussions around intersecting points found in "Mind The Hype". Yes, it was a journey down the Mindfulness rabbit hole for me, I do confess, but I have emerged intact from all that reading only to find this gem on the edge of the rabbit hole as I poked my head out of it, a quote from Shinzen Young, an esteemed teacher and neuroscientist researcher who commented on the Newsweek article:
Shinzen Young Blog,
October 17, 2017: Mindfulness: Hype and Counter-hype
Here’s what I have to say about that. Newsweek.com is a meaningless word with shoddy journalism behind it.
Let me explain. There’s a difference between the culture of journalism and the culture of science. An easy (and unfair) way to highlight that difference is for me to do something that I personally loathe—compare their worst to our best.
The culture of journalism at its worst is about getting people’s attention, even if it means stating things in an unnuanced, distorted, and inflammatory way. The culture of science at its best works for the opposite values: fine-grained analysis based on thorough discussion and respectful disagreement. So, their worst: Clever click bait. Our best: Collegial debate.
If you look at the actual articles cited by Newsweek.com, you’ll see that in fact they are written by experts in the mindfulness field, several of whom are committed practitioners — indeed, friends and colleagues of mine. Moreover, some of the points mentioned in those articles are things that I’ve been screaming from my soapbox for years.
…. So once again, it’s all about expansion and contraction. As the mindfulness meme becomes more ubiquitous, there’s going to be irresponsible hype and also irresponsible counter-hype. Hopefully in the end, both forms of irresponsibility will cancel out, leaving a deep and helpful truth in the service of our humanity.
Shinzen Young
www.shinzen.org/about/
-----
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
--from T.S. Eliot’s “Little Gidding”
(In Shinzen Young's excellent position paper, "What is Mindfulness?",
linked to in: www.shinzen.org/mindfulness-hype-counter-hype/)
With T.S Eliot's verse in mind, let us begin our own exploration here on mindfulvets.net:
TOPIC:
Mind the Hype -- Reviews, References and Key Points for Discussion/Consideration:
A Personal Preface -- REACTIONS BEFORE RESPONSES:
So why is this Van Dam collective article such a big deal to me? My initial reaction (that thing that happens before a response, {smile} ) was, "OMG, they're trashing Mindfulness research with a broad brush, even being brutal in language choices at places, tossing out 30 years of research --Throwing out the baby with the bath." (I did ask folks at CFM for a response community.cfmhome.org/t/mind-the-hype-van-dam-et-al-does-cfm-have-a-response/3722 but no answer yet.
Granted, while much of the Van Dam discussion is over my head as far as the Doctoral and post-doc level intricacies of research constructs and process, Random Controlled Testing etc etc, but even as a layman I see many points as well taken. I am curious though what experts in the field -- especially those whose career and research have been labeled so badly -- have to say in response. Thus I introduce this thread here on mindfulvets.net which is home to a good number of Mindfulness clinicians and experts in addition to all the veterans.
But one last thought before we begin; I have another nagging issue: Surely Mindfulness/contemplative neuroscience benefits from this type of critique. But. for me. I sense lurking between the lines of this academic paper is the strong influence/power of the traditional Medical establishment; particularly that powerful segment made up of naysayers who consider Integrative Medicine (Also called, "Complementary & Alternative Medicine") as so much intellectual snake oil, not to be treated with respect, much less a dime of research money.
Traditionalists doctors who in spite of their advance technical training still operate thought-wise with a Newtonian, single-causation mechanistic world view. practicing (and researching) in a 21st Century Quantum Physics interdependent-holistic, Singularity-rising reality; these are often the same ones who can easily get big grant money for research around medications, but mock something like the use of virtual reality games in pain management for severe burn victims (cf. cit.22: J.Marchant, 2017).
But before I venture farther afield into politics, that said, I offer below what I see as key issues raised by the Van Dam paper. I extend a warm invitation for any scientists/physicians/clinicians/practitioners who chance upon this thread to weigh in on points raised and constructs offered -- or anything at all.
(Technical note: I do not have access to the full text of the responses from Davidson and Van Dam, only the abstracts, but researchers with university access etc will be able to get them, hopefully to share them here if possible; also, for brevity, citations below to "Van Dam" are to "Van Dam, et.al")
LET THE DISCUSSION BEGIN….Sitting Around the Kitchen Table:
1. In the beginning…
Let us begin with the paper that started this wheel spinning, visiting the abstract of the original research article written by a group of scientists, led by Nicholas T. Van Dam, Australia (15 co-authors):
---
Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation
First Published October 10, 2017
Article first published online: October 10, 2017
doi.org/10.1177/1745691617727529
Nicholas T. Van Dam1, 2, Marieke K. van Vugt3, David R. Vago4, Laura Schmalzl5, Clifford D. Saron6, Andrew Olendzki7, Ted Meissner8, Sara W. Lazar9, Jolie Gorchov10, Kieran C. R. Fox11, Brent A. Field12, Willoughby B. Britton13, Julie A. Brefczynski-Lewis14, David E. Meyer15
1Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne
2Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
3Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Engineering, University of Groningen
4Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
5College of Science and Integrative Health, Southern California University of Health Sciences
6Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis
7Integrated Dharma Institute
8Center for Mindfulness, University of Massachusetts Medical School
9Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School
10Silver School of Social Work, New York University
11Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University
12Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University
13Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University
14Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Medicine, West Virginia University
15Department of Psychology, University of Michigan
Corresponding Author: Nicholas T. Van Dam, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia E-mail: nicholas.vandam@unimelb.edu.au
Abstract
During the past two decades, mindfulness meditation has gone from being a fringe topic of scientific investigation to being an occasional replacement for psychotherapy, tool of corporate well-being, widely implemented educational practice, and “key to building more resilient soldiers.” Yet the mindfulness movement and empirical evidence supporting it have not gone without criticism. Misinformation and poor methodology associated with past studies of mindfulness may lead public consumers to be harmed, misled, and disappointed. Addressing such concerns, the present article discusses the difficulties of defining mindfulness, delineates the proper scope of research into mindfulness practices, and explicates crucial methodological issues for interpreting results from investigations of mindfulness. For doing so, the authors draw on their diverse areas of expertise to review the present state of mindfulness research, comprehensively summarizing what we do and do not know, while providing a prescriptive agenda for contemplative science, with a particular focus on assessment, mindfulness training, possible adverse effects, and intersection with brain imaging. Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation.
2. He-Say-She-Say Stuff: Related responses, other relevant discussions, 2013-2017:
A. Response from Richard Davidson, PhD & CJ Dahl; Davidson has done much of the pioneering brain research on meditators out of his Center for Healthy Minds, University of Wisconsin since the Seventies and with the Mind & Life Institute and the Dalai Lama as well. Along with associate CJ Dahl they published a response to Van Dam et. al. dated the same date as the original paper, which I find interesting.
Davidson's abstract is below:
Oct 10, 2017: Davidson, R.J. and C.J. Dahl(PhD's). Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617718358
Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation.
Davidson RJ, Dahl C.J.
Abstract
Van Dam et al. raise a number of critical issues in contemporary research on mindfulness and meditation and offer a prescriptive agenda for future work in this area. While we agree with all of the key points made in their article, there are a number of important issues omitted that are central to a comprehensive agenda for future research in this area. This commentary highlights five key points: (a) Many of the key methodological issues the article raises are not specific to research on mindfulness; (b) contemplative practices are varied, and the landscape of modern scientific research has evolved to focus almost exclusively on one or two types of practice to the exclusion of other forms of practice that are potentially highly impactful.[/font]
B. Van Dam's Response to Richardson's response: Again, the original paper, a response to it, and a counter-response are all dated on the same day. Perhaps someone in academia can explain to me how that works:
Oct 10, 2017: Van Dam, N.T. et al. Reiterated Concerns and Further Challenges for Mindfulness and Meditation Research: A Reply to Davidson and Dahl. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617727529
Abstract
In response to our article, Davidson and Dahl offer commentary and advice regarding additional topics crucial to a comprehensive prescriptive agenda for future research on mindfulness and meditation. Their commentary raises further challenges and provides an important complement to our article. More consideration of these issues is especially welcome because limited space precluded us from addressing all relevant topics. While we agree with many of Davidson and Dahl’s suggestions, the present reply (a) highlights reasons why the concerns we expressed are still especially germane to mindfulness and meditation research (even though those concerns may not be entirely unique) and (b) gives more context to other issues posed by them. We discuss special characteristics of individuals who participate in mindfulness and meditation research and focus on the vulnerability of this field inherent in its relative youthfulness compared to other more mature scientific disciplines. Moreover, our reply highlights the serious consequences of adverse experiences suffered by a significant subset of individuals during mindfulness and other contemplative practices. We also scrutinize common contemporary applications of mindfulness and meditation to illness, and some caveats are introduced regarding mobile technologies for guidance of contemplative practices.
3. Takeways and grist for the mill of discussion:
A. What's the point?
Most of the scholarly discussions above center on the following:
1. Stated need for a scientifically based consensus definition of the term Mindfulness across disciplines.
2. Discussion of methodology, constructs, models, semantics etc and how mindfulness research should formalize and structure itself moving forward, avoiding the excesses of especially the last five years or so.
3. Changes in how researchers communicate with media and the semantics used by journalists being more specific, avoiding the umbrella term, "Mindfulness".
However, between the scholarly lines I remain curious. Here's where my curiosity on "Mind the Hype" has led me:
• Mental Medical Models of Care (Or, "Will they fund me for this wacky stuff?)
Will a symptom-based, treat-the-disease-not-the-whole-patient mental model (traditional Western Medicine) be able to connect and work with -- and given equal or greater funding to -- Complementary and Alternative Medicine(CAM) research? In her 2017 book Jo Marchant, PhD, a British scientist, shared several examples of how CAM grant requests are so often rejected over grants for research which may more easily be funded by pharmaceutical or other corporations who stand to benefit from said research. (See my review of Cure: A Journey into the science of Mind Over Body, Jo Marchant, 2017 at
mindfulvets.net/thread/223/book-review-cure-journey-science )
• States vs. Traits: Prior to the publication of Van Dam's critique two of the pioneers studying contemplative science/meditation for decades, Richard Davidson and Daniel Goleman published Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body, 2017' bit.ly/alttraits-mindfulvets . We're planning to have a full review of this book here, which addressed some of the very things criticized by Van Dam. Goleman and Richardson have been pioneers on the leading edge of this sub-field of neuroscience and its applications across world-views.
• MBSR /Mindfulness is not intended originally as a treatment for disease, with affective disorders and psychiatric diagnoses including depression, PTSD, Anxiety -- all of which are exclusionary. This surprised me -- given the origins of MBSR by Jon Kabat-Zinn-- that this exclusionary criteria for MBSR subjects is now the official position of the Center for Mindfulness (CFM)UMass. So, how does the CFM and other mindfulness researchers respond to the fact that MBSR has indeed worked (anecdotally) with all these 'excluded' groups? I know as I am one of them.
• Some specific quotes(citations omitted) follow from Van Dam, for which we invite commentary from anyone, particularly if they are clinicians and/or researchers in this field:
1. From the abstract (emphasis mine), Van Dam, p1: "Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation."
2. Van Dam, p3: "…At a philosophical level, misunderstandings of the work and its implications could limit the potential utility of a method that proposes unique links between first-person data and third-person observations…"
3. Van Dam, p6: "...we urge scientists, practitioners, instructors, and the public news media to move away from relying on the broad, umbrella rubric of 'mindfulness' and tward more explicit,differentiated denotations of exactly what mental states, processes, and functions are being taught, practiced,and investigated…."
4. Van Dam, p7: "…Reference to the 'replication crisis' in psychological science: Worries over scientific integrity and reproducibility of empirical findings have recently come to the fore of both psychological sciene and wider swaths of other basic and applied sciences, receiving considerable attention in both the scientific literature…."
5. Van Dam, pp11-12: "…The American Psychiatric Association, the US National Institutes of Health and leading researchers in the field have expressed concerns that meditation may be contraindicated under several circumstances. Numerous authors have recommended that schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and risk factors for psychosis are contraindications to participation in an MBI (Mindfulness Based Intervention) that is not specifically tailored to one of these conditions. The rationale for these contraindications is that without sufficient clinical monitoring, an intervention not designed to address these issues could lead to deterioration or worse…."
6. The Issue of Adverse Effects -- The Dark Night (of the Soul) Experience by Meditators:
ref. Van Dam, pp12-14:
Sometimes called, the "Dark Night" (see Shinzen Young's paper "What is Mindfulness?"); Van Dam's paper has an in-depth discussion of Adverse Effects(AE) of meditation on pages 12-14; I'm curious as to what sort of data there is as to how many cases of severe or serious AE are found in the research to date.
Also, Van Dam p.13: about a formal diagnosis for meditation-induced disorders -- ref. DSM 4 & 5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), "…The APA also included descriptions of meditation-induced depersonalization and other clinically relevant problems in both the 4th and 5th editions of their DSM(1994,2013)…."
(See interesting discussion of 'Dark Night' effects of meditators in the June 2014 The Atlantic magazine about Willoughby Britton, PhD (2014,Brown University Medical School) www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766/
"The Dark Night Project", Willoughby Britton, Brown U. Med School (June2014)
7. Van Dam,p17, concluding paragraph: "…Only with such diligent multipronged future endeavors may we hope to surmount the prior misunderstandings and past harms caused by pervasive mindfulness hype that has accompanied the contemplative science movement."
References and citations follow the closing request.
CLOSING REQUEST:
It is my hope that there will be some response and discussion here on mindfulvets.net on all this. As of January 2018, mindfulvets.net now has a wide variety of different specialists with expertise in the areas discussed here. I have also invited some experts in neuroscience and mindfulness whom I know to add their take on all this. So we are looking forward to healthy, respectful -- and of course -- mindful dialogues. {smile]
Dana Kenneth Lewis
Site Admin
January 4, 2018
=================
References & Citations:
1. Oct 10, 2017:Van Dam, N.T. et al. Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617709589
2. Oct 10, 2017: Davidson, R.J. and C.J. Dahl. Outstanding Challenges in Scientific Research on Mindfulness and Meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617718358
Sept. 2017 ver: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29016238
3. Oct 10, 2017: Van Dam, N.T. et al. Reiterated Concerns and Further Challenges for Mindfulness and Meditation Research: A Reply to Davidson and Dahl. Perspectives on Psychological Science. First published date: October-10-2017
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691617727529
4. www.newsweek.com/mindfulness-meaningless-word-shoddy-science-behind-it-682008 Oct 11, 2017
'Mindfulness' Is a Meaningless Word With Shoddy Science Behind It
5. www.shinzen.org/mindfulness-hype-counter-hype/
6.www.samharris.org/forum/viewthread/70377/
October 2017 ff, discussion of the newsweek article.
7. news.vanderbilt.edu/2017/10/11/mindfulness-experts-call-for-more-scientific-rigor-less-hype/
Tom Wilermon (Vanderbilt University)
re: David Vago, PhD, Oct 11, 2017 (one of the key authors with Van Dam)
8. What is Mindfulness?Nobody Really Knows and That's a Problem.
theconversation.com/what-is-mindfulness-nobody-really-knows-and-thats-a-problem-83295
Nicholas T. Van Dam (Paper's lead author presents short form of the research paper)
Research Fellow in Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne Nick HaslamProfessor of Psychology, University of Melbourne
9. www.mindfulschools.org/foundational-concepts/response-mind-hype-article/
10. centerhealthyminds.org/join-the-movement/from-states-to-traits-uws-richard-davidson-shares-latest-science-on-what-meditation-can-and-cant-do
11. www.healthspirit.co/is-mindfulness-safe/
12. www.mindfulnessteachersuk.org.uk/
13. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201710/is-mindfulness-being-mindlessly-overhyped-experts-say-yes
14.www.lionsroar.com/studying-mind-from-the-inside/
15. Video: wgbh-2.wistia.com/medias/q0rplhy6zb
(Mindfulness goes mainstream, Fall 2017 video from WGBH Boston (& CFM)
16. Mindful Magazine: www.mindful.org/10-mindfulness-researchers-know/
17. Anna North, June 30, 2014 NYT opinion, The Mindfulness Backlash
op-talk.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/the-mindfulness-backlash/
18. www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/the-dark-knight-of-the-souls/372766/
"The Dark Night Project", Willoughby Britton, Brown U. Med School (June2014)
19. Huffington Post: Multiple articles as Ariana Huffington is a vocal proponent of mindfulness; but this paper is listed from 2013 about 'Beyond McMindfulness', a blog:
www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-purser/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289.html
07/01/2013 blog 'Beyond McMindfulness'
Ron Purser, SanFran U., prof of management
20. 2017 Book: Altered Traits: Science Reveals How Meditation Changes Your Mind, Brain, and Body: Daniel Goleman & Richard J. Davidson 2017
See-buy on Amazon.com:
bit.ly/alttraits-mindfulvets
21. "McMindfulness" (undergraduate college paper for religion studies, Diane D'Angelo, student 2013)
www.academia.edu/11565176/McMindfulness
22. Book Review, Cure: A Journey into the science of Mind Over Body, by Jo Marchant, PhD, 2017
mindfulvets.net/thread/223/book-review-cure-journey-science )
Added January 7,2018:
23. December 2017 issue of Mindful Magazine: www.mindful.org/meditators-under-the-microscope/
24. Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective.
Lutz , Jha , Dunne , Saron .
Full Paper(48pp) at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608430/
Am Psychol. 2015 Oct;70(7):632-58. doi: 10.1037/a0039585.
Abstract
There has been a great increase in literature concerned with the effects of a variety of mental training regimes that generally fall within what might be called contemplative practices, and a majority of these studies have focused on mindfulness. Mindfulness meditation practices can be conceptualized as a set of attention-based, regulatory, and self-inquiry training regimes cultivated for various ends, including well being and psychological health. This article examines the construct of mindfulness in psychological research and reviews recent, nonclinical work in this area. Instead of proposing a single definition of mindfulness, we interpret it as a continuum of practices involving states and processes that can be mapped into a multidimensional phenomenological matrix which itself can be expressed in a neurocognitive framework. This phenomenological matrix of mindfulness is presented as a heuristic to guide formulation of next-generation research hypotheses from both cognitive/behavioral and neuroscientific perspectives. In relation to this framework, we review selected findings on mindfulness cultivated through practices in traditional and research settings, and we conclude by identifying significant gaps in the literature and outline new directions for research.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26436313