Last week UCL was forced to cancel a two-day conference due to be held at its Institute of Neurology after it turned out the event was promoting the dubious use of homeopathy in treating cancer. Dr. Prasanta Banerji was charging attendees an £180 entry fee to discuss his ‘Banerji Protocols’, a set of self-developed meth- ods to treat cancer which have been criti- cised for having no basis in scientific fact.
In his book, available for an added £65 on top of the ticket price, Banerji claims that he and his son treat 300 patients a day and boasts of vague and obscure links to scientists all over the world. Had the event gone ahead, it could even have been considered illegal, as UK law forbids ad- vertising any form of cancer treatment.
UCL is at the forefront of cancer re- search, and Banerji’s conference would have both embarrassed and damaged the reputation of the Institute. Once the event came to the attention of the scien- tific community, College management swiftly cancelled it in an attempt to save face.
While Banerji’s event ended in a close call, the increasing fervour with which others are clamouring to associate them- selves with UCL – along with the amount of money they’re willing to stump up to do so – risks comprimising the univer- sity’s standing and integrity.
Professor David Colquhoun, a Profes- sor of Pharmacology at UCL, tweeted that the booking was made by a junior secretary “unaware of issues”, adding that lessons had been learned. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to host a ho- meopathy conference in the first place is unclear. Maybe it’s just the memory of something in the water.