Commission on Pseudoscience
A Russian Academy of Sciences commission that promotes scientific literacy and challenges pseudoscientific claims.
Last updated October 14, 2026
AI crawler reads
4requests
1companies- Anthropic4
- Profile
- 2
- Controversies
- 2
- JSON · MD
- 0
- First read
- Nov 4, 2026
- Latest read
- Nov 4, 2026
From this site's server log
Overview
The Commission on Pseudoscience is a scientific body associated with the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) whose purpose is to defend evidence-based science and challenge claims presented as scientific without adequate empirical support. Its origins lie in the expansion of pseudoscientific ideas in Russia during the 1990s, when claims involving occult practices, paranormal phenomena, unsupported medical treatments, perpetual-motion concepts, torsion fields, astrology and other alleged breakthroughs appeared in mainstream media and sometimes attracted interest from political and state institutions. Physicist and Nobel Prize winner Vitaly Ginzburg proposed the creation of a dedicated RAS commission in 1998. The formal Commission on Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research was established by a Presidium decree in March 1999, with physicist Eduard Kruglyakov as its first chairman. The commission did not receive a substantial independent budget or strong enforcement powers. Its principal resource was institutional authority: it could publish assessments, issue public criticism in the name of the scientific community, advise government bodies and warn against the allocation of public money to unsupported projects. During its early period, the commission addressed a broad range of claims and controversies. It criticized astrology, ufology, forms of alternative medicine and the introduction of religious doctrine into state education, while also examining alleged technologies that appeared to contradict established physical laws. Its most prominent public confrontation concerned Viktor Petrik's proposed water-treatment filters, which received political backing and were considered for large-scale public deployment. Commission members helped organize scientific scrutiny of the filters; subsequent assessments questioned their safety and efficacy, and the proposed expansion of the program was abandoned. Petrik's legal claim against the RAS and commission participants was rejected. The commission also challenged an alleged reactionless space drive tested on the Yubileiny satellite in 2008. The device produced no meaningful result, and the episode became a prominent example of the commission's opposition to projects that it regarded as incompatible with basic physical principles. It later criticized renewed claims surrounding a so-called quantum engine associated with Russian space-sector figures and institutions. From 2006, the commission supported the twice-yearly bulletin In Defence of Science, which provided essays and expert commentary on pseudoscientific theories and the misuse of scientific language. From 2014, related publications were also made available through the commission's website. The organization later experimented with memorandum-style interventions aimed at public policy and consumer protection. A 2016 memorandum challenged commercial dermatoglyphics services that claimed fingerprints or palm patterns could reliably determine personality or educational aptitude. A 2017 memorandum on homeopathy argued that its principles lacked a credible scientific basis and recommended stronger labeling, advertising controls and restrictions on its use in state healthcare. These interventions generated opposition from homeopathic practitioners, businesses and some RAS figures, but also contributed to public debate about evidence standards. In 2018, the RAS Presidium divided the former combined commission into two independent bodies. The commission focused on pseudoscience continued as a separate organization, while another body addressed the falsification of scientific research. The present commission is therefore best understood not as a commercial brand or product company, but as an institutional scientific-education and public-policy organization. Its activities center on expert criticism, public communication, memoranda, publications and attempts to prevent pseudoscientific projects from receiving official legitimacy or state funding.
History
The commission emerged from a Russian scientific and public debate about the rapid spread of unsupported theories during the 1990s. Claims involving psychic abilities, occult protection, energy from unconventional materials, torsion fields and paranormal phenomena appeared in widely read media and occasionally reached senior political circles. Scientists worried not only about public deception but also about the possibility that state funds could be directed toward projects that had not passed credible scientific review. In 1998, physicist Vitaly Ginzburg proposed to Yuri Osipov, then president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, that the academy create a body devoted to pseudoscience. Ginzburg used the term for constructions or hypotheses that contradicted well-established scientific facts. The Presidium formally established the Commission on Pseudoscience and Falsification of Scientific Research in March 1999. Its founding membership consisted of 12 people, and Eduard Kruglyakov became chairman. A larger 41-member composition was approved in 2005, followed by another composition in 2013. The commission had limited formal power. It lacked a substantial dedicated budget and could not directly prohibit commercial activity or compel ministries to follow its conclusions. Its influence came through public statements, expert reviews, publications and the prestige of the RAS. It sought to distinguish legitimate scientific disagreement from claims that ignored basic evidence, and it frequently focused on proposals seeking government endorsement or public funding. One of its best-known campaigns concerned Viktor Petrik's water filters. The devices were promoted in connection with a political clean-water initiative and were claimed to remove an exceptionally broad range of contaminants, including radioactive materials. After public controversy and conflicting statements from members of the scientific establishment, the RAS organized expert examination. Commission representatives argued that the technology was unsupported and potentially unsafe. The proposed large-scale deployment was removed from the relevant program, and Petrik's later compensation claim against the RAS and commission participants was dismissed. The commission also challenged alleged reactionless propulsion systems. In 2008, a device associated with the Yubileiny satellite was tested in orbit, despite principles that appeared inconsistent with conservation laws and established mechanics. The experiment produced no useful effect and became a widely cited example of an unsupported technological claim. In 2019, the commission again criticized claims of unconventional propulsion, this time involving a proposed quantum engine connected with figures in the Russian space sector. Its communications work expanded through the bulletin In Defence of Science, published twice yearly from 2006. The bulletin collected scientific explanations and critiques of misleading theories. Since 2014, commission-related publications have also been distributed through its website. The organization later used focused memoranda to address issues with direct public or policy consequences. The 2016 dermatoglyphics memorandum opposed commercial testing that purported to predict personality, abilities or educational suitability from skin patterns. Commission members stated that the intervention helped prevent such testing from becoming part of admissions to state educational institutions. The 2017 memorandum Homeopathy as Pseudoscience was more contentious. It argued that ultra-dilute remedies lacked reliable evidence of effectiveness and that homeopathy's core principles conflicted with chemistry, physics and biology. The memorandum recommended that health authorities reconsider homeopathy in state clinics, that consumers receive clearer information about its unproven efficacy, and that regulators address potentially misleading advertising. Homeopathic businesses, professional bodies and some RAS members disputed the recommendations. The controversy also included employment, institutional and legal disputes involving memorandum contributors and opponents. The Ministry of Health did not implement the commission's recommendations and subsequently simplified some registration rules for homeopathic products. The commission has also criticized the incorporation of religious instruction into state education and the recognition of theology as an academic specialty. In 2007, several prominent academicians signed an open letter to President Vladimir Putin warning about increasing religious influence in public life and education. The concerns did not prevent the later introduction of a school course covering religious cultures and secular ethics or the approval of theology as a Higher Attestation Commission specialty. Another case involved Sergei Konovalov, a medical researcher accused by Academician Yevgeny Alexandrov of holding mass healing sessions with occult elements. The commission sought institutional action, but investigations reportedly found no legal violation, and the relevant medical institution did not dismiss him. This episode illustrated the commission's limited ability to intervene when conduct was controversial but not clearly unlawful. In 2018, the RAS Presidium divided the former combined commission into two independent bodies. One retained responsibility for combating pseudoscience, while the other focused on falsification of scientific research. The commission therefore continued as a specialized RAS-linked platform for scientific criticism, public education and policy advocacy rather than as a commercial enterprise.
- 2019
Quantum-engine claims criticized
[1]The commission publicly challenged an alleged quantum engine associated with Russian space-sector institutions and experts.
- 2018
Former combined commission divided
[1]The RAS created separate commissions for pseudoscience and for falsification of scientific research.
- 2017
Homeopathy memorandum issued
[1]The commission published a memorandum describing homeopathy as scientifically unsupported and proposing policy and consumer-protection responses.
- 2016
Dermatoglyphics memorandum issued
[1]The commission warned against commercial claims that palm and foot patterns could predict personality or aptitude.
- 2014
Online publication expands
[1]Materials addressing pseudoscience began appearing on the commission's website.
- 2012
Alexandrov succeeds Kruglyakov
[1]After Eduard Kruglyakov's death, physicist Yevgeny Alexandrov became chairman.
- 2010
Petrik filter project rejected
[1]Scientific scrutiny of Viktor Petrik's water filters contributed to the removal of the proposed mass deployment from the Clean Water program.
- 2008
Reactionless-drive experiment produces no useful result
[1]A claimed reactionless propulsion device tested with the Yubileiny satellite failed to demonstrate the proposed effect.
- 2006
In Defence of Science begins publication
[1]The commission began issuing a twice-yearly bulletin devoted to explaining scientific issues and criticizing pseudoscientific claims.
- 2005
Membership expanded
[1]The RAS approved an expanded commission composition of 41 members.
Products and positioning
An official scientific-community platform for evidence-based criticism of pseudoscience, scientific misinformation and the misuse of public resources.
Scientific bulletin · 2006
In Defence of Science
A twice-yearly publication launched in 2006 that presents scientific explanations, expert commentary and critiques of pseudoscientific theories. It functions as the commission's principal recurring publication and is aimed at scientists, educators, policymakers and general readers.
Public-policy and educational documents · 2016
Memoranda on pseudoscientific practices
Focused documents in which the commission summarizes the scientific evidence surrounding a contested practice and offers recommendations to public authorities, institutions, professionals and consumers. Notable examples addressed dermatoglyphics and homeopathy.
Scientific review and public communication · 1999
Expert assessments
Public critiques and evaluations of claims involving alternative medicine, paranormal theories, unsupported technologies and projects seeking state recognition or funding. These assessments rely on established scientific principles and the commission's institutional affiliation with the RAS.
Controversies
2017
Conflict over the homeopathy memorandum
The commission's anti-homeopathy memorandum triggered complaints and lawsuits from homeopathic interests and exposed disagreement within scientific and medical institutions. Critics challenged the document's sponsors and policy recommendations, while the commission defended its evidence-based position.
2013
Dispute over Sergei Konovalov's healing sessions
Commission representatives criticized alleged mass healing sessions conducted by a medical researcher and described them as involving occult elements. Investigators found no legal violation, and the relevant institution did not end the researcher's employment.
2010
Petrikgate water-filter dispute
The commission became central to a political and scientific dispute over Viktor Petrik's proposed water filters. Supporters presented the devices as a major technological breakthrough, while RAS experts questioned their performance and safety. The controversy ended with the filters excluded from the planned federal rollout and a related damages claim rejected by a court.
Marketing campaigns
- 2017Homeopathy as Pseudoscience
Russia
The commission argued that homeopathy lacked reliable evidence of therapeutic effectiveness and that its basic principles conflicted with established chemistry, physics and biology.
Outcome. The recommendations were not adopted by the Ministry of Health, and the memorandum prompted opposition from homeopathic organizations, clinics, businesses and some scientists.
- 2016Dermatoglyphics memorandum
Russia
The commission challenged commercial services that claimed fingerprint, palm or foot patterns could reveal personality traits, abilities or educational predispositions.
Outcome. Commission representatives stated that the memorandum and subsequent public advocacy helped prevent the practice from being used for selection into state educational institutions.
- 2010Petrik water-filter campaign
Russia
The commission opposed the proposed public rollout of Viktor Petrik's water filters, which had received political support and were promoted as capable of removing exceptionally broad categories of contamination. RAS experts examined the technology and raised serious concerns about its scientific validity and safety.
Outcome. The planned large-scale installation was excluded from the Clean Water program, and Petrik's compensation lawsuit against the RAS and commission participants was dismissed.
Brand decisions
2018
Separate pseudoscience work from research-falsification oversightStrategyBackground
The former combined RAS commission covered both pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research, two areas requiring different forms of public communication and professional oversight.
Action taken
The RAS Presidium approved two independent commissions, with one retaining the pseudoscience mandate.
Aftermath
The Commission on Pseudoscience continued as a distinct RAS-linked body.
2017
Recommend restrictions and clearer labeling for homeopathyStrategyBackground
The commission concluded that homeopathic remedies lacked reliable evidence of efficacy and that their underlying principles were inconsistent with established scientific knowledge.
Action taken
It recommended that health authorities reconsider homeopathy in state clinics, regulators address misleading advertising, and pharmacies and pharmacists distinguish homeopathic products from evidence-based medicines.
Aftermath
The Ministry of Health did not implement the recommendations and later simplified some registration requirements for homeopathic remedies.
- National Council for Homeopathy — The organization objected to the memorandum and challenged the circumstances of its preparation.
- Homeopathic clinics and businesses — Several interests opposed the commission's conclusions and pursued legal or administrative complaints.
Sources2 sources
Cite this profile: Cite the canonical profile. /brand-wiki/commission-on-pseudoscience · Editorial policy · How profiles are compiled