The Conference on Chiropractic Research is an event that will highlight the importance of incorporating research into your practice. The Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) is presenting the conference, which takes place September 15–16 in Chicago. Among the conference’s events is a presentation titled “Chiropractic Clinical Compass—CCGPP Best Practices Project.” The project by the Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters (CCGPP) has caused a lively debate about evidence-based practices.

The CCGPP documents contain available research about how to best treat patients, and includes a grading of the effectiveness of the various pieces of research. The Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (COCSA) formed CCGPP in 1995 with the assistance of various chiropractic associations. The document’s phased release began this past May with the Low Back draft, which was a culmination of more than 3 years of collaborative work and a review of thousands of scientific articles.

The chiropractic profession, however, is far from unanimous in its support of the document. The World Chiropractic Alliance, the International Chiropractors Association, the Wisconsin Chiropractic Association, and the Michigan Chiropractic Association have come out against the initial Low Back draft. Among their concerns is that the medical profession and the insurance industry participated in the creation of the document, and that the insurance industry might use the document as ammunition to deny chiropractic insurance claims in the future if DCs do not follow the guidelines precisely.

With the lively debate in mind, we decided to give both sides a chance to air their views on our pages. Turn to page 18 of this issue for a pro-and-con discussion of the matter. Our thanks go out to the discussion participants—CCGPP Chair Wayne Whalen, DC, DACAN; and Michigan Chiropractic Association President Sam Caruso, DC, for their valuable insights.

The argument against the CCGPP draft definitely has merit. Many of you became chiropractors because you wanted to practice health care independent of the medical profession and its allegiance to the pharmaceutical companies. I can see why it might offend some of you to have the medical profession involved in the creation of the document.

But I feel that COCSA’s initiative in undertaking this project is so admirable, that the project should be supported. Even though the document might be far from perfect, anything that helps the profession unite is worth the effort. When all of the factions of chiropractic come together, a more positive message goes out to the public. This will help encourage more members of the public to see chiropractic as a necessary part of their preventive care.

The debate is a healthy one, literally, for chiropractic. The passionate arguments show that both sides care deeply about their profession and their patients’ well-being. Whichever side you are on, get involved and actively support either the CCGPP or the groups that oppose the initiative.