The World Health Organization (WHO), and that is so hard not to turn into joke, is best known since 2020 for their recommendations and investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (and all its various iterations, variations, and names).  Unfortunately, WHO is a specialized organization of the United Nations, a formal international body with no actual legal authority over any of its member countries.  It has an advisory capability only, which means that WHO can research all it wants and come up with solutions to end early childhood malnutrition, write reports, provide statistics, have press conferences and most other things a government body can do.  The only thing it can’t do is compel anyone to listen, take action, or heed their advice in any capacity.  This applies to all UN agencies, and is generally considered to be a failing. That said they are a prestigious institution and considered to be the final authority on the current medical position western medicine takes.  This is usually particularly true in medical research.  Their opinions and conclusions come peer reviewed and backed by evidence. 

Ayurveda will tell you their medical system has been practiced for the past 5,000 years.  If true, that would make them the oldest system of medicine still practiced today.  From the scientific perspective it is only as old as you can prove it is.  Or as old as the oldest surviving text/written material.  For Ayurveda that text is the Charaka Samhita.  It is based on earlier texts, which are referenced but are since lost to time.  Without them we are unable to judge the quality or the content.  The Charaka Samhita is considered to be the first systematically documented text of Ayurvedic Medicine; it is written in a scientific style that Western researchers appreciate.  It is believed to date back to 1,000 BCE.  Meaning, according to WHO, Ayurveda has been an advanced system of medicine for the past 3,000 years.  It is the oldest advanced system of medicine, and the longest continuously practiced, in the world.

In April of 2022, WHO entered into partnership with the government of India to establish the WHO Global Centre for Traditional Medicine (GCTM).  This centre aims to establish professional standards and standard terminology for the various traditional medical systems around the world.  It also aims to provide scientific evidence for the efficacy of traditional medicine.  If you recall, I mentioned before that WHO can’t force anyone to recognize the standards they establish.  That’s still true of this. 

Historically this sort of thing has not gone well.  Once things get written down and dissected they tend to become lost in translation, only the part they can find evidence for is used, treatments loose their “magic” and any other aspect that doesn’t stand up to scientific rigour.  That is generally the qualitative data, or Yin knowledge as we would say at Sister Science.  The scientific method leans heavily to the Yang side.

Ethically this is a potentially tricky situation that spans a lot of contentious current issues: cultural misappropriation/knowledge theft, racism, and even has implications for The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada.  When things start to come under one umbrella and people start using the word standard the medical anthropologist/ethicist roots I come from start tingling.  (Think “spidey-sense” but specific to the teachings of one of my masters thesis supervisors.)  Generally and historically, no good has come from what is considered a primarily “white”/western authority taking over the knowledge, or anything else really, of any indigenous group.  Attempts to make the intangible  tangible usually leave the intangible side thinking something like, I think you’ve missed the point here…

Once proof is found, it is often misappropriated and used for profit, with the original knowledge holders (Ayurveda, the indigenous peoples of everywhere as just the tip of the iceberg) receiving nothing of monetary value and nothing of the credit for discovering it.  It is modern day colonialism/imperialism.

The GCTM is not able to force any standards they develop on anyone and they can’t force anyone to use the research that comes out of their work in their medical practice.  Additionally it’s still too new for us to know what they will ultimately end up doing.  So, this is mostly speculation.  I’m actually inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.  For now.  Not every researcher has a strong background in bioethics.  However since these groups are often exploited we will be keeping an eye on any developments.

808 words

Glossary

Academic Rigour/Rigour

Bioethics

Cultural Misappropriation

Knowledge Theft

Peer Review

Yin/Yang

Further Reading at Sister Science

Demystifying Science Series

   What Counts as Evidence

Cultural Misappropriation/Knowledge Theft

History General Area

Further Reading

WHO official website

GCTM official website

Truth and Reconciliation Commission official website

Charaka Samhita (Wikipedia?)