Comments on: Evolutionary trees of traditional medicine plants provide hints for drug-makers

By: Pamela Hughes

Pamela Hughes — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:41:00 +0000

This first sentence is so full of misconception I don’t know where to begin. Who is feeling guilty? Or who is being told they should be guilty? Who is “we”? You are going to “let” them – so you are the medical/ethical police here? What does potentially mean? They have been in use for thousands of years – were you along for that ride to know they may be dangerous? I respect other human beings, not protocols set up to colonize. You don’t seek self-benefits, you seek to develop relationships with other people for relationship’s sake, not for your own benefit. Then you can “mutually” use each other. Many other people could benefit from potentially dangerous medicines????? Have you listened to a pharmaceutical commercial lately?

I don’t know where to start.

By: Nate

Nate — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 03:01:00 +0000

So, because of guilt over historical crimes committed against indigeneous populations, and a desire to avoid further eroding their culture, we should let them continue to use potentially dangerous remedies? If that’s how you feel about the Nagoya Protocol, what do you think would be a respectful way to seek the benefits of traditional remedies? Or is it simply unacceptable to do so, even though many other people could benefit? I guess I am totally missing the point.

By: Gena Fleming

Gena Fleming — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:36:34 +0000

Thank you, Pamela. This is the real issues we should be addressing.

I will add that it is true that some forms of traditional medicine are not optimal approaches. But when you see this it might be helpful to ask yourself…. when was the country/indigenous culture colonized? Then take that date and ask yourself how effective western medicine was at that point in time. When the cultures were colonized, the development of their traditional medicine not only came to a grinding halt, there was also frequently much knowledge lost if these cultures relied on oral transmission of knowledge, which most of them did, within an intact societal system (interrupted by colonialism).

Now western science is trying to colonize the remnants of their traditional knowledge, totally missing the point.

By: Pamela Hughes

Pamela Hughes — Sat, 15 Sep 2012 00:50:02 +0000

What an absolutely prehistoric point of view – you go to a population for its knowledge, but you are going to test their medicines for safety? You are going to them for knowledge, but you are going to be the provider of training and employment. I think they should be training you, however, I don’t think you’re capable of learning.

By: Ed Yong

Ed Yong — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:42:49 +0000

@KN – Here’s what Saslis-Lagoudakis has to say about that:

“The main obstacle in the way of using our approach for bioprospecting is safeguarding the rights of local human populations generating the traditional knowledge used in our work, as well as in other similar studies. However, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing, an international agreement adopted two years ago, provides the framework for the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of these resources. Bioprospecting efforts should focus not only on using traditional knowledge to find new valuable natural products, but also on giving something back to local communities. For example, along with bioscreening medicinal plants used by indigenous communities in order to find new drugs, the safety of all traditionally used plants used by those communities can be tested. This way, not only would the locals find out about the demonstrable medicinal properties in their medicinal floras, but also about how safe it is to use some of the plants they are using. Additionally, bioprospecting schemes can provide capacity building, by providing training and employment to locals at different stages of the scheme. “

By: KN

KN — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:58:14 +0000

Would the “traditional” people who identified the plants get anything from the bioprospecting, or would it be more piracy than prospecting?

By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Torbjörn Larsson, OM — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:21:09 +0000

I have even heard academics refer to “chemicals” to the exclusion of water et cetera.

I note that these researchers seem to only tap human indigenous populations for medical uses. But other animals rely on plants, soils and even animals for uses related to that. Maybe harder to get to that use, but also a potential for new classes of medically active compounds.