How scientific is the science in ethnopharmacology? Historical perspectives and epistemological problems.
This commentary is based on a general concern regarding the low level of self-criticism (-evaluation) in the interpretation of molecular pharmacological data published in ethnopharmacology-related journals. Reports on potentially new lead structures or pharmacological effects of medicinal plant extracts are mushrooming. At the same time, nonsense in bioassays is an increasing phenomenon in herbal medicine research. Only because a dataset is reproducible does not imply that it is meaningful. Currently, there are thousands of claims of pharmacological effects of medicinal plants and natural products. It is argued that claims to knowledge in ethnopharmacology, as in the exact sciences, should be rationally criticized if they have empirical content as it is the case with biochemical and pharmacological analyses. Here the major problem is the misemployment of the concentration-effect paradigm and the overinterpretation of data obtained in vitro. Given the almost exponential increase of scientific papers published it may be the moment to adapt to a falsificationist methodology.
Gertsch
Jürg
J
Department of Chemistry and Applied Biosciences, ETH Zürich, Wolfgang-Pauli-Str. 10, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland. juerg.gertsch@pharma.ethz.ch
D035843:Biomedical Research; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D055808:Drug Discovery / Q000266:history; D020834:Ethnopharmacology / Q000266:history / Q000592:standards*; D029001:Herbal Medicine / Q000266:history / Q000592:standards; D049669:History, 16th Century; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D006801:Humans; D008517:Phytotherapy; D010936:Plant Extracts / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D010946:Plants, Medicinal
D010936:Plant Extracts