Table 1 Comparisons of the features and policy issues of local medicinal plant knowledge: The folk and codified systems of medicine in India
From: Local knowledge in community-based approaches to medicinal plant conservation: lessons from India
| Folk traditions of local medicinal plant knowledge | TSM of local medicinal plant knowledge |
|---|---|
| Originated in communities to meet daily healthcare/survival needs, largely undocumented | Originated by scholars, physicians and seers and documented in manuscripts/Vedic texts(1000–1500 BC), scriptures for human well-being and developed as a classified main branches |
| Transmission multigenerational and by oral means through learning-by doing and through more than 300 formal educational colleges | Transmission is often institutionalized through written texts and hands-on training |
| Mainly empirical, adapted | Sophisticated philosophical and theoretical roots with a scope for refinement |
| No legal status, No budgetary allocation, on the contrary vulnerable to disregard and devaluation | Legal status as 'Indian Systems of Medicine' with five percent of budgetary allocation (health) wider social and official acceptance and recognition |
| Approximate # practitioners are 600,000 birth attendants, 60,000 bone setters, 100,000 herbal healers, 60,000 healers specialized in treating poisonous snake bites and millions of households/women | Approximately 600,000 registered medicinal practitioners, out of which, 10 percent practice medicine on the basis of TSM. |
| Uses more than 7,500 medicinal plants | The four streams of Ayurvedic, Unani, Siddha and Tibetan uses approximately 4,500 medicinal plants |
| POLICY LEVEL ISSUES | |
| Local state and national incentives for systematic documentation and dissemination needed | Available documentation in Sanskrit at scattered places, interpretation and consolidation in a commonly-understood language will facilitate further use/research |
| In-depth understanding of and incentives for (local/state/national/global) incentives can facilitate transmission | Formal institutions for transmission are present but are poorly funded |
| Sustaining interest and apprenticeship of the younger generations is a challenge | Maintaining quality and standards of practitioners is a challenge |
| Scope of learning from TSM and allopathic medicine system is limited due to access, affordability and literacy issues at the community level | Both TSM and allopathic medicine draw heavily on the folk system for herbal remedies or drugs without giving credit or sharing benefits to local communities |
| Benefit sharing mechanisms are developing and difficult to implement at community level | Well-established and implemented benefit sharing mechanism in the form of patent/trademarks and other forms of protection |
| Efficacy, standardization and safety studies using scientific parameters are almost nil due to lack of authentic documentation and neglect by official policies | Efficacy, standardization and safety studies are not encouraged due to high-cost (200,000 US$) and time consuming (8–10 years) scientific validation and language barriers |
| Collaboration by other stakeholders is difficult and confined to documentation/dissemination efforts | Collaboration is generally encouraged if the epistemological and philosophical foundations are matching |