CLINICAL RESEARCH:

One illustration of the way the biomedical paradigm re-defines and re-shapes the field of medical knowledge is its reliance upon clinical research. Basically, the power dynamic which arises is one where Siddha medicine must be measured by conventional biomedical standards to have worth. Verification and valuation comes after randomized, controlled, double-blind studies, a clear and almost palpable example of domination and authority. This is a perfect example of Said’s argument, for it shows that orientalism as a style of thought is connected to the West (science) having authority over and re-structuring the East (Siddha medicine). Most recently, scientific researchers in India, Europe, and the USA are studying the benefits of Siddha medicine for treatment of various chronic, life-threatening illness including cancer and AIDS.

Methodologically this movement is worth a second look, for the basic ontological framework of Siddha medicine is vastly difference than that of Western biomedical science. While it might be informative and even effective to study Siddha medicine in clinical studies, they will always miss the mark in some sense. For the very measure of what is health, what constitutes the human body, and the processes and mechanisms which govern those relationships are immensely different in these two systems.

Nevertheless, clinical researchers such as Sowmyalakshmi and Ranga et. al. have researched the efficacy of Siddha medicines for prostate and breast cancer treatment, with some success. Dr. Henry Sacks was awarded a grant from the NIH (NCCAM division) to research potential treatments in Siddha medicine for slowing the progress of HIV/AIDS, and this project was completed early last year. These examples show that it is possible to study Siddha medicine from a biomedical perspective, but these studies must be understood as limited and potentially misleading.

From a post-colonial research methodological perspective, studying Siddha medicine from a biomedical system approach is further perpetuating the power dynamic between colonizer and colonized. One way to replace or transform the biomedical research of Siddha medicine is to localize and personalize the research methodology. Narrative research methodology and other anthropologically-oriented approaches are considered to be more appropriate for determining the “effectiveness” of Siddha medicine.

Above all, biomedical research should not be the final word on Siddha medicine, but must be tempered with a keen observation of the manner in which Siddha medicine is practiced. A thorough and lengthy discussion must take place between the practitioners themselves and biomedical researchers so that the methodological constructs are appropriate for the subject matter. This is not to say that Siddha medicine should not be studied clinically, but rather that this process of research must be carefully monitored in such a way that it is not taken as the final word on the usefulness of Siddha medicine.