Policy, the Public, and Priorities in Alternative Medicine Research

Abstract

The political and social dynamics around unconventional or complementary and alternative medical practices has shifted from marginalization to a struggle for control of definitions and priorities. These practices have arisen because of public rather than professional or scientific interest. Conventional medicine has made significant gains in health care for acute disease, translating basic science into diagnostic and therapeutic value, and improving public health. These gains have been accompanied by high costs, depersonalization, and side effects. Complementary medicine has aligned with public preferences for more natural, lower-cost, and more holistic health care practices. Attempts to integrate the concepts and practices of complementary and alternative medicine into biomedicine present significant challenges for determining how language, funding, and standards of evidence are established. The author outlines some of the issues that arise in the struggle to integrate these practices into biomedicine and suggests some criteria for establishing priorities when funding research in complementary and alternative medicine.