kirstyevidence

Musings on research, international development and other stuff

Should we use indigenous knowledge… even if its wrong?

1 Comment

Old homeopathic remedies

Old homeopathic remedies (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

(This article was originally posted here http://www.researchtoaction.org/2011/11/should-we-use-indigenous-knowledge-even-if-its-wrong/)

In recent years, there has been a surge of interest in international development circles in protecting and using indigenous knowledge. Countries such as Kenya and Nigeria have set up agencies to systematically evaluate traditional medicines while NGOs, such as Practical Action, evaluate and document indigenous knowledge on a range of topics.

These developments mark a welcome change from approaches that assume that external actors know best. However I do disagree with some international development thinkers who believe that indigenous knowledge is as valid as research based evidence when it comes to deciding what works, and therefore what policies to make.

Indigenous knowledge is the knowledge that has been gained by communities based on their experience and observations, usually over long time periods. The problem with using this to inform policies is that there are many examples of populations which have shared knowledge about what works- which is in fact wrong. Without appropriate scientific testing, this information should not be used to decide policy.

To give an example from my own country, the UK, there is a large population of people who would argue that, based on their experiences and observations, homeopathic remedies work. Unfortunately research evidence tells us unequivocally that this is not true and that in fact there is no evidence that these remedies work better than placebo treatments – although admittedly placebo treatments do work remarkably well!. (Please note, I am referring here to homeopathy which is quite a different thing to herbal treatments.)

Its worth noting that ‘indigenous knowledge’ can be found in a range of different communities. A good example comes from the medical community. For decades, doctors working in emergency settings have treated critically ill children by giving a large initial infusion of saline (salt water). This ‘indigenous knowledge’ had been gained by the population of doctors due to their experiences and observations over long time periods and it was so well established that no one thought to test it. However, recently, to the shock of the medical community, a trial comparing different types of infusion found that the children in the control group, who received no infusion, actually did best.

I am not for one second suggesting that indigenous knowledge should be ignored. For a start, it is a wonderful source of testable hypotheses.  Many commonly used medicines (for example aspirin and quinine) started their lives as ‘traditional remedies’. In addition, it is crucial that we understand what people believe in order to make sensible policy decisions. For example, if many people believe that a vaccine is associated with infertility, policy makers need to respond to that belief even if it is factually incorrect- for example by funding increased education. Incorporating responses to these beliefs also means that we need to be respectful of the beliefs that people may strongly hold.

However, when it comes to figuring out if something ‘works’, indigenous knowledge is not a reliable source of evidence. The whole point of basing policy on research evidence- as opposed to people’s untested beliefs- is that the latter are often wrong.

P.S. I have avoided the questions here of intellectual property rights and indigenous knowledge- it’s a really important issue but I will leave it to someone else to blog about…

About these ads

One thought on “Should we use indigenous knowledge… even if its wrong?

  1. An interesting subtext here is the variation in what people deem to be ‘evidence’ that something works or not; I suspect that is the biggest problem. Us rather tedious and annoying scientists consider cause and effect and have caution in the degree of confidence we claim. Others say “well I did ‘x’ and they got better, so it worked”. When we politely point out that correlation doesn’t necessarily equate to causation, then those people tend to take it as a personal insult.

    Incidentally, I got kicked off an NCT discussion forum for something liked that. They then asked me to come back and write articles for them. I politely declined.

Leave a Reply (go on, you know you want to...)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,757 other followers