 Technology and Science
Documenting Traditional Properties
It is well known the same plant species when grown under different
geographic regions and/or climatic conditions often produce widely
different chemical components, in types as well as in
concentrations. It is also common knowledge in the traditional
practice of Chinese materia medica that “dao di yao cai” (herbs from
indigenous sources) are considered superior in quality to the same
herbs sourced from non-indigenous regions.
In recent studies using techniques developed under an NCCAM SBIR
grant (R44 AT000770) awarded to us for the identification,
characterization and production of reproducible feverfew
preparations for clinical trial, we have found scientific evidence
to support the basis of this traditional knowledge: botanicals
from indigenous regions exhibit slight to significant differences in
physicochemical profiles (FTIR, UV/VIS and HPTLC) from botanicals
sourced from non-indigenous or non-traditional regions. Based
on this age-old traditional practice, now supported by modern
science, botanical materials of an herb from a single source may not
produce the desired effects traditionally known for that herb.
Hence, modern scientific research on traditional herbs and their
manufacture require not only correctly identified and
well-characterized test materials, these materials must also be
representative of what have been traditionally known, used and
documented over the centuries. For this reason, botanical reference
materials based on a single botanical voucher specimen are not
appropriate for use with Chinese herbs, unless one does not intend
to study their traditional properties and indications. Yet the
true value of traditional Chinese herbs lies in their documented
traditional properties and indications; and modern drugs/supplements
(e.g., ephedrine, ginkgo leaf extract, and huperzine A) developed
using Chinese herbs only as raw materials without utilizing their
documented traditional wisdom do not represent these herbs.
|
|
