Since these threads of late have evolved into debates, I post this here for your consideration and discussion. According to ScienceDaily the National Institutes of Health are funding five research centers in hopes of discovering medicines from plants.
From the above linked article:
Is this a good idea? Will this give us the answers intended or just raise more questions? Or will the health supplement industry continue to make unsubstantiated claims? If so, will this give Congress the will to enact oversights on the industry?
Will this make people any less stupid about what they believe? Well, I’ll answer that one. No.
Is this a good idea? Well, yes, it’s a good idea to have university studies under the auspices of a cohesive NIH coordinated program, rather than studies funded by companies that market herbal/dietary substances.
Phytochemicals are , simply, the components of plants. Why is the scientific analysis of those compounds in any way offensive? It’s been done by pharmaceutical companies for a good long time, usually to isolate an active component, synthesize it, and put it on the drug market. Digitalis, vincristine, the list goes on.
The one researcher mentioned that I recognise is Dr Norman Farnsworth, an esteemed pharmocognosist. If he’s participating, I’d say it’s fine science.
Hopefully, these studies will further our knowledge of the immense complexity of plant chemistry, without the pressure of recouping expenses to patent a compound. I fail to see the downside of this.
From the same abovementioned article:
“In 1999, NIH developed a botanical research center initiative with major research institutions across the nation,” said Paul Coates, Ph.D., Director of ODS. “These five centers will continue to fulfill the goal of this initiative to foster interdisciplinary collaborative research, in order to identify potential health benefits and to develop a systematic evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of botanicals, particularly those available as dietary supplements.”
Scientific inquiry, apart from commercial interests. What’s the problem???
This thread is partly in response to some other threads posted lately dealing with “Phytochemicals”, particularly Phytochemicals in produce seem to be ignored by the experts. This thread was intended to make the point that science is not ignoring the potentially beneficial chemicals found in plants as another poster had suggested. Since the discussions lately have turned into debates, I thought I would post to GD preemptively.
Reading your post, I can see how this thread would seem somewhat silly out of context.
If none of the participants in those former threads care to take up the discussion here, then I am content to let the thread die a peaceful death.
The enormous influence of natural products in the development of organic chemistry and the pharmaceutical industry really seems to be some sort of secret that has not being revealed to Joe Public. I’ve seen estimates of the number of drugs on the market being derived from natural products put as high as 80% (thats taking into account those drugs that are based on a natural product pharmacophore). Scientists need to do a better job at communicating the fundamental role that the molecules of nature have played, and continue to play, in the design of drugs to fight disease. Centres such as the one cited by the OP may play a powerful role here.
One possible problem in communicating the role of natural products in medicines lies in the source of many of these compounds. They often come from bacteria in soil samples or moulds, or fungi. There’s a big difference in perception of, say, digitalis from the beautiful foxglove flower, used since ancient times as a heart medication; and our new antibiotic that we found growing in a heap of shite by an industrial effluent pipe.