Ethnopharmacology

Michael Heinrich, Anna K. Jäger, Michael Heinrich, Anna K. Jäger

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781118930748
• eBook ISBN: 9781118930724
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Pharmacology

Ethnopharmacology is one of the world's fastest-growing scientific disciplines encompassing a diverse range of subjects. It links natural sciences research on medicinal, aromatic and toxic plants with socio-cultural studies and has often been associated with the development of new drugs. The Editors of Ethnopharmacology have assembled an international team of renowned contributors to provide a critical synthesis of the substantial body of new knowledge and evidence on the subject that has emerged over the past decade.

Divided into three parts, the book begins with an overview of the subject including a brief history, ethnopharmacological methods, the role of intellectual property protection, key analytical approaches,  the role of ethnopharmacology in primary/secondary education and links to biodiversity and ecological research. Part two looks at ethnopharmacological contributions to modern therapeutics across a range of conditions including CNS disorders, cancer, bone and joint health and parasitic diseases. The final part is devoted to regional perspectives covering all continents, providing a state-of-the –art assessment of the status of ethnopharmacological research globally.

• A comprehensive, critical synthesis of the latest developments in ethnopharmacology.
• Includes a section devoted to ethnopharmacological contributions to modern therapeutics across a range of conditions.  
• Contributions are from leading international experts in the field. 

This timely book will prove invaluable for researchers and students across a range of subjects including ethnopharmacology, ethnobotany, medicinal plant research and natural products research.

Ethnopharmacology- A Reader is part of the ULLA Series in Pharmaceutical Sciences www.ullapharmsci.org

Part

Ethnopharmacology: The Fundamental Challenges

Chapter 1
Ethnopharmacology: A Short History of a Multidisciplinary Field of Research

Michael Heinrich

Centre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy, UCL School of Pharmacy, University of London, London

1.1 Introduction

Ethnopharmacology is an interdisciplinary field of research and as such it is defined by it concepts (its frame of reference) derived from a range of disciplines and the methodologies used. There can be no doubt that it is a fast-developing and thriving discipline. Confusingly, a large number of terms are used to describe research, which often uses relatively similar methods and concepts. However, each of these is distinguished by being placed in a certain tradition of research. Such terms include

• pharmacognosy, first used in 1811 by Johann Adam Schmidt and used very widely to describe the field of medicinal plant and natural product research
• phytotherapy research, derived from the French concept ‘phytotherapie’ introduced by Henri Leclerq in 1913 and used in various editions of his Précis de Phytothérapie
• phytomedicine, a term introduced much more recently and less well established internationally.

In addition there is a wide range of more descriptive terms, including medicinal plant research or natural product research, and there exists a considerable overlap between these and related terms. Phytotherapy research, for example, focuses on plant-based forms of treatment within a science-based medical practice and thus distinguishes what has also been called ‘rational phytotherapy’ from other more traditional approaches like medical herbalism, which relies on an empirical appreciation of ‘medicinal herbs’. Phytotherapy research is best described as a science embedded in the medical (and pharmaceutical) field (Heinrich, 2013). Contrary to this, at least in a part of the scholarly output, ethnopharmacology incorporates sociocultural concepts and methods.

In the broadest sense ethnopharmacology is based on approaches from the sociocultural sciences and the natural sciences/medicine. As such any historical overview will have to be based on the development of this scientific approach. However, written accounts of using herbal medicines and of the wider medical practice are of course available from many cultures (cf. Leonti, 2011). Importantly, this definition excludes the daily medical practice and the practitioners' observations associated with it. Such descriptions of medicines, as well as reflections about their usefulness, are very much part of traditions like Ayurveda, Kampo, Unnani, Arabic medicine, TCM, Aztec medicine, European herbalism or any other regionally or culturally defined medical practice. Clearly many of these original descriptions do not survive, and as a consequence today we often only have a few pieces of what was a much larger puzzle.

Compared to medical practice (be it in the context of its usage within biomedicine or one of the regional traditions as exemplified above), in ethnopharmacology there is an added focus on an empirical scientific (e.g. pharmacological, phytochemical, toxicological) evaluation of such therapeutic uses. In very general terms any form of empirical use and ‘medical testing’ of a plant for novel uses may be considered an ethnopharmacological approach. The physician William Withering (1741–1799) systematically explored the medical properties of foxglove (Digitalis purpurea L., Scrophulariaceae), which reportedly was used by an English housewife to treat dropsy. He used the orally transmitted knowledge of British herbalism to develop a medicine used by medical doctors. Prior to such studies, herbalism was more of a clinical practice interested in the patient's welfare and less of a systematic study of the virtues and chemical properties of medicinal plants.

Juerg Gertsch (2009) provided a short and concise definition: ethnopharmacology uses an approach where ‘anecdotal efficacy of medicinal plants is put to test in the laboratory. The ethnopharmacologist tries to understand the pharmacological basis of culturally important plants.’ Similarly, Daniel Moerman (University of Michigan, Dearborn) argued: ‘Essentially ethnopharmacology is the examination of non-Western (not mine) medicinal plant use in terms of Western (my) plant use.’ (Moerman, pers. comm.). Both definitions imply that ethnopharmacology has been a clearly defined field of research certainly since the quest of the ‘unknown other’ through Europeans and their descendants started with the explorations of missionaries, conquerors and explorers. Particularly in the 19th century, many researchers were involved in colonial explorations. This period is considered by Gertsch (2009) to be the golden age of ethnopharmacology. Without doubt these travellers in the broadest sense tried to grasp the essence of what ‘other’ people use and how it can be transformed into a useful commodity.

Ethnopharmacology investigates the pharmacological and toxicological activities of any preparation used by humans that has – in the very broadest sense – some beneficial or toxic or other direct pharmacological effects. This field of research is therefore not an exclusively descriptive field of research (i.e. describing local or traditional uses or medical practices), but about the combined anthropological (in a broad sense) and pharmacological–toxicological study of these preparations. Today, studies describing the use of medicinal and other useful plants are included within ethnopharmacological research, but these are generally conducted with the goal that they lead to an experimental study of some of these botanical drugs (cf. Heinrich et al., 2009). At the same time ethnopharmacology is not focused on the description of medical effects in the content of a treatment (or medical case histories), but here again incorporates bioscientific research. The definition used here is therefore somewhat more focused and highlights the integration of experimental research on the effects of a local or traditional medicine with sociocultural approaches.

A classic example of ethnopharmacological research that has led to new medicines is the ‘discovery’ of curare. The study of the botanical origin of the arrow poison curare, its physiological (as well as toxic) effects and the compound responsible for these provides a fascinating example of an early ethnopharmacological approach. Curare was used by ‘certain wild tribes in South America for poisoning their arrows’ (von Humboldt, 1997). Many other explorers documented this usage and the poison fascinated both researchers and the wider public. Particularly well known are the detailed descriptions of the process used by Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) in 1800 to prepare poisoned arrows in Venezuela. There, von Humboldt met a group of indigenous people who were celebrating their return from an expedition to obtain the raw material for making the poison. Von Humboldt describes the ‘chemical laboratory’ used:

‘He [an old Indian] was the chemist of the community. With him we saw large cooking pots (Siedekessel) made out of clay, to be used for boiling the plant sap; plainer containers, which speed up the evaporation process because of their large surface; banana leaves, rolled to form a cone-shaped bag [and] used to filter the liquid which may contain varying amounts of fibres. This hut transformed into a laboratory was very tidy and clean.’

(von Humboldt, 1997, p. 88)

And he too faced one of the classical problems of ethnopharmacology:

‘We are unable to make a botanical identification because this tree [which produces the raw material for the production of curare] only grows at quite some distance from Esmeralda and because [it] did not have flowers and fruit. I had mentioned this type of misfortune previously, that the most noteworthy plants cannot be examined by the traveler, while others whose chemical activities are not known [i.e. which are not used locally] are found covered with thousands of flowers and fruit.’

In a later step Chondrodendron tomentosum Ruiz et Pavon was identified as being the botanical source of tube curare (named because of the Graminaeous tubes used as storage containers). Other species of the Menispermaceae (Chondrodendron spp., Curarea spp. and Abuta spp.) and species of the Loganiaceae (Strychnos spp.) have also been used in the production of curares.

However, this did not provide any understanding of the pharmacological effects of this poison. The French physiologist Claude Bernard (1813–1878) is recognize...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Contributors
• Series Foreword
• Preface
• Abbreviations
• Part I : Ethnopharmacology: The Fundamental Challenges
• Part II: The Pharmacological Angle
• Part III: Ethnopharmacology: Regional Perspectives
• Index
• End User License Agreement