What I found on checking the footnotes in the article is that there is a persistent exaggeration or misrepresentation involved. For example, I pointed out in my own dissection is that there's a claim made further in that pharmaceutical curricula are being changed to incorporate indigenous remedies and folk medicines in the place of existing biomedical research into pharmaceuticals, but when you look at the citation, it's a profile of a relative handful of Black South African researchers who advocate for more research into indigenous medicines and more attention to indigenous medicines in teaching in order to inspire more Black South Africans to pursue pharmaceutical and pharmacological training. So this is one country; it's a small subset of existing researchers; it's advocacy; South African curricula in these topics at the country's main universities remains basically unchanged, with a bit of attention around the edges to indigenous healing practices. Moreover, the fynbos biota of the Western Cape is widely recognized not only as a unique, under-researched ecology but has already provided at least one plant-based remedy whose modest value has been confirmed by clinical trials (topical applications of aloe). By the authors' own description of scientific research, they ought to welcome research into those indigenous remedies--that's the whole point of pluralism, right? They argue for merit, not some kind of efficiency function that requires all researchers everywhere to be working on a single, solitary approach that is thought to provide the best outcomes. So it's odd enough that they find this *one* profile that threatening--and don't spend any time at all actually evaluating the current state of pharmaceutical and pharmacological practice and instruction in South Africa. But they imply in the body of the article that they're talking about a general shift in scientific practice--or an American one. Which means they're either incredibly sloppy citationally or they're intentionally trying to deceive.
Thank you for your carefully crafted insights outlining the limits and ideologically driven article and op Ed. Your discussion of the research submission process and double blind review process. Your discussion brilliantly highlights the limits of this attack on the process that produces credible research.
What I found on checking the footnotes in the article is that there is a persistent exaggeration or misrepresentation involved. For example, I pointed out in my own dissection is that there's a claim made further in that pharmaceutical curricula are being changed to incorporate indigenous remedies and folk medicines in the place of existing biomedical research into pharmaceuticals, but when you look at the citation, it's a profile of a relative handful of Black South African researchers who advocate for more research into indigenous medicines and more attention to indigenous medicines in teaching in order to inspire more Black South Africans to pursue pharmaceutical and pharmacological training. So this is one country; it's a small subset of existing researchers; it's advocacy; South African curricula in these topics at the country's main universities remains basically unchanged, with a bit of attention around the edges to indigenous healing practices. Moreover, the fynbos biota of the Western Cape is widely recognized not only as a unique, under-researched ecology but has already provided at least one plant-based remedy whose modest value has been confirmed by clinical trials (topical applications of aloe). By the authors' own description of scientific research, they ought to welcome research into those indigenous remedies--that's the whole point of pluralism, right? They argue for merit, not some kind of efficiency function that requires all researchers everywhere to be working on a single, solitary approach that is thought to provide the best outcomes. So it's odd enough that they find this *one* profile that threatening--and don't spend any time at all actually evaluating the current state of pharmaceutical and pharmacological practice and instruction in South Africa. But they imply in the body of the article that they're talking about a general shift in scientific practice--or an American one. Which means they're either incredibly sloppy citationally or they're intentionally trying to deceive.
Thank you for your carefully crafted insights outlining the limits and ideologically driven article and op Ed. Your discussion of the research submission process and double blind review process. Your discussion brilliantly highlights the limits of this attack on the process that produces credible research.