Alternative views

Abstract

Few individuals have given us better insight into medical history than globetrotting philanthropist Henry Wellcome. London's Science Museum, which holds part of the vast Wellcome collection, has added a new permanent exhibit to their Science and Art of Medicine gallery. Living Medical Traditions explores the huge influence of traditional medicine worldwide, focusing on four that share a holistic approach: traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda (India), Unani Tibb (Islamic), and African medicine. The exhibition's key point is that what may be alternative for one culture is mainstream for another—indeed, WHO estimates that 80% of the developing world's rural population use traditional medicines as a form of primary health care. On display are an array of objects that range from disturbingly large enema syringes to a 1·5-m tall model of an ancient Chinese pharmacy. Once “anthropological curiosities”, many of these objects reflect a growing acceptance and use in western societies of techniques such as acupuncture. The accompanying texts suggest why some treatments haven't seeped into western culture as readily as others. African traditional medicine, for example, uses amulets to ward off disease-causing evil spirits and nkisi pots to draw spirits into them for healing, and may encompass ideas that are incompatible with western mindsets. Keen to avoid controversy, the curators explain that the exhibition is “not trying to comment on which treatments may, or may not work”. Inevitably, any form of media that appeals to families—the museum's core audience—will be conservative in tone and simplistic in style. Negotiating the integration of alternative therapies into modern medicine is a contentious process. Maybe an exhibition visited by children is not the place for a complex discussion of tensions between different medical systems. And without doubt the curators have skilfully blended the old with the new, detailing the evolution of the different forms of medicine without ever being too weighty. But perhaps Living Medical Traditions could have been a little bolder—after all, in an area as fundamental as health care, surely the public have the right to be involved in the debate?