This commentary aims to focus, among the “multiple roles ofdata generated in ethnopharmacological field studies” (Heinrichet al., 2009, p. 1), on the systematic collection of clinical data.Even if this issue may somewhat resemble what has long beensaid (Martin, 1996), recent experiences with clinical assessmentof the effectiveness of medicinal plants may shed some new light.This commentary is also a call for better cooperation betweenethnopharmacologists,physicians,traditionalhealersandthepop-ulationsconcerned:thatistheconditionforethnopharmacologicalwork to be useful at the level of local populations and, if includedin a development project, for the design of sound health policies(Elisabetsky and Nunes, 1990).A common research process is to go from field survey to phy-tochemistry, with the idea that the research can contribute toeconomic development if a new drug can eventually be found andmarketed while appropriate and ethical relationships are main-tained with the owners of the traditional knowledge (ten Kate andLaird, 2002). However, the road to development of a new drug isexcessively long, even in the rare cases where it is successful (e.g.Hoodia gordonii: see van Heerden, 2008). In the example of a phy-tochemical and pharmacological review on Garcinia mangostana,the authors concluded that “a serious weakness in our knowledgeis the lack of clinical data and it is not yet clear to what extent thefindings about pharmacological activities are of potential clinicalrelevance” (Obolskiy et al., 2009, p. 1047).In the meantime, local traditional treatments continue to beused. In our experience, local users are always interested in theresults of ethnopharmacology research and insist on the system-atic organisation of restitution sessions. They are interested in theanalysisofclinicaldatacollectedduringthesurveys,becauseitpro-vides indices of treatment quality and has implications for local