Despite being defined in the West as alternative medicine and often seen as incommensurable with biomedicine and bioscience, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has, paradoxically, assimilated into dominant spaces of knowledge production and legitimation, such as the International Classification of Diseases. In Australia, TCM comprises a designated area of cooperation with China, and TCM research is carried out in numerous universities by otherwise mainstream scientists. Focusing on the Australian case, we examine how and why TCM has transcended scientific skepticism to become an object of scientific study. Through interviews with Australian TCM researchers (n = 10), we identify aspects of TCM that function as conceptual and material boundary objects, facilitating its uptake in bioscientific disciplines. Furthermore, we locate TCM research in the wider context of Australian-Chinese knowledge exchange, highlighting the role of “coordinating boundary objects,” such as institutional agreements, in enabling scientific work, as well as the supportive role performed by boundary actors who translate across social worlds. By illustrating how these objects/actors enact TCM research in Australia, as well as their interdependence, the paper contributes a deeper understanding of the operation of boundary objects in international scientific collaboration and the factors determining the scientific success of this alternative medicine.
Keywords:
In 2019, the World Health Organization published a new edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) that radically differs from previous versions. For the first time, the global reference source for medical research and diagnosis includes a chapter on Traditional Medicine, described as “disorders and patterns which originated in ancient Chinese Medicine and are commonly used in China, Japan, Korea and elsewhere around the world” (WHO Citation2019). The revision caused controversy in sectors of the scientific community, where high profile commentaries singled out for criticism the ICD’s apparent support of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Articles in Nature and Scientific American for example, decry the ICD’s promotion of “TCM,” describing this as a “bad idea” that undermines evidence-based medicine (Cyranoski Citation2018; Scientific American Citation2019). In the West, TCM is a form of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), one of a number of modalities generally marginalized in biomedical health systems and regarded as incommensurable with biomedicine and scientific methods of validation (Derkatch Citation2016; Gale Citation2014; Keshet Citation2009). In recent years, however, scientific research on TCM has expanded dramatically (Chen et al. Citation2019; Eigenschink et al. Citation2020; Huang et al. Citation2015). In early 2022, for example, emerging research on the use of TCM to prevent and treat COVID-19 prompted the WHO to convene an international expert meeting to evaluate TCM’s potential to address the pandemic (WHO Citation2022).
