Scientists Call For TCIM Research Reform

In a 2026 article published in The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, a group of international researchers offer a collaborative commentary examining why traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) research has not reached its full potential on the global stage. TCIM includes practices such as herbal medicine, acupuncture and yoga; the term can be used to refer to isolated modalities, such as acupuncture, or whole medical systems like Ayurveda. TCIM predates biomedicine and supports 80% of the world’s population, especially in low-income and marginalized communities. Despite this, research into TCIM remains underdeveloped and undervalued.

The authors note that interest in TCIM research grew significantly in the early 2000s, receiving more academic programs, publications, and policy attention, particularly with funding allocated to the United States’ National Institutes of Health National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH). However, that momentum has since stalled and funding has dwindled. Today, only a few TCIM practices receive consistent research attention, and overall funding for TCIM accounts for less than 1% of global health research spending.

The authors point to structural problems within the broader research system. For example, funding is often designed for conventional biomedical research protocols, making it difficult for TCIM researchers (who may lack institutional support or specialized reviewers) to compete. Additionally, many TCIM treatments are low-cost and cannot be patented, which reduces commercial incentives to study them in a research ecosystem driven by potential market profits.

The authors also highlight limited academic infrastructure, such as a lack of dedicated university departments studying TCIM, which weakens the present and future research workforce. Publishing barriers further marginalize TCIM, as major medical journals may lack the expertise or scope to fairly evaluate such studies; novel, expertly-designed TCIM research plans may diverge from more conventional scientific protocols in order to accommodate the holistic nature of TCIM modalities, which conventional reviewers may perceive as untrustworthy despite scientific rigor.

To address these inequities, the authors call for targeted funding, stronger institutional support, acceptance of diverse research methods beyond traditional clinical trials, and recognition of the “authenticity and value or pluralistic evidence frameworks”. This includes honoring traditional and Indigenous ways of knowing, and invites a more diverse research force to enter the academy. The authors argue that overcoming these systemic barriers is essential to unlocking TCIM’s potential to improve global health outcomes.