Cited by 176Anthropological Studies and InsightsBiomedical Ethics and RegulationRace, Genetics, and Society

Randomized Controlled Crime: Postcolonial Sciences in Alternative Medicine Research

Adams, Vincanne·2002·Social Studies of Science

Abstract

The ambiguous terrain of ‘fact-making’ in biomedical clinical research is explored by way of an investigation of the criminalization of Tibetan medicine and Tibetan medical practitioners who participate in the global pharmaceutical pursuit of new medical products. Transcultural encounters between biomedical research interests and Tibetan medical practitioners suggest the production of awkward alliances between the state, markets, and measures of medical efficacy on an uneven global playing field. Moving beyond the possibility that a postcolonial science will be inherently hybrid, this paper seeks to uncover the inequalities of such hybrid-making encounters. When ‘medical facts’ must be derived from ‘magical beliefs’ in the centres of biomedical science, the state often intervenes to criminalize practitioners of alternative medicine. But, when profits are to be made on the fact that ‘the magical’ sells in alternative medicine, the state also makes it possible to shift ownership of medical knowledge, sometimes by way of the randomized controlled trial and the pursuit of active ingredients. The possibility of relocating the label of ‘crime’ is explored in this paper by way of an inquiry into processes that enable this shift in ownership, and a relocation of what constitutes medical ‘fact’ versus‘belief’.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/030631270203200503

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Desire for Western legitimacy interferes with the ability of practitioners to recognize the unevenness of the epistemological playing field.

    “As Adams rightly points out, desire for Western legitimacy interferes with the ability of practitioners to recognize the unevenness of the epistemological playing field.”

    From Indian Imaginaries of Chinese Success in the Global Herbal Medicine Market (2019) · cites this paper as Adams 2002, 670

  • The Indian discourse is also uninformed by critical social science analysis of the political economy of traditional/herbal medicine regulatory barriers.

    “The Indian discourse is also uninformed by critical social science analysis of the political economy of traditional/herbal medicine regulatory barriers.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adams, V.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Adams, Vincanne
Venue
Social Studies of Science
Published
2002-12
Volume
32
Issue
5-6
Pages
659-690
ISSN
  • 0036-8539 (ISSN-L)
  • 0306-3127
  • 1460-3659
OpenAlex
W2129142110
Cited by
176
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
FWCI
30.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social Studies of Science (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Anthropological Studies and Insights
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
Keywords
Tibetan medicine, randomized controlled trials, postcolonial science, state intervention, pharmaceutical industry, active ingredients, magical beliefs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review