The Centre For Plant Medicine Research And The Dynamics Of Traditional Medicine In Ghana

Abstract

With the increasing demand for evidence-based practise, quality research is crucial to inform decision-making in traditional medicine practices. Therefore, there has been a growing corpus of knowledge on the establishment and functions of traditional medicine research Centres across the globe. However, the available scholarship has concentrated more on Asia, and other parts of the world, than on Africa, including Ghana. This study, therefore, set out to examine how the Centre for Plant Medicine Research, located at Mampong - Akuapem in the Eastern Region of Ghana, has contributed to the national trajectory of traditional medicine development and practice. In furtherance of the main objective, the study specifically focused on: providing an assessment of the origin, organisational structure, management, and functions/ activities of the Centre and how these have changed over time; examining the changing state policies on traditional medicine in Ghana and their implication for the mandate of the Centre; and interrogating the extent to which the Centre has influenced the development and practice of traditional medicine in Ghana. The qualitative method of social research was used with constructionist grounded theory driving data collection and analysis. Through purposive and theoretical sampling methods, participants were drawn from the Centre, clients of traditional medicine, practitioners of traditional medicine, Herbal Medicine Department at KNUST, Traditional and Alternative Medicine Directorate (TAM-D), Traditional Medicine Practice Council (TMPC), Food and Drugs Authority (FDA), and people of Mampong. The theory of social change underpinned the study as it dealt with transformations in traditional medicine. The study has shown that the development of traditional medicine in Ghana is intertwined with the Centre’s establishment and evolution. As a state-owned institution, all the policies on traditional medicine in the country have found expression through its activities.

From financing plant medicine research to the formulation of policies for traditional medicine development, the Centre has been actively involved and seen as driving the change. Consequently, its activities have led to significant transformations in the mode of providing traditional medicine in Ghana. Links with institutions and agencies such as the MOH, TAM-D, TMPC, FDA, WHO, and the Ghana Federation of Traditional Medicine Practitioners, among others, enabled the Centre to provide services to the general public. It has also led to standardisation, training of practitioners, and many more, albeit criticisms that the ‘over scientification’ in the practice of traditional medicine initiated by the Centre tends to marginalise the involvement of some healers. As the main game-changer in the industry, the Centre itself has gone through the change. It has evolved from learner to teacher in applying traditional medical knowledge in the context of modern science and technology (from ‘obi-kyerɛ to kyerɛ-obi’). Some practitioners have also transformed their practices through the Centre’s influence by adopting modern scientific processes in line with biomedical practice and technology. However, the transformation has not occurred uniformly across the country. Embedded in the change are continuities with the distant past. Based on this, the study duly categorised practitioners in Ghana into three as transformers, semi-transformers and non-transformed. Participants mentioned how healers in various communities, including some who have worked at the Centre, have contributed to research and given out recipes for product formulation without receiving any credit or recognition from the Centre/scientists. This development has engendered mixed feelings among practitioners leading to tensions and conflicts between the Centre and stakeholders. The social inequality between the two groups, aggravated by the over-concentration of scientific product development processes, fuels these tensions and conflicts. The fact that scientific achievements remain the exclusive preserve of scientists despite the evident contributions made by healers perpetuates conflicts between the two groups. This has adversely affected collaborations between the Centre, traditional healers, and communities. These issues show how the Centre reflects the struggle between healing knowledge in herbal lore and Western hegemonic knowledge in health care delivery.