)
On page 25 of the much-delayed Bharatiya Janata Party manifesto, the party tried to marry Hindu traditions with modernity and science. The idea that weaves the two together reads, "We will start integrated courses for Indian System of Medicine (ISM) and modern science and Ayurgenomics." The tongue twister, Ayurgenomics, had many observers either smirking or confounded.
Mitali Mukerji, heading the Ayurgenomics unit at the Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology in Delhi, is likely the person who knows the word best. "Modern medical science says a person either has a disease or she or he is healthy. But Ayurveda classifies people into different 'healthy' types, too, based on several parameters, including the ethnic background, physique, physiology, environment, individuality and other factors." In Ayurveda, the traditional doctor (vaid) uses this classification, defining the individual's "prakriti" to review the predisposition of a person to some diseases and diagnose the person to suggest a customised treatment.
| DECODING AYURGENOMICS |
|
She adds, "Modern medicine is also experimenting with personalised medication for individuals based on the genetic profile."
In India the idea has quickly become a business. Labs and private testing centres are ready to do your "genepatri" (a rather bad play with janampatri). The genepatri or gene map of the individual, it is claimed, can help predict some of the diseases a person may be more susceptible to or some behavioural pattern one is likely to show. Many critics warn the claim has little science to back it at the moment.
It is a tricky zone to be in. Are you genetically inclined to be more aggressive than others? More susceptible to select cancers perhaps? Can you tolerate more alcohol in your system than others? The nature versus nurture debate pops up loud.
"So, we are finding out if there are clear markers in the gene make-up of people that can help validate the Ayurvedic classification. Modern medicine has objectivity, which we hope to utilise to validate this classification system of the old science," Mukerji says.
This "new science" has its sceptics. "So what if Mukerji found differences in gene expression based on Ayurvedic body types? They are different body types, and we already know that people with different body habitus can be prone to different kinds of diseases. Ayurveda adds nothing new to this knowledge, much less suggests a rationale upon which to base a new 'omics' discipline," writes David H Gorski at www.sciencebasedmedicine.org. He is an American surgical oncologist and a well-known critic of alternative medicine.
The Ayurgenomics phrase was coined in 2001. It began with Murli Manohar Joshi, chairman of the 2014 BJP manifesto committee. "I think Joshi suggested the idea to Samir K Brahmachari (then head of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research)," Mukerji recollects. Joshi was the science and technology minister in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. "Brahmachari suggested I see how we could start a project to validate the classification system Ayurveda uses to diagnose people," she adds.
Brahmachari acknowledges that though Joshi gave the first push for such research, the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), too, supported it steadfastly. "He always encouraged research into our own traditional knowledge and this was initiated in 2001. It found strong support in the Eleventh Five-Year Plan, too. The first results came out in 2008. For a change, we wrote the first word on an area of research."
The initial proposal found no takers in the government research system initially. Instead, it found funds from an Indo-Russian joint programme. The deal required that tests be conducted in Russia, too. Along with the Ayurveda doctor, Bhavana Prasher, and two other women colleagues, Mukerji was soon taking blood and other samples of hundreds of students in a college in a village just off Moscow and of many in northern India.
A decade down the line, Ayurgenomics is a separate unit within the Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology with a staff of about 30 collaborating with several other institutions such as the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences and others working across states and Prasher and Mukerji leading from the front.
Once rejected by a scientific journal for talking mythology, the subject got its first published paper in 2008. It has notched a few more, including one in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Funding support, too, has been good with enthusiastic backing by both the UPA-I and UPA-II. The Twelfth Five-Year Plan has provided more than adequate funds for the team. "Under ideal circumstances, I guess it would take another 10 years of research to get results that can be used," Mukerji says.
When asked if she is concerned about the lack of regulation for such "gene-mapping" of individuals or communities, she says ethical standards are important and regulation should be brought in. The US has strict regulations already in place. She also agrees there are real concerns about people from some geographical spot or community getting socially tagged and labelled.
P Pushpangadan, a well-known plant scientist who has also worked on Ayurveda-based medicines, says, "There can be ethical concerns. To some extent, doubts exist."
The ethical concerns of genetic profiling of people from a region or communities as susceptible to some disease leading to racial profiling remains a global hot topic. Science has proven several times the idea of race has no basis in genetics. The predisposition of people from close-knit communities living in similar environments, though, is an open field today.
Mukerji is happy to allay any fears on this count but is concerned that the work of her team be not harmed by people decoding the political lineage of a government-funded scientific programme. Considering the UPA has backed it well since 2004, and Joshi has inserted it into the BJP's political DNA, she need not be worried.
