In this blog post, we will look at how traditional theories and treatments of Korean medicine can be explained using the standards of modern science, and examine their limitations and possibilities.
“Ki,” ‘acupuncture points,’ and ‘the harmony of yin and yang’ may seem somewhat unscientific in the current age of dazzling scientific development. Although traditional Korean medicine has a history of thousands of years, its effectiveness is being questioned in the modern age, and its significance as a medical system is fading. This is because modern medicine has been based on a thoroughly scientific mindset and has accumulated anatomical knowledge, while traditional Korean medicine has been developed based on non-scientific theories such as “Ki” and “Yin-Yang-Five Elements Theory.” For this reason, traditional Japanese medicine has already been absorbed and integrated into modern medicine, and as a result, the position of traditional Korean medicine has been considerably narrowed.
The Korean medical community, which has lost the trust of the people, has recently been emphasizing evidence-based medicine (EBM) to overcome this. Evidence-based medicine is a methodology for systematizing medical decisions based on scientific evidence obtained through well-designed research. It verifies the reliability of diagnostic methods and the effectiveness of treatment methods through reliable clinical trials. Oriental medicine is also introducing this to clarify the mechanisms of treatment methods and to prove that oriental medicine is a scientific discipline. However, can we simply say that oriental medicine is scientific just because we have revealed the mechanism of its treatment? Since oriental medicine is fundamentally based on theories such as “qi” and “the theory of yin, yang, and the five elements,” we cannot simply conclude that oriental medicine is scientific based on evidence that excludes these theories.
In this article, I will consider whether it is meaningful to attempt to prove that Korean medicine is scientific and whether such an attempt can enhance the competitiveness of Korean medicine.
Before getting into the main topic, I will first define the concept of “scientific” that I use as a key keyword in this article. “Science” in a narrow sense refers to natural science, and in a broad sense, it refers to the exploration and logical knowledge system for rationally understanding the phenomena of nature and humans. The “science” referred to here is more like a discipline that explores the structure, properties, and laws of matter. The EBM that Korean medicine wants to borrow refers to a scientific approach to uncovering the material mechanisms of treatment. With this in mind, let’s discuss whether Korean medicine should be scientific, that is, a discipline that analyzes the structure of matter and uses it for treatment.
First, let’s take a look at the evidence presented from the standpoint of asserting the scientific nature of Korean medicine. One of the representative examples of the scientific nature of Korean medicine is a study that revealed the mechanism of pain relief by acupuncture. A few years ago, a paper was published in Nature Neuroscience, the top journal in the field of neuroscience, proving that the analgesic effect of acupuncture is not a simple placebo effect but a scientifically explainable phenomenon. According to the paper, a signaling molecule called adenosine is produced around cells that have been stimulated by acupuncture, and this adenosine binds to nociceptors to suppress chronic pain, thereby alleviating pain. Based on these research results, Korean medicine practitioners argue that the mechanism of Korean medicine has been partially revealed, and it is only a matter of time before Korean medicine is proven to be scientifically sound. However, this only proves the scientific nature of the treatment method, not the scientific nature of the fundamental principles or theories of Korean medicine. To prove that Korean medicine is scientific, a method is needed to verify the existence of the fundamental principles of “qi” or “acupoints.”
In fact, some studies question the existence of acupuncture points, although the effects of acupuncture are recognized. According to a study by Professor Klaus Linde and his team at the German Center for Medicine, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), there was no difference in the effects of acupuncture on pain relief in patients with migraines when acupuncture was applied to the correct acupuncture points and when it was applied to random points. This suggests that the analgesic effect of acupuncture does not depend on the location of the acupuncture points, but rather comes from the act of inserting the needle itself. In the end, the scientific basis for the basic principles of Korean medicine cannot be clearly demonstrated without scientific evidence.
So, can theories such as “Ki” or “Yin-Yang Theory” be proven to be scientific? Some people raise the following counterarguments. “Why do we accept Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, which are invisible, as science, but conclude that ‘qi’ and ‘acupoints’ in traditional Korean medicine are unscientific? Traditional Korean medicine has scientific evidence based on thousands of years of clinical experience accumulated through patient data.” When we first encounter the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, it may seem like a groundbreaking and absurd theory, similar to the theory of traditional Korean medicine. However, groundbreaking theories in science are accepted as orthodox theories through experimental evidence and rigorous predictions. For example, in quantum electrodynamics, the theoretical prediction and experimental measurement of the magnetic moment of an electron were almost identical. In science, when a breakthrough theory is established, it must be supported by empirical evidence. However, the empirical data of traditional Korean medicine is insufficient to fully support the breakthrough nature of the theory.
Therefore, I think there are aspects of Korean medicine that are difficult to be recognized as a scientific discipline. However, this does not mean that I am advocating that Korean medicine should disappear. Korean medicine is significant in that it has the potential to help treat diseases that are difficult for modern medicine to approach or to improve one’s constitution. In other words, Oriental medicine should not be viewed from a scientific perspective, but rather from its unique approach. If Oriental medicine can identify the mechanism of its treatment and prove its effectiveness, it is likely to be accepted and used by modern medicine. However, at that point, the treatment will no longer be considered Oriental medicine, but rather a part of modern medicine.
Therefore, in order for traditional Chinese medicine to survive, the strict standards of modern natural science should not be applied as they are. Jang Gi-sung, a prominent Chinese traditional medicine doctor, said, “We must accept that traditional Chinese medicine is not a science in the narrow sense and that it is different from the science that modern natural science implies.” This is an acknowledgment that oriental medicine is a discipline that is difficult to describe mathematically or verify in a laboratory. This is because oriental medicine has adopted an intuitive understanding of the nature of humans and life instead of a material structure and a private model of treatment through experience. In other words, it has understood and approached humans and life from a different perspective than the natural sciences, which identify physical entities.
It is not so long since modern medicine has used scientific methods as a measure of trust. There is also a limit to saying that modern science has understood everything. Is it reasonable to blindly believe in science as absolute truth and rely solely on modern medicine? Is it justified to be frustrated by diseases that modern medicine has classified as incurable? I believe that there is a role for traditional Korean medicine in this regard. Trying to save lives with a different approach from modern medicine can be the essential meaning and competitiveness of traditional Korean medicine.
It is true that it is still difficult to fully trust Korean medicine. However, to solve this problem by bringing modern natural science into the equation and claiming that Korean medicine is scientific is an act that ignores the nature of Korean medicine. Rather than following external standards of being “scientific,” it would be preferable for Korean medicine to develop in its own academic position while maintaining its original characteristics.
