Talk:Indigenous knowledge

I started this article after complaining about the narrow scope of indigenous knowledge system and finally deciding to do something about it. The two articles will need to be reconciled at some point, hopefully sooner rather than later. --Joe Quick 18:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have identified the need. I hope this isn't perceived as one of those situations where an author is trying to claim "ownership", but indigenous knowledge system wa written with a deliberate narrow scope, not mine, in mind. The scope comes principally from the World Health Organization and other bodies working in integrative medicine, not general economic development or broad cultural preservation. Yes, I recogize that is a less holistic view than some cultures might have, but it is a recognizable one associated with international organizations.

One thought would be to rename the earlier article "traditional medicine indigenous knowledge systems", to disambiguate it from a larger context. While the original context did relate to phytotherapy, indigenous health knowledge is certainly broader than potential drugs. For example, there is an excellent example of integrative work in solving the 1993 hantavirus pulmonary virus outbreak in the southwest U.S., which took knowledge both from the Navajo Nation and the Epidemiological Intelligence Serice of the Centers for Disease Control. [1]. There is an excellent hard copy discussion in Laurie Garrett's The Coming Plagues.

Nevertheless, it's not as if either anthropology or health sciences/healing arts "owns" the term. It appears there are different emphases, with a substantial body of knowledge in each scope. Reconciliation does not mean either article subsumes the other, but certainly that they can cross-link and disambiguate. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)