Final Report Summary - RATIMED (Re-Assembling Tibetan Medicine: The formation of a transnational Sowa Rigpa industry in contemporary India, China, Mongolia and Bhutan)
1) The Sowa Rigpa industry had a total value of about 900 million EUR in 2018, which is over ten times more than in the year 2000. Today, it is the sixth largest Asian medical industry (not counting Western medicine), and an important cultural, economic, and public health asset for Tibetan, Himalayan, and Mongolian populations. There exists a well-developed infrastructure of Sowa Rigpa hospitals, clinics, pharmaceutical companies, universities, and government bodies.
2) Sowa Rigpa’s industrial development depends largely on two factors. Thus, government recognition, pharmaceutical quality control, and drug registration policies are the main drivers of Sowa Rigpa’s industrial development. At the same time, it continues to depend on traditional family- and religious lineages and the moral authority of Buddhist lamas for its legitimacy and expert pharmaceutical knowledge.
3) Sowa Rigpa’s industrialization happens in many places simultaneously, but in interdependent and similar ways, so that we can consider this as one larger phenomenon. Its consequences, too, are similar all over Asia: Sowa Rigpa is increasingly recognized as an economic, cultural and political asset, and transformed into intellectual and cultural property. This leads to economic growth, competition, and fears of expropriation, but also international exposure and a growing alignment with Global Health.
4) Despite Sowa Rigpa’s growth as a pharmaceutical industry, it still remains an important and diverse field of ethical practice, social engagement, and cultural identity, that goes far beyond mere business or clinical and pharmaceutical practice.
5) The case of Sowa Rigpa illustrates the regional and global emergence of Asian health industries (TCM, Ayurveda, etc) more generally. The methodologies, analytic concepts and theories developed and used in the RATIMED project - the “pharmaceutical assemblage”, “collaborative ethnography”, and the new analytic framework of “Asian health industries” – are therefore useful to understand and critically trace not only the “industrial revolution” of Tibetan medicine, but an ongoing global “health-care revolution” that challenges the monopoly status of biomedicine.