This blog post examines how well the traditional theories and treatments of Korean medicine can be explained by modern scientific standards, exploring both their limitations and potential.
Concepts like ‘qi’, ‘acupoints’, and ‘the harmony of yin and yang’ may seem somewhat unscientific at this point in time, when science has advanced so remarkably. Although Korean medicine has a history spanning thousands of years, its effectiveness is increasingly questioned in the modern era, and its significance as a medical discipline is fading. This is because modern medicine has been built on a thoroughly scientific mindset and accumulated anatomical knowledge, while Korean medicine developed based on non-scientific theories like ‘qi’ and the ‘Yin-Yang and Five Elements Theory’. For this reason, Japan’s traditional medicine has already been absorbed and integrated into modern medicine, significantly narrowing the standing of Korean medicine.
The Korean medicine community, having lost public trust, has recently emphasized EBM (Evidence-Based Medicine) to overcome this. Evidence-Based Medicine is a methodology that systematizes medical decisions based on scientific evidence obtained through well-designed research, verifying the reliability of diagnostic methods and the effectiveness of treatments through credible clinical trials. Traditional Korean medicine is also adopting this approach to elucidate the mechanisms of its treatments and prove that it is a scientific discipline. However, can traditional Korean medicine truly be deemed scientific merely by explaining the mechanisms of its treatments? Given that Korean medicine is fundamentally established on theories like ‘qi’ or ‘Yin-Yang and the Five Elements’, it cannot be definitively deemed scientific solely through proof that excludes these theories.
This article will examine whether attempts to prove Korean medicine is scientific are meaningful and whether such efforts can enhance its competitiveness.
Before delving into the main discussion, let us clarify the concept of ‘scientific,’ which serves as a key term in this article. ‘Science,’ in its narrow sense, refers to the natural sciences; in its broader sense, it denotes the inquiry and logical knowledge system aimed at rationally understanding phenomena in nature and human life. The ‘science’ discussed here is closer to the discipline that explores the structure, properties, and laws of matter. The EBM that Korean medicine seeks to adopt refers to the scientific approach aimed at elucidating the material mechanisms of therapeutic methods. Keeping this in mind, we will discuss whether Korean medicine should be scientific—that is, whether it should be a discipline that analyzes the structure of matter and applies this knowledge to treatment.
First, let us examine the evidence presented by those advocating for the scientific nature of Korean medicine. One representative example demonstrating the scientific nature of Korean medicine is research elucidating the analgesic mechanism of acupuncture. Several years ago, Nature Neuroscience, a top journal in neuroscience, published a paper proving that the analgesic effect of acupuncture is not merely a placebo effect but a scientifically explainable phenomenon. According to the paper, the signaling molecule adenosine is produced around cells stimulated by acupuncture needles. This adenosine binds to pain receptors, suppressing chronic pain and thereby alleviating discomfort. Based on these findings, Korean medicine practitioners argue that the mechanisms of Korean medicine have been partially elucidated and that proving its scientific validity is only a matter of time. However, this merely demonstrates the scientific basis of the treatment method itself, not the scientific validity of Korean medicine’s fundamental principles or theories. To prove Korean medicine is scientific, methods to confirm the existence of its core principles like ‘qi’ or ‘acupoints’ are necessary.
Indeed, some studies acknowledge the efficacy of acupuncture while questioning the existence of ‘acupoints’. According to research by Professor Klaus Linde’s team from Germany, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), an investigation into how much acupuncture alleviates pain in migraine patients found no difference in effect between needles placed at correct acupoints and those placed at random locations. This suggests that acupuncture’s analgesic effect does not depend on the location of acupoints but stems from the act of inserting needles itself. Ultimately, without scientific evidence for the fundamental principles of Korean medicine, the scientific validity of its treatments cannot be clearly proven.
So, can theories like ‘qi’ or ‘Yin-Yang and the Five Elements’ be proven scientific? Some people raise the following counterargument: “Why is it that Einstein’s theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, which are invisible, are accepted as science, yet the ‘qi’ and ‘acupoints’ of Korean medicine are dismissed as unscientific? Korean medicine has accumulated patient data through thousands of years of clinical experience, providing scientific evidence.” When first encountered, theories like relativity or quantum mechanics might seem revolutionary and even absurd, much like traditional Korean medicine’s theories. However, groundbreaking scientific theories are only accepted as established principles through experimental evidence and rigorous predictions. For example, in quantum electrodynamics, the theoretical prediction of the electron’s magnetic moment value matched the experimental measurement with almost negligible error. Thus, in science, when a groundbreaking theory is established, it must be supported by corresponding empirical evidence. However, the empirical data of Korean medicine is insufficient to fully support the groundbreaking nature of its theories.
Therefore, I believe there are aspects that make it difficult for Korean medicine to be recognized as a scientific discipline. However, this does not mean I argue that Korean medicine should unconditionally disappear. Korean medicine holds significance in that it has the potential to treat diseases difficult for modern medicine to address or to contribute to improving constitutional types. In other words, the meaning of Korean medicine should be found not in its scientific aspects but in its unique approach. If traditional Korean medicine can elucidate the mechanisms of its treatments and demonstrate their efficacy, there is a high likelihood they will be adopted and utilized by modern medicine. However, at that point, those treatments would no longer be part of traditional Korean medicine but would become part of modern medicine.
Therefore, for traditional Korean medicine to survive, the strict standards of modern natural science should not be applied directly to it. The renowned Chinese traditional medicine scholar Zhang Jixing once stated, “We must acknowledge that traditional Korean medicine is not science in the narrow sense and accept that it differs from the science implied by modern natural science.” This recognition accepts that traditional Korean medicine is a discipline difficult to describe mathematically or verify in a laboratory. This is because traditional Korean medicine has adopted a speculative model that intuitively understands the essence of humans and life, treating through experience, rather than focusing on material structures. In other words, it has understood and approached humans and life from a different perspective than natural science, which seeks to identify physical entities.
Modern medicine’s reliance on the scientific method as a measure of trust is not a very old practice. Moreover, modern science also has limitations in claiming to understand everything. Given this, is it truly rational to blindly trust science as absolute truth and rely solely on modern medicine? Is it justified to feel defeated by diseases classified as incurable by modern medicine? I believe this is precisely where Korean medicine can play a role. Striving to save lives through an approach distinct from modern medicine—that is the essential significance and potential competitive edge of Korean medicine.
It is true that it remains difficult to place complete trust in Korean medicine. However, attempting to resolve this by incorporating modern natural science and claiming Korean medicine is scientific is an act that ignores its very essence. Rather than conforming to the external standard of being ‘scientific,’ it would be preferable for Korean medicine to develop from its own unique academic position while maintaining its original characteristics.
