Beyond Past Glory: Why Ayurveda Needs Scientific Temper, Not Just Reverence

Beyond Past Glory: Why Ayurveda Needs Scientific Temper, Not Just Reverence

Dr Aakash Kembhavi, Dr Anita Kadagad Kembhavi & Vd Ayudha Kembhavi

The 2025 Nobel Prize in Medicine was just announced, honoring Mary E. Brunkow, Fred Ramsdell, and Shimon Sakaguchi for their groundbreaking work on peripheral immune tolerance—the discovery of regulatory T cells that prevent our immune system from attacking our own body. A few years ago, in 2017, the prize went to Jeffrey Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Michael Young for unraveling the molecular mechanisms of circadian rhythms.

And predictably, somewhere in India, someone is typing: “But Ayurveda already knew this!”

The Comfort of Past Glory

This reflexive claim has become almost ritualistic in Ayurvedic circles. Every major scientific discovery triggers a flurry of posts, articles, and WhatsApp forwards claiming prescient knowledge in ancient texts. The body’s biological clock? “We described it as dincharya thousands of years ago.” Immunity? “We’ve always talked about ojas and vyadhiksamatva.”

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: claiming credit after the fact is not the same as scientific discovery. And this mentality—what I call the “Past Glory Syndrome”—is slowly suffocating Ayurveda’s potential to grow as a living science.

The Difference Between Observation and Discovery

Let me be clear: ancient Ayurvedic physicians were brilliant observers of nature and the human body. They noticed patterns, developed treatment protocols, and created a sophisticated medical framework with the tools available to them. That deserves enormous respect.

But there’s a fundamental difference between:

  • Observing that people feel better when their daily routines align with natural light-dark cycles, and
  • Discovering the specific genes (Period, Timeless, Cryptochrome) that create molecular oscillations in every cell of our body, understanding their protein interactions, and mapping how they respond to light exposure

One is valuable empirical observation. The other is rigorous scientific discovery that opens pathways to treating jet lag, sleep disorders, metabolic diseases, and even optimizing chemotherapy timing.

The Nobel Prize doesn’t reward vague correlations or philosophical frameworks. It rewards precise, falsifiable, replicable discoveries that advance human knowledge in measurable ways.

The Cost of Complacency

The Past Glory Syndrome is not just intellectually dishonest—it’s actively harmful to Ayurveda’s future. Here’s why:

It kills curiosity. When we believe we already know everything, why investigate further? Why question? Why test? The three Nobel laureates spent decades in labs, conducting experiments, facing skepticism, refining their hypotheses. They didn’t sit back claiming their ancient texts already had the answers.

It prevents falsification. Real science progresses by proving itself wrong. The regulatory T cell discovery came after researchers questioned the prevailing theory of central immune tolerance. They asked: “What if we’re missing something?” Ayurveda practitioners rarely ask: “What if this concept is wrong?” Instead, contradictions are explained away through interpretive gymnastics.

It stops innovation. When did we last see a genuinely new therapeutic principle emerge from Ayurveda? Not a new combination of old herbs, not a rebranding of traditional practices, but a fundamentally new understanding of disease or healing? The field has become a museum—beautiful, reverential, but frozen in time.

It loses credibility. The broader scientific community sees these retroactive claims and rolls their eyes. They see it for what it is: unfalsifiable assertions that contribute nothing to the actual science. This pushes Ayurveda further into the realm of faith-based alternative medicine rather than establishing it as a serious research discipline.

Faith vs. Science: A Critical Distinction

The deepest problem is that we’ve transformed Ayurveda from a medical system into a belief system.

In a faith system, you don’t question the foundational texts. You interpret, you explain, you find deeper meanings—but you don’t challenge. The Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita are treated like scripture, every word assumed to be eternally true, just waiting for modern science to “validate” it.

But science doesn’t work that way. Science is not about validation—it’s about falsification. It’s about asking: “How can I prove this wrong?” It’s about accepting that even our most cherished theories might be incomplete or incorrect.

When Copernicus questioned geocentrism, when Darwin questioned special creation, when Einstein questioned Newtonian physics—they weren’t disrespecting the past. They were doing what science demands: questioning everything, including the most fundamental assumptions.

What Scientific Temper Actually Means

Developing scientific temper in Ayurveda doesn’t mean abandoning its rich heritage. It means:

Asking hard questions:

  • Which Ayurvedic treatments actually work, and which don’t?
  • What are the specific mechanisms by which they work?
  • Which ancient concepts have validity, and which were simply the best explanations available at the time?
  • What dosage, what preparation, what patient selection really matters?

Embracing rigorous methodology:

  • Conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled trials
  • Publishing in peer-reviewed journals where experts can critique
  • Replicating findings across different populations
  • Measuring objective outcomes, not just subjective reports

Being willing to discard what doesn’t work:

  • If a treatment shows no efficacy in controlled trials, having the courage to say: “Our ancestors were wrong about this”
  • If a theoretical concept (like tridoshas) cannot be mapped to measurable biological parameters, either finding a way to measure it or acknowledging it as a useful metaphor rather than biological reality
  • If modern pharmacology offers a better explanation than ancient theory, accepting it

Building on successes scientifically:

  • When an herb shows promise, isolate the active compounds
  • Understand the molecular mechanisms
  • Optimize the formulation
  • Determine who benefits most and why
  • Move from empirical observation to scientific understanding

The Path Forward: Real Research, Real Contributions

Imagine if instead of claiming “we already knew it,” the Ayurvedic community responded to Nobel discoveries by saying: “This is fascinating! What can we contribute to this field of knowledge?”

Instead of claiming Ayurveda predicted circadian rhythms, what if researchers asked:

  • Can Ayurvedic dincharya (daily routine) practices enhance circadian gene expression?
  • Do specific Ayurvedic chronotherapy principles improve treatment outcomes when combined with modern medicine?
  • Can we identify herbs that modulate Clock genes or Period proteins?

Instead of claiming Ayurveda understood immunity, what if we investigated:

  • Do Ayurvedic rasayana compounds actually affect regulatory T cell populations?
  • Can specific Ayurvedic treatments modulate immune tolerance in autoimmune conditions?
  • What are the molecular mechanisms by which Ayurvedic interventions affect the immune system?

This approach respects the tradition while pushing it forward. It treats Ayurveda as a source of hypotheses to be tested, not truths to be defended.

The Courage to Question

Science grows through doubt, not certainty. Through questioning, not reverence. Through evidence, not assertion.

Some of the greatest scientists have been wrong. Newton was wrong about the nature of light. Einstein refused to accept quantum mechanics fully. Even current Nobel laureates will likely be proven incomplete or incorrect in some of their conclusions eventually. That’s not a failure—that’s science working as it should.

Ayurveda will never earn a Nobel Prize by claiming it predicted modern discoveries. It will only earn that recognition when Ayurvedic researchers, armed with scientific temper and rigorous methodology, make discoveries that advance human knowledge in ways that can be tested, replicated, and built upon.

Conclusion: From Glory to Growth

The Past Glory Syndrome is comfortable. It makes us feel good about our heritage, our identity, our tradition. But comfort is the enemy of progress.

It’s time for Ayurveda to stop being a museum of past wisdom and become a laboratory of current inquiry. It’s time to stop pointing backward and start looking forward. It’s time to trade defensive pride for aggressive curiosity.

Questioning is not disrespect—it’s the highest form of engagement. Discarding outdated concepts is not betrayal—it’s intellectual honesty. Demanding evidence is not Western imperialism—it’s universal rationality.

The ancient vaidyas observed, experimented, and synthesized their knowledge with the tools they had. They would want us to do the same with our tools—not to worship their conclusions, but to continue their process.

The Nobel Prize committee doesn’t care what ancient texts say. They care about what you can prove today. And until Ayurveda develops that scientific temper, that curiosity, that willingness to question and test and discard and rebuild, it will remain a beautiful relic rather than a living science.

The choice is ours: past glory or future growth. We cannot have both.

The discoveries of regulatory T cells took decades of questioning, experimenting, failing, and persisting. That’s what science looks like. When will Ayurveda embrace this same rigorous pursuit of truth?

Share your thoughts in the comments below.