Traditional medicine is used in 170 WHO Member States, yet less than 1% of global health research funding goes into the field. That gap captures one of the biggest challenges facing Ayurveda today. People already use it, but, what increasingly needs to catch up is the depth of evidence behind the products they buy.

The change is already underway. Across India’s Ayurveda industry, research is moving closer to the product itself. Brands are investing in better ways to identify herbs, make formulations consistent and test what happens when people actually use them. Clinical trials are becoming more visible. Lab reports are beginning to reach consumers. Even traditional formulations are increasingly being studied using contemporary research methods.

This is not Ayurveda abandoning its roots for modern science. It is a much more interesting shift: traditional knowledge being asked to show its working.

The most visible evidence is usually a published study. But by the time a formulation reaches a clinical trial, a significant amount of scientific work should already have happened. Plants are naturally variable. An Ashwagandha crop grown in one region may not have exactly the same chemical profile as one grown somewhere else. Harvesting conditions can affect the raw material too. If that variation is not understood, two batches carrying the same ingredient name may not necessarily be identical.

That is why standardisation has become so important. The Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) works on developing pharmacopoeial standards and reference markers that can help identify and standardise Ayurvedic ingredients. It also develops standard operating procedures for formulations and carries out quality-control work before products move into pre-clinical or clinical research.

For brands, the principle is straightforward. Before asking whether a formulation works, you first need confidence that the formulation being produced today is comparable with the one being produced tomorrow.

This is led to a shift in how companies think about R&D. Rather than treating research as something that happens after a product has already been created, brands are beginning to bring scientists into formulation development much earlier.

Take Kapiva for example. The company operates a 25,000 sq. ft. R&D centre in Bengaluru with more than 30 researchers and scientists. Its internal research programme extends from understanding the chemistry of ingredients through formulation development and clinical research.

The company has also widened that approach beyond its own immediate product pipeline. In 2026, it launched the Kapiva Innovation Fund, with a funding pool of up to ₹50 crore for researchers, institutions and startups working on scientific innovation in Ayurveda. The initiative is designed to support projects that need research infrastructure and a path from an early idea to validation.

That is significant because one of Ayurveda’s research constraints is structural. Good research requires laboratories, scientific expertise and funding long before there is a product ready to sell. Kapiva’s approach is therefore useful as an example of a broader change in the sector: R&D is beginning to be treated as infrastructure rather than simply a marketing claim.

The same shift is visible across established Ayurveda companies. Himalaya Wellness operates a Bengaluru R&D centre spanning more than 130,000 sq. ft. with over 200 physicians and scientists, while Dabur runs an 80,000 sq. ft. R&D facility in Ghaziabad with more than 100 scientists and botanists. Their approaches differ, but both reflect the same broader change: scientific research and standardisation are becoming a core part of Ayurvedic product development, not something added only at the communication stage.

The next step is testing the finished formulation

Research on an individual herb can tell us a great deal. It cannot automatically tell us what a finished multi-herb product will do. That distinction is encouraging more brands to conduct research on the actual formulation being sold.

Kapiva’s Shilajit Gold provides one recent example. The finished formulation was evaluated in an eight-week randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in healthy men, with the study looking at physical-performance outcomes and testosterone. Kapiva-affiliated researchers have since also published a review examining the possible mechanisms through which the Shilajit Gold herbal complex could influence athletic performance.

That disclosure is as important as the results themselves. Credible research does not mean pretending commercial involvement does not exist. It means making that involvement visible so the reader can judge the evidence with the right context.

More studies will not automatically mean better evidence

This is where the next phase of scientific credibility will get harder. “Clinically studied” is useful information, but it should not become another version of “scientifically proven” printed on a label.

Study design matters. A randomized controlled trial can answer different questions from an observational study. A study of 30 participants provides a different level of confidence from one involving several hundred. Results measured against a participant’s own baseline are not identical to demonstrating a statistically meaningful difference against placebo.

CCRAS itself recognises this spectrum. Its clinical research programme uses approaches ranging from observational research and pilot studies to randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, depending on the question being investigated.

The stronger brands will therefore be the ones willing to explain what a study actually establishes and what it does not.

Transparency may become as important as the research itself

Scientific credibility is ultimately difficult to build behind closed doors. If a product has undergone testing, consumers should increasingly be able to see meaningful information about that testing. If a study was funded by the company, that should be disclosed. If the research is preliminary, the language around the product should reflect that.

This is already becoming part of the wider global conversation around traditional medicine. The WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025-2034 places stronger evidence and appropriate regulation at the centre of how traditional medicine can become more deeply integrated into health systems. The second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine went further, calling for greater investment in research while acknowledging that traditional medicine currently receives less than 1% of global health-research funding. For India’s Ayurvedic industry, that creates both pressure and opportunity.

The most credible brands will be comfortable being questioned

For decades, Ayurveda brands could rely heavily on familiarity. Consumers knew the herbs. They knew the tradition. They often knew the company.

That trust will continue to matter, but a new layer is being added to it. Consumers can now ask where an ingredient came from. They can ask how a formulation was standardised. They can look for a clinical study rather than simply accepting the word “clinically tested”. They can also ask who funded that study and whether its limitations are clearly acknowledged.

Brands such as Kapiva are investing in their own research infrastructure. Established companies such as Himalaya and Dabur have built substantial scientific capabilities of their own. Government research bodies are expanding formal standards and clinical-research frameworks. WHO is pushing the same conversation onto a global stage.

The result is a healthier definition of what modern Ayurveda can mean. Not Ayurveda made to look more scientific. Ayurveda that is increasingly willing to be measured, tested and questioned.