Talking with

What do you find particularly relevant to society in your work?

We are living in a paradoxical time for pharmacognosy. On the one hand, pharmaceutical natural product preparations are experiencing a real boom and achieving record sales. On the other hand, there are critical voices from science-related circles, particularly from the medical and pharmaceutical fields, which sometimes question their effectiveness across the board.

In my view, a key problem is the lack of awareness of the clear distinction between rational, scientifically based pharmacognostic research and anthroposophic healing methods such as homeopathy, Bach flower therapy or Schuessler salts. The latter are not based on verifiable mechanistic principles or robust clinical evidence – and often do not even claim to be. This distinction is further complicated by the flood of dietary supplements on the market. While some products are of high quality and potentially effective, others have been shown to be ineffective or even harmful to health – but most fall into a grey area in between.

The regulatory framework also contributes to the confusion: herbal supplements are often authorised in Europe as ‘traditional herbal medicinal products’. In many cases, efficacy is highly likely, but no sound clinical evidence is required. While this is currently a pragmatic solution, it does present a challenge for a differentiated scientific assessment. This is because large-scale, high-quality clinical studies are expensive and often do not pay off for pharmaceutical companies – after all, traditional herbal medicines or their ingredients cannot simply be patented to recoup the costs.

Another widespread misconception is that herbal medicines are particularly well tolerated simply because they are of natural origin. This is often true for self-medication, since many medicinal plants are based on centuries-old experience. Nevertheless, it should be realised that plants did not evolve with the aim of promoting human health, but developed secondary ingredients to protect themselves against herbivores and microorganisms, for example. It is therefore not surprising that natural substances play a key role in oncology and antibiotic research.

I see it as a central social task of academic pharmacognosy to clear up these misunderstandings and create a common language for an objective dialogue. The aim is to enable people to make informed decisions about forms of treatment – whether for or against a particular therapy. In this context, pharmacists in particular play a crucial role as an interface between science and patient counselling.

What aspect of your work do you find particularly enriching?

I take great pleasure in many aspects of my work in research and teaching, but working with young talent and junior scientists who approach their research with enthusiasm and curiosity is something I find particularly enriching. If you give them the space to develop and to contribute their own ideas to projects, completely new perspectives often arise – with the potential to break out of entrenched thought patterns and to challenge one's own perspective again and again.

The intensive discussions in the team are particularly exciting: analysing data together, weighing up new hypotheses and strategically planning the next steps. Every advance – be it a confirmed assumption, a new methodological insight or even the elucidation of a mechanism of action – creates a chain of small and large moments of success. Of course, setbacks are also part of the research process, but it is precisely these challenges that strengthen our team spirit and make the shared joy of scientific breakthrough all the more valuable.

In addition, there is a certain pride in the achievements of the young scientists and the hope that their findings will not only expand our understanding of biological mechanisms, but also contribute to better, more effective and safer therapies in the long term.