Paper short abstract:

This paper is focused on how CAM is translated and negotiated in Swedish politics. How are boundaries of CAM and conventional medicine drawn in the political debate? What is defined as problems or in need of political intervention? What goals are suggested? If and how is scientific knowledge used?

Paper long abstract:

This paper is focused on how CAM is translated and negotiated in Swedish politics, and the role of scientific knowledge and evidence based medicine in these processes. A number of studies show that CAM is a growing research field, both concerning studies of use/prevalence, clinical effects, RCT:s, and preclinical studies. However, this development does not necessarily implicate that the research is accepted, acknowledged, or applied. In general, CAM-research is often questioned, on the grounds of poor research design and small numbers. There are also indications that CAM-research mainly is acknowledged within the delimited CAM research field, and close related areas such as pharmacology and plant science, and only to a limited extent in general medicine or public health. If and how CAM-research is acknowledged or applied in other contexts, outside medicine, is to large extent unexplored. This paper is restricted to the Swedish parliament, and how translation and negotiation of CAM is performed in written documents, by different kinds of actors. How are boundaries of CAM and conventional medicine drawn in the political debate? What is defined as problems or in need of political intervention? What goals or solutions are suggested? If and how is scientific knowledge, for example studies in or about CAM, used in these processes? The empirical material consists of about 300 documents, from the time period 1980 to 2015.