Traditional medicine is practised in 170 WHO Member States, yet it attracts under 1% of global health research funding. For Ayurveda, that gap is the central problem. Consumers already trust it, but the scientific backing for individual products hasn’t kept pace with that trust.
Things are starting to shift. Across India’s Ayurveda sector, research is moving closer to the products on the shelf. Companies are investing in herb identification, batch consistency and studies on how people respond to the finished formulation. Trials are becoming easier to find, lab results are reaching buyers, and classical formulas are being examined with modern tools.
None of this means Ayurveda is abandoning its roots. It means a long tradition is being asked to show how it reaches its conclusions.
The work that happens before any trial
Published studies get the attention, but a formulation should already have passed through a lot of scientific groundwork before it is tested on people.
Plants are naturally variable. Ashwagandha from one region can differ chemically from the same herb grown elsewhere, and harvest conditions can alter the raw material further. Without understanding that variation, two batches sold under one ingredient name may not be the same thing.
This is where standardisation comes in. The Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences (CCRAS) develops pharmacopoeial standards and reference markers that help identify and standardise ingredients. It also writes standard operating procedures for formulations and handles quality-control work before a product reaches pre-clinical or clinical studies.
The reasoning is straightforward: before you ask whether a formulation works, you have to be sure tomorrow’s batch matches today’s.
Companies are putting scientists in earlier
One visible change is when research begins. Rather than treating it as a step that follows product launch, brands are involving scientists during formulation itself.
Kapiva offers a clear example. It operates a 25,000 sq. ft. R&D centre in Bengaluru with more than 30 researchers and scientists, and its in-house work spans ingredient chemistry, formulation development and clinical research.
The company is also investing outside its own walls. In 2026 it set up the Kapiva Innovation Fund, worth up to ₹50 crore, for researchers, institutions and startups pursuing scientific innovation in Ayurveda. The idea is to support projects that lack research infrastructure and need a path from early concept to validation.
That matters because Ayurveda faces a structural obstacle. Serious research needs laboratories, specialists and money well before a product exists to sell. Kapiva’s approach reflects a broader move in the sector, where R&D is treated as core infrastructure rather than a marketing talking point.
Larger, older names follow a similar pattern. Himalaya Wellness runs an R&D centre in Bengaluru covering more than 130,000 sq. ft., staffed by over 200 physicians and scientists. Dabur has an 80,000 sq. ft. facility in Ghaziabad with more than 100 scientists and botanists. Their approaches differ, but in both cases research and standardisation sit inside product development instead of being added at the communication stage.
Studying the product people actually buy
Evidence on one herb is valuable, but it can’t reliably predict how a finished multi-herb product will behave. That is nudging more companies to test the exact formulation they sell.
Kapiva’s Shilajit Gold is a recent case. The finished product went through an eight-week, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial in healthy men, with physical performance and testosterone as the outcomes. Researchers affiliated with Kapiva have since published a review on the possible mechanisms through which the Shilajit Gold herbal complex could influence athletic performance.
Stating that affiliation is as important as the findings themselves. Trustworthy research doesn’t hide commercial involvement. It makes it visible so readers can judge the evidence with that context in mind.
A larger number of studies isn’t the same as stronger proof
This is where the next stage gets harder. “Clinically studied” is a useful phrase, but it shouldn’t quietly become a stand-in for “scientifically proven.”
Design makes a big difference:
- Study type: A randomised controlled trial answers different questions than an observational study.
- Sample size: A trial with 30 participants gives less confidence than one with several hundred.
- Comparison point: Improvement against a person’s own baseline isn’t the same as a meaningful difference against placebo.
CCRAS recognises this spread. Its clinical research programme uses everything from observational studies and pilot trials to randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews, depending on the question being asked.
The brands that earn the most credibility will be those that explain what a study demonstrates and what it doesn’t.
Openness counts as much as the research
Scientific credibility is difficult to build in private. If a product has been tested, buyers should be able to see meaningful detail. If the company funded a study, it should say so. If the findings are early, the product’s wording should reflect that.
The same expectations are showing up globally. The WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025–2034 makes stronger evidence and appropriate regulation central to bringing traditional medicine into health systems. The second WHO Global Summit on Traditional Medicine went further, urging greater investment in research and noting that the field receives less than 1% of global health research funding. For India’s Ayurvedic industry, that brings pressure and opportunity in equal measure.
Why the best brands invite scrutiny
For decades, Ayurvedic companies could rely on familiarity. People knew the herbs, the tradition and often the brand.
That trust still matters, but there’s now a second layer on top of it. Shoppers can ask where an ingredient came from and how a formula was standardised. They can look for the actual clinical study instead of accepting “clinically tested.” They can ask who funded it and whether its limitations are acknowledged.
Kapiva is building its own research infrastructure, while Himalaya and Dabur bring substantial scientific capability of their own. Government bodies are broadening formal standards and clinical-research frameworks, and WHO is carrying the conversation to a global audience.
The result is a healthier picture of modern Ayurveda: not a tradition dressed up to look scientific, but one that is increasingly willing to be measured, tested and questioned.
