evolved a set of policies and practices for applying the tools and methods of pharmacology and pharmacognosy to investigation of herbal medicines, dietary supplements, and probiotics (nccam.nih.gov/research/policies/natural\\... These set the pace at NIH for research on these products because they specifically address a variety of issues related to the often unusual regulatory status of these products. See what I mean? "Apply the tools of pharmacology and pharmacognosy to the investigation of herbal medicines, dietary products, and probiotics"? Why is a special center in the NIH needed for that? It isn't. it's all pharmacognosy and pharmacology. That's all that's needed. There's nothing special about herbal medicines, dietary products, and probiotics, but CAM proponents want you to think that there is because it justifies separating them from the rest of pharmacognosy and putting them under the rubric of NCCAM. Finally, Dr. Killen pulls a gambit that I like to call, "What have you got against science?" Basically, he castigates NCCAM's critics for focusing on how NCCAM lends legitimacy, the imprimatur of the federal government, to quackery: It may be unavoidable that some choose to see the existence of Government investment by NIH in this research as lending false legitimacy to interventions before it is due. We see things differently, believing very strongly that the net benefits of more, reliable, objective scientific evidence -- whether or not it favors use -- far exceed any risks of "false legitimacy." NCCAM is simply not about legitimizing anything unless that is where the evidence points. As