How Tibetan Medicine in Exile Became a “Medical System” Stephan Kloos Received: 26 September 2011 / Accepted: 29 November 2012 q National Science Council, Taiwan 2013 Abstract Tibetan medicine or Sowa Rigpa was largely ignored in classic publications on “Asian medical systems.” This article contends that one important reason for this oversight was that Tibetan medicine had not yet managed to establish itself as a recognizable medical system at that time. This has changed only recently with ongoing political and economic processes through which Tibetan medicine in exile has been transformed, since the 1990s, from a regional health tradition into a globally recog- nizable and clearly defined and delimited medical system. After some reflection on the notion of medical systems, this article focuses on the events and interests that led to the establishment of the Central Council of Tibetan Medicine in early 2004, which can be regarded as the official establishment of Sowa Rigpa as a medical system. The dis- cussion then moves on to the consequences of this development for Tibetan medicine in exile at large, and for its most powerful institution, the Men-Tsee-Khang, in particular. The outcome of wider exile Tibetan political aspirations, Sowa Rigpa’s “embodiment” as a medical system also has direct medical and pharmaceutical dimen- sions, manifesting most importantly in efforts to regulate and standardize its syllabi, clinical practice, and pharmaceutical production. The article gives in-depth insights into some of the most important recent developments in Tibetan medicine in exile, its economic and political organization, and the role of its main institutions. Keywords Tibetan medicineÁSowa RigpaÁTibetan exileÁAsian medical systems Acknowledgments The research and writing of this article was funded, at different stages, by a Wenner Gren dissertation fieldwork grant, the Austrian Science Fund (FWF project P20589-G15), and a Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship (PIIF-GA-2010-275832). I am grateful to the Body, Health and Religion Research Group (BAHAR) for enabling me to participate on its international workshop on Tibetan medicine in Cardiff. Special thanks are due to Geoffrey Samuel, Elisabeth Hsu, Mona Schrempf, Barbara Gerke, Colin Millard, and the other workshop participants, as well as Me ´lanie Vandenhelsken and two anonymous reviewers, for their insightful comments and suggestions. Finally, I am indebted to the CCTM, its executive members, and staff for their collaboration and support over the years, without which this research would not have been possible. S. Kloos (*) Institute for Social Anthropology, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Apostelgasse 23, A-1030, Vienna, Austria e-mail: skloos@gmail.com East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal (2013) 7:381–395 DOI 10.1215/18752160-2333653