Connect with us

Features

Herbal research, the scientific method and Oncoceuticals

Published

on

“After nearly 17 years of continuous research since 2008, the Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology of the University of Colombo has successfully developed a nutrient-based drug capable of destroying cancer cells. The breakthrough was led by Professor Sameera R. Samarakoon and his research team, who discovered that a combination of five medicinal plants – Vernonia zeylanica, Nigella sativa, Hemidesmus indicus, Leucas zeylanica, and Smilax glabra – has the potential to kill cancer cells. This discovery marks a significant step forward in cancer research, highlighting the value of traditional medicinal plants in modern scientific innovation.”

Daily News– October 3rd 2025

“A locally developed nutraceutical targeting cancer stem cells is expected to generate around two million U.S. dollars in export revenue for Sri Lanka by 2027, according to Prof. Sameera R. Samarakoon of the Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Colombo. The product, launched three years ago, has already gained traction among Sri Lankan consumers, with positive feedback on its effectiveness in improving quality of life. While emphasising that it is not a drug, Prof. Samarakoon said the nutraceutical was developed as an alternative approach in the fight against cancer.”

Daily Mirror

(online) – 10th October 2025

Preamble

Herbal medicine has been used since at least the Paleolithic era, with written records from ancient Sumeria, Egypt, Greece, China, and India documenting its development and application over millennia. Modern herbal medicine is widely used globally, especially in Asia and Africa. Traditional medicine systems involve long-standing, culturally-embedded practices using local herbs, animal products, and spiritual elements. These systems have influenced and contributed to modern pharmacology. Herbalists believe that plants, having evolved defences against environmental stressors, produce beneficial phytochemicals, often extracted from roots or leaves, that can be used in medicine. (Wikipedia)

Hippocrates (460-380 BCE), revered as the Father of Western Medicine, used herbal medicines and classified herbs into their essential qualities of hot and cold, moist and dry, and developed a system of diagnosis and prognosis. The number of effective medicinal plants he discussed was between 300 and 400 species. Thus, most medicines in the early allopathic pharmacopoeia, originated from plants – the ‘foxglove’ to ‘digitalis’ and cinchona to Quinine stories are but two such famous examples.

Current controversy

The knee-jerk negative reactions of most doctors who practise Modern, Western Scientific Medicine to ‘curative’ claims of herbal medicines (as seen from the extracts from news-items above) is to be expected. Suspicions are indeed enhanced particularly when there are many grey areas and lacunae in the explanations offered by the principal investigator (PI) Prof. Sameera Samarakoon of the Institute of Biochemistry, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (IBMBB), University of Colombo.

The Research at IBMBB has faced controversy before with their claim of anti-cancer properties of their research products. One such is a report in The Sunday Times’ of 24th March 2024 under the headline ‘Concerns over alleged cancer-fighting product developed by Colombo University’ which leaves many questions unanswered by Prof. Samarakoon, the lead researcher. The report states that Prof. Samarakoon, when contacted by the Sunday Times’ said that it was a “nutraceutical” based on a traditional herbal formulation. He said that a literature review including in traditional texts on this formulation had been carried out and that he also studied other research done worldwide and practices of traditional and ayurvedic practitioners.

Further, when Prof. Samarakoon referred to “evidence-based medicine” in this product development, the Sunday Times sought a specific answer whether it was evidence-based western medicine or any other. His reply was that it was not western medicine but “traditional and ayurveda medicine”. When requested to give a step-by-step account of the research processes that were followed, as the ‘Vernolac’ blurbs claim “extensive research”, he said that he had conducted laboratory testing on different cancer cells for about 14 years.

Later, animal testing with regard to toxicity studies had been carried out according to WHO (World Health Organization) guidelines. To the query whether the animal testing data were published, he had answered in the negative. When asked about clinical trials with human participation before the marketing of ‘Vernolac’, Prof. Samarakoon had said that when they received registration from the Department of Ayurveda, they could market the products. They were given a period of three years to conduct human testing.

As can be seen, this product, which was on sale since July 2023, does not seem to have undergone human trials as yet.

In the circumstances, this publicity given to even this latest still unnamed ‘neutraceutical’ seems highly premature. What disturbs me more, is that there seems to be an undesirable haste to market these products. We are told by Prof. Samarakoon (in a short video interview available on the web) that they already have had ‘international’ requests and expect to earn about UDS 2.0 million in the coming year. Whereas it is the accepted wisdom in today’s science, that commercialisation of research is necessary, the linkage between ‘money’ and ‘science research’ worldwide has had too many negative outcomes. Hence, a careful watch by public-interest watchdogs becomes essential. To add to it, I am further perturbed that the IBMBB has embarked on Sri Lanka’s first ‘Bio-entreprenuership programme’ advertised on their website in June 2025. When this gets linked to IBMBB research that is creeping through loopholes in rigorous research and ethical protocols that are demanded in modern scientific research in an institute that has gained a reputation in the Western scientific tradition, their rush to commercialise and market products under ‘neutraceuticals’ – a word that is not easily understood by the average person to be distinctly different from a medicine, the research and ethical bona fides of the research team comes into serious question.

The gross lacunae in their scientific methodology have been given serious critical evaluation in great detail in the social media by Prof. Suneth Agampodi, an internationally recognised researcher, which needs to be addressed by Prof. Samarakoon’s research team. We await a more sedate approach to good research and its commercialisation. An attempt to fast-track commercialisation of good phytopharmacologcal research by the IBMBB will only cast a veil of doubt over their pioneering attempts which could bring benefits to mankind – particularly in the area of oncopharmacology.

What I would disagree with is to make a comparison of the research outcomes of the IBMBB with Dammika Peniya and its equivalents. Let us be scientifically charitable. Weaknesses in the research methodology of Prof. Samarakoon’s team should not be used to denigrate that research with one dismissive ‘black brush’.

What of cancer treatment in modern Western scientific medicine?

Except in a few cancers, the word “cure” is never used. Even then, the cautious physicians use the more conservative terms “remission” and “five-year survival rates” – early detection being the key single factor. Modern scientific medicine has still failed to overcome cancer in any acceptable and reliable form. There are over 10 million cancer deaths by latest estimates (2025) and over 20 million new patients every year, worldwide. Tie that up with the extremely high costs of cancer drugs – the most expensive medicines in the market, and you have a multibillion-dollar business that is, perhaps, more lucrative than even the armament trade.

The grim reality of cancer medicines and improvement in survival is epitomised in this Mayo Clinic Proceedings (October 2012):

“Last year, ipilimumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The benefit in survival over and above standard treatment arms was 3.7 months in previously treated patients and 2.1 months in previously untreated patients. The cost: $120,000 for 4 doses. As staggering a figure as that is, the drug is hardly alone in its lofty price. We believe that the immense cost of contemporary cancer drugs signals even greater costs for future drugs.”

To give you some idea what we are up against in trying to face up to cancer treatment, let me give you a few random snippets:

· Immunotherapy is one of the four pillars of cancer treatment that has recently emerged as a beacon of hope for cancer patients.

· Danyelza costs $20,368 per vial, and patients typically use around 48 vials per year, bringing the annual cost close to $977,664 (SLR 293 million). It is used to treat a certain type of cancer (neuroblastoma in bone or bone marrow).

· Dostarlimab, a monoclonal antibody, has surprised the medical profession by showing complete (100%) cure of patients with colorectal cancer. It costs about USD 12,000 (SLR 3.6 million) per dose.

So where do cancer patients in Sri Lanka stand?

This is an area that I am not competent to comment on in any detail. Our oncologists will have to fill in the blanks here. But in a nutshell, being a poor country, with largely a publicly-funded national healthcare service, the cancer drugs used in Sri Lanka already take a significant slice of the annual health budget. Due to the economic crisis, there have been shortages of these and other essential medicines. Our oncologists are doing a valiant task in unenviable circumstances with the available onco-medicines. I don’t think we have any reliable data on cancer survival rates in Sri Lanka. But with late cancer detection, and best available medicines being absolutely not affordable, they can’t be that very good.

Then again, how reliable are the medicines on offer in modern western scientific medical practice? How scientific is scientific?

The BMA note of warning must be digested carefully.

“The medical profession has an obligation to assure the public that treatment offered is appropriate and is justified by its intrinsic merit, uninfluenced by commercial or financial interests. This is especially important in relation to pharmaceutical products.”

(British Medical Association, Philosophy & Practice of Medical Ethics, 1988; Gresham Press, Survey, 59.)

In the introduction to his book “Science in the Private Interest: has the lure of profit corrupted biomedical research“, Sheldon Krimsky, Professor at Tufts University, USA, says that:

The mix of science and commerce continues to erode the ethical standards of research and diminish public confidence in its results.”

In this book, Krimsky details several case studies. Here is one of them in some detail:

“A scientist signs a research agreement with a drug company and loses control over the science.

Betty J. Dong, pharmacologist at the University of California, San Francisco, signs a contract not to publish results without consent of Flint Laboratories (subsequently taken over by Knoll Pharmaceuticals) who funded her research on the antithyroid drug Synthroid in 1987. In 1990, she found that Synthroid was no more effective than other preparations, including generic preparations. The results of her research were adverse to the company. In retaliation, they complain of flaws in the research protocol. These allegations were rejected following an inquiry by the Chair in Pharmacology of UCSF. Her research was reviewed and accepted for publication by JAMA in November 1994. The company threatened to sue her for sales losses if the research article is published. The UCSF lawyers refused to defend her as the agreement is to her disadvantage. Fearing large legal costs, she had no other option but to withdraw the article from JAMA 2 weeks before the date of publication. After the Wall Street Journal published an investigative report on April 25, 1996 about Dong’s negative findings and the attempts of Knoll Pharmaceuticals to obstruct publication, the FDA notified Knoll that it had “violated provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act by misbranding Synthroid.” By November 1996, after much legal wrangling, Knoll agreed not to block the publication. The article was finally published by JAMA in their April 1997 issue – 10 years after the research had commenced – during which time, sales of Synthroid had continued under false pretexts.”

Here is another from the literature on a scandalous controversy that erupted at Harvard Medical School (the details of which, I have no space to elucidate.):

Dr. Marcia Angell, a faculty member at Harvard Medical School and former editor-in- chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, is among the professors who argue that industry profit motives do not correspond to the scientific aims of academic medicine and that much of the financing needs to be not only disclosed, but banned. Too many medical schools, she says, have struck a “Faustian bargain” with pharmaceutical companies. “If a school like Harvard can’t behave itself,” Dr. Angell asks, “who can?”

I have described earlier, many such instances in great detail where pharma companies have paid medical researchers to bend and even distort their own research findings. (Prof. K.N. Seneviratne Oration, Physiological Society of Sri Lanka 2009).

What I am trying to say here, is that as much as IBMBB is accused of dubious research on onco-medicines fast-tracked for financially lucrative purposes, so have too many medical researchers paid by ‘Big Pharma’ in reputed research institutes and universities in the US and the West. The web is replete with such information for those interested in seeking them.

I am not attempting to totally dispute the efficacy of western onco-medicines in alleviating suffering of cancer patients and perhaps improving their quality of life. Palliative medicine is now a well-acknowledged speciality that recognises that cancer cannot be completely cured and they deal with terminally ill cancer patients – especially in pain relief during their last days of life. But the fact remains that attempts to improve the quality of life of the terminally ill, is basically what IBMBB researchers are also claiming. Is it not?

Since neither Western Medicines that have gone through the full spectrum of scientific human clinical trials, and methodologically weak IBMBB research are capable of definitive cures for cancer, as yet, and the IBMBB is only claiming that their ‘Nutraceuticals’ are only supplements to whatever regular treatments the patients are undergoing and not an alternative, it should not have been a battle between oncologists and IBMBB. It should be a serious attempt to combine their intellectual resources towards seeking effective new medicines in the alleviation of suffering of terminal cancer patients. Herbs, as shown clearly, in the history of Western medicine, have much to offer.

Where does the rigours of the scientific method come into existential conflict with the contextual and situational reality of the terminal cancer patient? If that sentence sounds verbose gibberish, let me ask it simply. Does it make much difference to terminal cancer patients if they try a ‘herbal concoction’ in their last days, in some fervent hope that it could give them relief from the terrible adverse effects of Western onco-medicines?

To end on a personal note. My wife died of breast cancer after three years of western onco-treatment – not only of uncontrolled spread of the disease, but also of suffering from the horrible adverse effects brought on by western onco-medicines and radiation. In her last days, would I have tried the IBMBB concoction in the hope of decreasing her adverse effects and improving her quality of life – even the littlest bit? Of course, I would have.

by Susirith Mendis
Professor Emeritus, University of Ruhuna



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

World Cup Football, Trump’s War and Peace Chaos, and Obama’s Serene Legacy

Published

on

Barak Obama and Michelle Obama statue at the new Presidential Centre

President Trump is constantly exceeding expectations about his ability to spread chaos in his country and around the world. To the chaos and destruction of the war against Iran that he began on February 28, he is now adding the chaos of peace. The 2026 World Cup has crashed into the chaotic world of both. In the midst of all of Trumps’ chaos, the US is anchoring the hosting of 2026 World Cup Football, flanked by Mexico to the south and Canada to the north. In the midst of it all, former President Obama held the opening ceremony for the Obama Presidential Centre in southside Chicago on Thursday, June 18.

It was a beautiful ceremony that was full of grace and elegance and a call for future action to stop America’s aberrational detour of the last 10 years and restore its historical march towards being a more perfect union as stipulated in the constitution. Trump was not mentioned but the contrast was clear. In attendance were all former US Presidents and world leaders of the Obama era, including Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau. The Presidential Centre is a massive campus with a 225-foot behemoth tower, a museum, library and a basketball gym.

The project has been controversial with initial community backlash about its location in a public park and the threat of gentrification that may drive modest households in the area out of their homes. The actual implementation of the project and the choreographing of its opening ceremony would seem to have responded well to the early concerns. The City of Chicago has passed an ordinance to preserve affordable housing in the area, and a University of Chicago study has projected that the Centre would create 1,900 new permanent jobs and an annual $220 million economic spin-off for the City.

The timing of the opening could not have been politically more apt than being midway through Trump’s rapidly unravelling second terms in office. Local and national artists provided politically immersive entertainment, and the speeches were by President Obama and the former First Lady Michelle Obama, the two finest of speakers in contemporary America. Neither of them mentioned Trump, but both left no doubt of their concern with Trump’s America and “fierce urgency” of the moment to start undoing all of Trump’s misdoings in America and around the world. Obama insisted that Centre is not meant to be a monument to his presidency but a “vibrant, living celebration of community,” and hoped that it would inspire Americans now experiencing “anger and vision” to look “for fairness and common sense and mutual respect,” at the same time.

The Centre and its opening ceremony are a perfect foil to the Trump’s presidency and its grotesque ways. This year Trump is presiding over the 250th anniversary of American Independence. And he is doing it in his own way – inviting the King of England to mark the occasion and then hosting an evening of wrestling, of all places on one of the White House lawns, featuring only badass white male pugilists. The latter was also in celebration of his 80th birthday. A good majority of Americans including Republicans do not approve of Trump’s vulgarization of American culture.

Trump signing the MOU at Chateâu de Versailles

Trump wants to transform Washington to entrench his name and image in perpetuity, to elevate him to the same status heights of presidential greats such as Lincoln and Kennedy, and to leave everywhere the maximalist mark of his obsession with gold and its colour. But the courts, certainly those below the Supreme Court, would have none of them. One after the other, the Courts have disallowed his bizarre efforts at narcissistic exhibitionism. A US District Court Judge in Washington has declared that Trump’s directive to change the name of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts be known as the “Trump-Kennedy Center” is unconstitutional, and he ordered the restoration of the original name along with the removal of the name of Trump from all of the Centre’s venue names, websites, records and documents. The courts have also stopped Trump’s construction ball to build a new oversized ballroom devouring one of its historic lawns. The president went ahead without license or permit excavating a foundation cavern, and now his legacy after he leaves the White House could be a gaping hole in front of the main building. It will fall to his successor to bury Trump’s legacy and back-fill the hole.

World Cup Antidote

It turns out that after 18 months of Trump’s chaotic and traumatic second term, the World Cup is a welcome antidote to the convulsions that only the current US president is capable of causing for others. For sports fans in general, the World Cup is crashing into a crowded midyear sports agenda, that includes the French Open and the Wimbledon tournaments in tennis and majors in other sports. With technology enabling the simultaneous coverage of the global and the local, sports like other entertainments is catering to the local and global interests of fans.

Forty eight countries, including Iran, are in the bowl, and their supporters and flags are overflowing the streets and stadia of the 16 cities in the US (11), Mexico (three) and Canada (two), where the matches are being played. FIFA oligarchy could not have found a better free market host than Donlad Trump. Ticket prices have gone through the roof, for unlike in Europe and South America where there are limits on prices, there is none in the US but only limited restrictions in Canada and Mexico. FIFA is reaping the American free market and keeping the national football associations quiet against fandom pressure by sharing the ticket bounty proportionately with each national outpost.

On the other hand, it is also remarkable to see massive crowds filling up the stadia and other public venues to watch their favourite game. For all the talk and reality of inequality in wealth, there is also money in the pockets of many to splurge on tickets for a world cup football game, the modern opium of the masses. As with the old religion, there is a hierarchy among spectators and their seats, the latter rising from the close-up seats at the pitch level, where the price is at its highest, and reaching to the skies above from where one can steal a bird’s eye view of the action below at much lower but still high prices.

For American sports fans, the World Cup came crashing into the finals of the National Basketball Championship, which was especially remarkable this year because the New York Knicks whose home base is the storied Maddison Square Gardens, the Mecca of basketball, in the heart of New York, won the national championship after an interval of 53 years. For basketball aficionados, the victorious 1973 Knicks team included such national figures as Phil Jackson and Bill Bradely. Jackson would later coach Michael Jordon and Chicago Bulls, and Kobe Bryant and LA Lakers, guiding them to multiple championships. Bradley went on to become a long serving US Senator from New Jersey for the Democratic Party and was an unsuccessful presidential contender in 2020. Bradley was often compared to the similarly unsuccessful Adlai Stevenson whom President Kennedy appointed as his envoy to the UN, calling him “the most articulate statesman of our time.”

The Knicks’ long awaited victory may inspire hope among contenders at the World Cup. Only eight countries have won the World Cup so far – Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Uruguay. Netherlands has been to three finals but never won the cup. Italy that has won four World Cups has twice failed to qualify – in 2022 and again in 2026. Germany, another four-times winner is looking to return to its winning ways and end its dismal record since 2014. Mexico and Portugal are leading soccer countries but have never won the cup or been in the finals.

England who invented the game has won the cup only once – way back in 1966 – and is hoping to win again. “Coming home … football is coming home”, the 1996 song is now being sung everywhere England is playing in North America. First sung to mark England’s hosting of the Euro Cup in 1996, the song has become England’s veritable football anthem blending nostalgic joy for the 1966 win and pathos, with hope, for the country’s successive losses ever since. The English team this year parades an impressive array of young talent. Fans are both hopeful as well as resigned as has been their wont. They have reason for hope as pundits have short listed England among the top four contenders.

As the opening matches are being played out, the favoured teams are acquitting themselves well. Argentina, the reigning champions, has sent perhaps the strongest message with its 3-0 victory over Algeria. More than the scoreline, it is Lionel Messi’s masterclass of a hat trick that has electrified the fans and alerted the other teams. France is not far behind with its 4-1 win against Senegal. England registered a stirring 4-2 win against Croatia, the country that defeated it in the semifinals in the 2018 World Cup in Russia.

The most favoured country Spain was totally out of sorts in its opening game and was held to a goalless draw by Cabo (or Cape) Verde, the little West African island and part of the Dutch Kingdom. Other contenders, Brazil, Portugal and Netherlands were held to 1-1 draws respectively by Morocco, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Japan. At the same time, Mexico, South Korea, USA, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway and Austria have scored impressive opening match victories. Iran played well against New Zealand in a 2-2 tie. No one is expecting any country that has never won the World Cup before to become champions now. The last time it happened was in 2010 when Spain won for the first time and only time so far. But that does not dampen fan enthusiasm over every match that will be played until the finals on Sunday, July 19, in New York City.

The paradox of Peace

American attention to world matters has never befitted the country’s superpower status. And the chasm have never been wider than under President Trump. The level of awareness ranges from total ignorance to absolute indifference. The attention to the war against Iran has been no different. The people, politicians and the media have almost singularly been focused on the price at the pump and the cost of groceries. These are fundamental concerns in politics, no doubt, but the economic havoc that the war is causing for the Middle East and the rest of the world has never been an equal concern in the US public discourse and media commentaries. Of course, American experts will lead the way analyzing and writing about the global effects of the war on Iran, but that will be a postmortem and it will not compensate for the real time failure of the Trump Administration to give due weight, as a superpower must, to the global effects of its war making decisions.

Trump admitted in France that he signed the MOU with Iran to avoid “economic catastrophe” in the US. That says it all even though he will likely never say it again. The MOU is officially called – Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. So, Pakistan gets its place in history and deservedly so. And Trump crafted his own history by signing a hard copy of the MOU at the Palace of Versailles, of all palaces, following his G7 summit attendance in the French Alps. Will the same hard copy be ever signed by an Iranian leader is an open question. That will be for future museums to explain, among many other leftovers of Trump. Trump may also use a certified copy of the document, if not the original itself, for the next application on his behalf for the Nobel Peace Prize.

This MOU has been signed by multiple times by both sides, but perhaps its strongest endorsement came with the approval of direct negotiation between Iran and the US given by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mujtaba Khamenei and read out on state television. The paradox of this peace is that while the MOU is universally welcome everywhere in the world, it is receiving the harshest scrutiny within the US. There is no palpable enthusiasm for it in the country. The war hawks are not at all pleased. Republicans are confused about Trump going to war for no reason and signing an MOU that gives Iran a control over the Strait of Hormuz that it never had before.

Democrats have no interest in welcoming the MOU, and they are focused on the overall failure of Trump in the Middle East. The powerful Israeli lobby has gone mute, fully realizing that their Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has overreached himself with his war zealotry and made Israel unwelcome among a majority of Americans and a virtual pariah state in the world. Vice President Vance, who is doing damage control to save his own presidential plans for 2028, has warned that Israel must realize that President Trump is “the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time.”

The 14-point MOU is a finely worded and compact document, but it would have received universal support even in America had Trump achieved this without going to war and as an extension of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and the P5 + 1 (US, UK, France, Russia, China and Germany) that was facilitated by President Obama. Trump tore up that agreement and has been personally vindictive in criticizing Obama for allegedly reaching a deal that was only advantageous to Iran. It was not, and Trump’s irrational criticisms of the JCOPA are now coming back to haunt him as US critics are picking apart Trump’s MOU by comparing it to Obama’s JCPOA and taking into account the war-cost of the new MOU. Overseas, the G7 leaders who have been insulted by Trump all along, are welcoming the MOU as a “game changer,” perhaps hoping that flattery is the only way to keep Trump’s antics to be minimal for the rest of his presidency.

by Rajan Philips

Continue Reading

Features

Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation:Restoring Mobility, Dignity and Hope Across Sri Lanka

Published

on

For thousands of Sri Lankans living with limb loss and physical disabilities, access to quality rehabilitation services remains a significant challenge. Yet, for more than three decades, our organisation has quietly transformed lives through innovation, compassion and community-based care. The Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited (MRFGL), supported by the Meththa Foundation-UK has emerged as one of Sri Lanka’s most effective voluntary rehabilitation service providers, restoring mobility, independence and dignity to some of the country’s most vulnerable citizens.

The Foundation’s roots stretch back to 1994, when a group of expatriate Sri Lankan professionals in the United Kingdom recognized the severe shortage of rehabilitation services available to disabled persons in Sri Lanka. Drawing upon their expertise in rehabilitation medicine and allied healthcare professions, they established the Meththa Foundation-UK with a simple but powerful vision: to provide affordable, high-quality prosthetic and rehabilitation services to those who needed them most.

What began as an effort to recycle and repurpose high-quality prosthetic components donated by the UK’s National Health Service has evolved into a comprehensive rehabilitation network serving communities across the island.

Clinical services commenced in Sri Lanka in 1995 through a mobile outreach programme that initially supported injured soldiers and later expanded to civilians affected by conflict and disability. The majority of them were victims of land mines. In 2010, the Sri Lankan arm of the organisation was formally registered as the Meththa Rehabilitation Foundation Guarantee Limited, strengthening its ability to deliver sustainable services nationwide.

Today, the Foundation operates four modern rehabilitation centres located in Mahawa, Mankulam, Balapitiya and Kilinochchi. These centres provide prosthetic and orthotic services, posture and mobility support, limb repairs, and rehabilitation assistance to patients from diverse social and economic backgrounds.

Recognising that many disabled individuals live in remote areas with limited access to healthcare, Meththa Foundation also established a mobile outreach service in 2011. Through a successful “Hub and Spoke” model, rehabilitation teams travel regularly to underserved communities, ensuring that patients are not denied care simply because of distance or financial hardship.

The scale of the Foundation’s work is impressive. During 2025 alone, the organization recorded approximately 2,000 patient contacts, including the provision of 350 new artificial limbs, 850 limb repairs and around 800 other rehabilitation devices. For many beneficiaries, these interventions represent far more than medical treatment; they offer a pathway back to employment, education and social participation.

Innovation has become a hallmark of the Foundation’s approach. Through an active research and development programme, MRFGL has developed affordable prosthetic technologies specifically suited to Sri Lankan conditions. Among its achievements is the development of a modular below-knee artificial limb system manufactured largely from locally sourced materials. The Foundation has also designed low-cost prosthetic knee components that significantly reduce the financial burden on patients while maintaining quality and functionality. These developments are funded by generous International Grants facilitated by affluent members of the Meththa Foundation-UK. Service users are encouraged to donate whatever they can but for those who cannot, which is a majority the services are entirely free.

These innovations not only make rehabilitation more affordable but also strengthen local manufacturing capabilities and reduce dependence on imported components.

Equally important is the Foundation’s commitment for building local expertise. Recognizing the shortage of trained rehabilitation professionals in Sri Lanka, Meththa Foundation established an apprentice-based vocational training programme that recruits and trains young people as prosthetists, orthotists and rehabilitation technicians. Several locally trained staff members are now employed across the Foundation’s centres, helping to create a sustainable workforce for the future.

The organisation’s work has attracted growing recognition within the healthcare sector. Discussions have already taken place with health authorities regarding the potential use of Meththa-designed prosthetic components within Government hospitals. Such collaboration could significantly expand access to affordable rehabilitation services throughout the country.

Beyond its clinical achievements, the Foundation’s impact is measured in restored confidence and renewed independence. Surveys conducted among beneficiaries indicate that many educated amputees successfully return to productive lives after receiving rehabilitation support. However, the Foundation also highlights an ongoing challenge among poorer and less educated amputees, many of whom struggle to access follow-up care due to transportation difficulties and financial constraints.

To address this issue, the organization hopes to expand its mobile services and community outreach programmes. Additional funding would allow rehabilitation teams to reach isolated communities more frequently, ensuring that vulnerable patients continue to receive the support they need.

Operating on an annual expenditure of approximately Rs. 30 million in Sri Lanka, supplemented by overseas fundraising and donations, the Foundation remains heavily reliant on the generosity of donors, charitable trusts and well-wishers. Every contribution directly supports the provision of artificial limbs, mobility devices, training programmes and outreach services for those who might otherwise be left behind.

As Sri Lanka continues to strengthen its healthcare and social welfare systems, organisations such as the Meththa Foundation demonstrate how innovation, volunteerism and dedication can create lasting social impact. By helping individuals regain mobility and independence, the Foundation is not merely providing artificial limbs—it is rebuilding lives and restoring hope.

For many beneficiaries, every step they take is a testament to the life-changing work of the Meththa Foundation.

www.meththafoundation-sl-uk.org

Chairman’s WhatsApp contact number +94 77 788 6119

Prof S P Lamabadusuriya, Chairman

Dr B Panagamuwa, First Trustee

Continue Reading

Features

Sri Lanka’s Marine Frontline: Dr. Samantha Gunasekara’s Battle Against Plastic Pollution and Transboundary Waste

Published

on

Dr. Gunasekara with Environment Minister Dr Dhammika Patabendi at the First International Conference on Marine Science & Sustainability

For decades, Sri Lanka’s coastline has been celebrated for its pristine beaches, rich marine biodiversity and vibrant fishing communities. Yet beneath the beauty lies an escalating environmental crisis that threatens ecosystems, fisheries, tourism and coastal livelihoods.

At the forefront of the battle against marine pollution is Dr. Samantha Gunasekara, Chairman of the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA), who has spearheaded some of the country’s most ambitious coastal restoration and pollution mitigation programmes in recent years.

In an interview with The Island, Dr. Gunasekara outlined the scale of the challenge facing Sri Lanka’s marine environment, from locally generated plastic waste to transboundary pollution washing ashore from beyond the country’s borders.

He also spoke about the ongoing clean-up following the MV MSC Elsa 3 maritime incident and the urgent need for regional cooperation to tackle marine litter in the Indian Ocean.

“The issue is much bigger than what people see on a beach,” Dr. Gunasekara said. “When the public notices plastic bottles, polythene bags or other debris on the shoreline, they are only seeing the final stage of a problem that begins many kilometres inland.”

According to him, more than 80 percent of marine plastic pollution originates from land-based sources.

“What is found in the ocean is largely a reflection of what happens on land. Waste discarded into canals, streams and rivers eventually reaches the sea. Unless we address waste management within the country, marine pollution will continue regardless of how many clean-up programmes we conduct.”

He noted that household waste, industrial refuse, improperly managed dumpsites and littering remain major contributors to marine pollution.

Over the past year, MEPA has intensified its coastal clean-up operations, restoring numerous beaches that had been heavily contaminated by plastic and polythene waste.

The results have been dramatic.

Photographs documenting several restoration projects reveal coastlines once buried beneath layers of plastic debris transformed into clean and attractive public spaces.

“The President himself expressed concern after seeing the scale of pollution in some areas,” Dr. Gunasekara said. “That support has enabled us to move forward with several restoration initiatives.”

Yet, despite local efforts, Sri Lanka continues to face a challenge largely beyond its control—transboundary marine pollution.

Dr. Gunasekara was particularly concerned about the volume of waste washing ashore in the Northern Province and surrounding islands.

He said islands such as Delft, Nainativu, Punkudutivu and Eluvaitivu receive enormous quantities of foreign-origin debris every year.

“The quantities are unbelievable. If someone visits these locations after a rough sea period, they will immediately understand the magnitude of the problem,” he said.

According to observations made during numerous clean-up operations, a significant proportion of the debris appears to originate from across the Palk Strait.

“Based on the labels, packaging, language markings and the nature of the waste, it is evident that much of the material comes from India. In some locations, nearly all the debris collected can be traced to Indian sources,” Dr. Gunasekara said.

He stressed that the issue should not be viewed as an attempt to assign blame but rather as a regional environmental challenge requiring regional solutions.

“The ocean does not recognise political boundaries. What enters the sea in one country can easily end up on the shores of another. This is why cooperation among neighbouring countries is essential.”

Nevertheless, he believes stronger action is required.

“Sri Lanka invests considerable resources in cleaning its coastlines. When foreign-origin waste continuously arrives on our shores, it places an additional burden on our economy and our institutions.”

Recognising the seriousness of the issue, MEPA has prepared policy proposals and submitted recommendations through the relevant ministry seeking higher-level government engagement.

A Cabinet paper addressing transboundary marine debris has also been prepared for consideration.

“The intention is to facilitate discussions at government-to-government level. We need practical mechanisms for prevention, monitoring and mitigation,” he said.

Dr. Gunasekara pointed out an apparent contradiction.

“Several coastal areas in India have received international recognition for beach cleanliness and environmental management. Therefore, there is no reason why similar standards cannot be maintained more broadly. The challenge is ensuring that waste generated inland does not eventually enter the marine environment.”

Another major challenge facing Sri Lanka has been the aftermath of the MV MSC Elsa 3 incident, which released large quantities of plastic nurdles into the marine environment.

Nurdles are tiny plastic pellets used as raw material in plastic manufacturing and are considered among the most difficult forms of marine pollution to remove because of their small size and tendency to disperse over vast distances.

Dr. Gunasekara recalled that the first signs of contamination emerged in Delft Island before spreading rapidly along the coastline.

“Initially there was little evidence of significant contamination. Then, within weeks, large quantities began washing ashore,” he said.

The pellets eventually spread across numerous northern islands and along extensive sections of the western coastline.

MEPA responded immediately, deploying personnel and mobilising local communities.

For the first three months, the authority led much of the clean-up effort directly.

However, the scale of contamination soon required additional resources.

Discussions were initiated with representatives of the shipping company and its insurers.

“The company agreed to support the clean-up operation under MEPA’s supervision and technical guidance,” Dr. Gunasekara said.

Today, thousands of workers continue to participate in the recovery effort.

At its peak, nearly 1,700 labourers were engaged daily in collecting nurdles and associated debris from affected coastal areas.

The operation remains one of the largest marine pollution response exercises undertaken in Sri Lanka.

Workers have been provided with protective equipment, water, welfare facilities and logistical support funded by the responsible parties.

“The objective is not simply to remove visible pollution but to minimise long-term environmental impacts,” Dr. Gunasekara said.

The task has proven far more complex than initially anticipated.

Changing ocean currents and rough weather have redistributed pollution into previously unaffected locations.

“Areas that were relatively clean months ago are now receiving fresh deposits. Therefore, the operation remains dynamic and requires constant monitoring.”

The volume of recovered material has been staggering.

According to MEPA estimates, approximately 47 shipping containers have already been filled with collected debris.

“These containers include nurdles, bottles, packaging material and other plastic waste recovered from beaches and coastal habitats,” he said.

The authority is now examining environmentally responsible disposal options.

Recycling remains difficult because prolonged exposure to seawater often contaminates plastic materials and reduces their suitability for conventional recycling processes.

Adding another mystery, MEPA recently detected coloured nurdles among the recovered pellets.

“We have found red, blue and green pellets. Traditionally, nurdles are colourless. We are investigating the source and significance of these findings,”

Dr. Gunasekara said.

Despite the immense challenges, he remains encouraged by the support received from local communities.

Fishing families, religious leaders, schools and volunteer groups have joined restoration efforts across the country.

In the North, villagers welcomed clean-up teams with garlands and handmade gifts as expressions of gratitude.

“These gestures demonstrated how much these communities value their environment,” he said.

Religious institutions have also become important partners.

“In several coastal regions, churches and temples helped coordinate volunteers and identify the most vulnerable communities requiring assistance.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Gunasekara believes Sri Lanka must adopt a broader vision of marine environmental protection.

He argues that marine pollution should no longer be regarded solely as an environmental issue.

“It affects fisheries, tourism, public health and national development. Every plastic bottle thrown into a canal ultimately becomes someone else’s problem.”

He also advocates stronger regional cooperation within South Asia to address marine pollution, improve waste management and establish joint monitoring mechanisms.

“The future of the Indian Ocean depends on collective action. No country can solve this problem alone.”

As Sri Lanka continues its struggle against mounting environmental pressures, Dr. Gunasekara’s message is both urgent and hopeful.

“The sea has sustained our civilisation for generations. Protecting it is not merely an environmental obligation; it is a responsibility we owe to future generations.”

For the chairman of MEPA, the mission extends beyond cleaning beaches. It is about safeguarding an entire marine heritage—one that remains central to Sri Lanka’s identity, economy and future prosperity.

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Trending