In fact, there already is a fair amount of research demonstrating the effectiveness of homeopathy. This includes Randomized Controlled Studies, Meta-Analyses, etc. published in many peer reviewed medical journals. In the majority of cases, the research and analyses supports the use of homeopathy, or suggests that it merits further study.
Even when the appropriate scientific criteria are met, there remain “naysayers” who insist that the research simply cannot be trusted and that the evidence is not meaningful. These objections are usually couched in language that obfuscates the political agenda that is threatened by the possibility that homeopathy could actually work.
The U.S. government already funds limited research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) via the National Institutes for Health (NIH) Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), but the amount of money apportioned to this center is one of the smallest budgets in the entire NIH. The operating budged for NCCAM is slightly higher than the Building and Grounds budget for the NIH (no kidding!).
All the money allotted to NCCAM is then divided between research proposals from many deserving forms of CAM including homeopathy, acupuncture, hypnosis, Yoga, T’ai Chi, etc.
Pharmaceutical companies whose aim is to develop new drugs fund the bulk of research performed in the U.S. This research, when successful, leads directly to the FDA approval, manufacture and patenting of new drugs that are expected to generate large profits. The entire system is driven by profit.
In the case of homeopathic medicines (which are mostly natural products), these drugs are already readily available, quite inexpensive, and cannot be patented for exclusive sale. Any expenditure applied to research in this field is a form of charity, since it cannot be used solely for the profit of one company. Here again, the desire for profit, prohibits extensive research from being performed in the field of homeopathy.