Yoga is an ancient mind-body practice that is increasingly recognized to have health benefits in a variety of clinical and non-clinical conditions. This systematic review summarizes the findings of randomized controlled trials examining the effects of yoga on immune system functioning which is imperative to justify its application in the clinic. Fifteen RCTs were eligible for the review. Even though the existing evidence is not entirely consistent, a general pattern emerged suggesting that yoga can downregulate pro-inflammatory markers. In particular, the qualitative evaluation of RCTs revealed decreases in IL-1beta, as well as indications for reductions in IL-6 and TNF-alpha. These results imply that yoga may be implemented as a complementary intervention for populations at risk or already suffering from diseases with an inflammatory component. Beyond this, yoga practice may exert further beneficial effects by enhancing cell-mediated and mucosal immunity. It is hypothesized that longer time spans of yoga practice are required to achieve consistent effects especially on circulating inflammatory markers. Overall, this field of investigation is still young, hence the current body of evidence is small and for most immune parameters, more research is required to draw distinct conclusions.

In the current research landscape, there are increasing demands for research to be innovative and cutting-edge. At the same time, concerns are voiced that as a consequence of neoliberal regimes of research governance, innovative research becomes impeded. In this paper, I suggest that to gain a better understanding of these dynamics, it is indispensable to scrutinise current demands for innovativeness as a distinct way of ascribing worth to research. Drawing on interviews and focus groups produced in a close collaboration with three research groups from the crop and soil sciences, I develop the notion of a project-innovation regime of valuation that can be traced in the sphere of research. In this evaluative framework, it is considered valuable to constantly re-invent oneself and take ‘first steps’ instead of ‘just’ following up on previous findings. Subsequently, I describe how these demands for innovativeness relate to and often clash with other regimes of valuation that matter for researchers’ practices. I show that valuations of innovativeness are in many ways bound to those of productivity and competitiveness, but that these two regimes are nevertheless sometimes in tension with each other, creating a complicated double bind for researchers. Moreover, I highlight that also the project-innovation regime as such is not always in line with what researchers considered as a valuable progress of knowledge, especially because it entails a de-valuation of certain kinds of long-term epistemic agendas. I show that prevailing pushes for innovativeness seem to be based on a rather short-sighted temporal imaginary of scientific progress that is hardly grounded in the complex realities of research practices, and that they can reshape epistemic practices in potentially problematic ways.

Research needs a balance of risk‐taking in “breakthrough projects” and gradual progress. For building a sustainable knowledge base, it is indispensable to provide support for both.

No abstract