|
 |
|
EMBO reports 5, 2, 115 (2004)
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400084
Global approaches for a healthy world
Frank Gannon
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nowadays, every major summit of the world's leading economies inevitably
draws thousands of protesters demonstrating against the negative effects of
'globalization'. For those protesters, the word 'global' has become tainted.
Indeed, if globalization means a monotony of culture or a monopoly of ownership
of key resources or markets, then it is quite appropriate that banners are
unfurled to promote diversity and competition in the world. But in the
scientific world, increasing globalization can only be viewed as positive. We
scientists frequently point to the fact that there are no barriers to knowledge
and the exchange of information, and that we are players in a transparent and
open enterprise, unimpeded by the time zone in which we work. We are global
players and proud to be so.
But when we move away from the mere exchange of information, this warm
feeling of belonging to a global community soon dissipates. Waiting until
information has been checked for possible commercial applications before
sharing it is a just limitation. But denying scientists from certain countries,
or worse still, certain cultures, access to research laboratories is a much
more serious matter. Postdoctoral researchers from many countries now have to
submit themselves to increasingly complex procedures before they are allowed to
enter the USA. It is not a nice welcome to be treated as if you were a
potential terrorist only because of your passport. It is also not in line with
a global view of science, particularly when visiting postdocs have contributed
so much to the scientific output of the USA and, by extension, to its economic
strength. I hope that this phase of excessive zeal does not last too long, as
we have all benefited from the scientific leadership of the top US
laboratories.
Europe has a different problem. Nationalism is rampant and funding for
research is often restricted to universities and institutes within the country,
while bilateral agreements are so rare that they get special mention in
speeches. Although the EU Framework Programmes are the best solution to
overcome this restrictive mentality, the opportunities for those outside the EU
to get involved are limited both by eligibility and by the complex nature of
the application process. In effect, we in Europe do not do a particularly good
job of attracting and welcoming ready minds from elsewhere. This attitude is
particularly inappropriate at a time when Europe, just like the USA, Japan or
any other economy that is investing in high-tech industries, needs more
scientists.
But the ones who suffer most from limitations to global science are
those colleagues in the developing world. I was reminded of this sad fact
recently during a meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, where the local
university had selected internationally competitive scientists from various
local faculties to establish the Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular
Medicine. At the meeting, the clinicians and their colleagues from the life
sciences reported on their work related to the region's catastrophic problems
with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and cervical cancer caused by human papilloma
virus. Beyond South Africa, the situation gets worse not only because of
increasing poverty, but also because of the lack of skills and funds to address
these major health problems. At the Institute in Cape Town—and in some
other locations in the developing world—there are the skills, the
infrastructure and the commitment to make a difference. However, the African
researchers cannot do this alone—they depend on our commitment to global
science. They need to improve their local capacity and expertise by sending
young scientists to train in laboratories around the world. Relatively short
visits are particularly useful in this context as they tend to have a lower
impact on brain drain, but there are few such funding options for researchers
from developing countries. In addition, they need practical courses in their
local settings. With clinical trials for vaccines on the horizon, skills for
analysing biopsy samples will be needed. The alternative of exporting samples
to laboratories elsewhere would be scandalous—indeed if it was samples
from plants that were being removed from the local environment rather than
clinical samples from humans there would be an outcry by the guardians of
biodiversity. And last but not least, science in Cape Town is as expensive as
it is in Chicago or Cologne, and the excellent scientists there need funding
for their important work.
So, if those who control the funds for science could think and act truly
globally, it would be a win–win situation for both the developing and the
developed worlds. The clinicians who need support from scientists would win and
equally the scientists could learn from the clinicians, which stimulates novel
research. It would be a boost for younger scientists who could get extra
training abroad. It would be a huge benefit for patients and for the health
care system of developing countries. Local economies would gain also, as
additional training would pave the way for upgrading the general skill level,
which attracts companies' interest. It would be a win situation for the
laboratories outside Africa to establish links with African research groups
that have a sadly extensive pool of clinical material available for study. It
would thus also be a win for developed countries that host or support these
activities because it would help to establish collaborations and lead to
further exchanges of scientists, skills and information. There are many major
problems in Africa and other parts of the world, but there are also major
opportunities for cooperation. I hope that those with the power to make
financial commitments will not regard this as a low priority but rather will
see the benefits of a global vision for science and, through it, for
health.
|
|
top  |
|
|
|
