A healthy body has three essential systems for staying that way. There is physical fitness, building resilience against threats. There is the brain, to spot danger and take action. And there is the immune system, to neutralize infections that breach other defenses.
The world needs similar systems to protect against epidemic and pandemic diseases. We need a fit body — a basic infrastructure of public health. We need a nerve center for preparedness and response — an international organization to tackle threats. And we need an immune system — vaccines and drugs to prevent and treat disease.
Ebola revealed fundamental weaknesses in all three systems. It demonstrated that too many countries lacked the health infrastructure to identify new infections and contain them at source. It exposed the need for a stronger WHO to lead preparedness and response. And it showed up a pharmaceutical development pipeline in which promising vaccines had been parked for want of incentives to progress them. Now, a cycle of four expert inquiries into this preventable tragedy has built a powerful consensus about what should be done.
First must come a fitter body. Just as robust health protects individuals, robust health systems protect everyone. When Ebola spread to rich countries, it was rapidly contained. It was in three countries with very poor health infrastructure that the disease took devastating hold.
Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia are not the only countries that lack essential capacity. Only one-third of governments even claim to have implemented the basic requirements of the 2005 International Health Regulations. There is no process for monitoring compliance and no accountability. Neither is much aid available for countries that cannot afford basic systems. States that detect outbreaks often delay reporting, as economic consequences are severe and incentives and compensation absent.
This cannot be resolved at national level. Governments of every country must recognize that investing in public health protects their citizens. Richer nations must recognize that helping others to achieve basic standards is not altruism, but a self-interested cost of security. As the spread of SARS to Canada showed, pathogens do not care for borders. Pandemic defenses are as strong as their weakest links. There must be incentives for declaring outbreaks, and more available aid.
Next we need a sharper brain. Better infrastructure cannot prevent every emergency, and an international agency with legitimacy is needed to plan and execute swift, effective responses. There is no viable candidate besides the WHO, but it lacks the capacity or culture required.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (陳馮富珍) has to her credit acknowledged this and established an emergency response program and a US$100 million contingency fund.
This is progress, but will take us only so far. The budget is insufficient and must be replenished when spent: A UN panel recommends tripling resources to US$300 million and raising national WHO subscriptions by 10 percent to make funding sustainable.
The response unit needs a powerful director backed by an independent board who can cut through WHO’s regional and national bureaucracies. Chan is about to begin her final year as director-general. Establishing this capacity would be a fine legacy.
The final requirement is a better immune system. That means a transformed approach to research and development of vaccines and drugs.
All four reports agree on the need for public, private and philanthropic sectors to step up investment in research and development for diseases where industry lacks much prospect of a market return. When such research takes place at all, it generally relies on the goodwill of pharmaceutical companies prepared to take a loss — Ebola vaccines are a prime example. That is not sustainable, not when we know of dozens of threatening pathogens for which, like Ebola in 2014 and Zika today, we have no vaccine or cure.
As traditional vaccine and drug development timelines are too slow for emergency response, we must invest in technologies that enable more rapid deployment. Zika has demonstrated the need for transformative control of the way diseases are transmitted. These technologies will be useful beyond pandemic outbreaks, for diseases such as malaria that kill and disable every day.
The WHO is drawing up a blueprint for priority research, which can give legitimacy to independent financing and development partnerships. Issues of trial design and regulatory approval must also be worked through in advance, so testing is not delayed when epidemics begin. Vaccines were eventually tested in the Ebola epidemic, but only after months of wrangling. We must not be so slow again.
The strong consensus forged by the four inquiries is not really new. Similar recommendations emerged from reports into SARS and H1N1 flu. The Ebola inquiries must be the last to make them. We have reached a point of decision. With Ebola fresh in the mind, and Zika very current, world leaders must seize on will and momentum that might not exist again, and deliver this manifesto for health security.
Trevor Mundel is president of the global health division at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry