The Looming Imbalance in Global Health: Why Local Voices Are Crucial for Pandemic Prevention
A startling truth is emerging in the fight against global health threats: despite a five-fold increase in “**One Health**” research since 2018, the power to define priorities and conduct impactful studies remains overwhelmingly concentrated in high-income countries. A new bibliometric analysis from CABI One Health reveals that while collaboration is growing, a significant disparity exists between where health crises are experienced and where research is led – a gap that could undermine future pandemic preparedness.
The Rise of One Health and the Quadripartite Framework
The One Health approach – recognizing the interconnectedness of human, animal, plant, and environmental health – has gained significant traction in recent years. Driven by initiatives like the One Health Quadripartite’s Joint Plan of Action (JPA) 2022–2026, spearheaded by the FAO, UNEP, WHO, and WOAH, the concept aims to create a unified, multi-sectoral response to complex health challenges. However, simply talking about interconnectedness isn’t enough. The CABI study highlights a critical question: who gets to decide what “interconnectedness” means in practice?
Shifting Research Focus, Persistent Gaps
The good news is that One Health research is diversifying. While zoonotic diseases remain a primary focus, increasing attention is being paid to threats like antimicrobial resistance, vector-borne illnesses, and the impact of environmental factors on health. However, crucial areas are being comparatively neglected. The study found that research into the effects of pesticides and mycotoxins on food safety, and the link between biodiversity loss and zoonotic outbreaks, receive a shockingly small fraction of the attention given to more ‘globally visible’ issues. This suggests a potential blind spot in our understanding of the root causes of emerging diseases.
The Power Imbalance: Research Leadership and Local Needs
The core of the problem lies in the geographical distribution of research leadership. A disproportionate amount of One Health research focusing on Africa and Asia is actually conducted by institutions in Europe and North America. While international collaboration is valuable, this dynamic raises concerns about whether research agendas truly reflect the priorities of the communities most affected. As Dr. Dannie Romney of CABI’s One Health Hub points out, this imbalance can lead to research being ignored locally, or even fostering distrust within research communities. It’s akin to having doctors diagnose a patient from afar without truly understanding their lived experience.
Why Local Expertise Matters: Beyond Data Collection
Empowering researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) isn’t simply about fairness; it’s about effectiveness. Local researchers possess invaluable contextual knowledge – understanding of local ecosystems, cultural practices, and existing health infrastructure – that is often missing from externally-led studies. This knowledge is critical for designing interventions that are culturally appropriate, sustainable, and ultimately, successful. Furthermore, building research capacity within LMICs fosters long-term resilience and self-sufficiency in addressing health threats.
Bridging the Gap: Towards Equitable Collaboration
Addressing this imbalance requires a fundamental shift in how One Health research is funded and conducted. Investments should prioritize strengthening research infrastructure in LMICs, providing training opportunities for local scientists, and fostering equitable partnerships that prioritize local leadership. This means moving beyond simply collecting data from affected communities and instead, supporting them to generate knowledge for themselves. The upcoming One Health research roadmap, informed by the CABI study, presents a crucial opportunity to translate these insights into concrete action.
The future of global health security hinges on recognizing that effective pandemic prevention isn’t just a scientific challenge – it’s a matter of equity and empowerment. Ignoring the voices and expertise of those on the front lines of health crises is not only unjust, it’s strategically shortsighted. What steps can we take to ensure that the next global health initiative truly reflects a One Health approach in both spirit and practice? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
