Part 1
Regional Perspective: “Science for Health and Economic Growth Initiative”
Thank you very much Fatima.
Before I begin, I’d like to say good morning to all our guests, colleagues and friends who are here this morning.
I’m very pleased that we are talking about the powerful connection between science, health and economic prosperity.
In recent times, we have seen outbreaks of several emerging pathogens - such as Nippah and Zika virus, and of course the COVID 19 pandemic, as well as the monkey pox virus. These have shown us the gaps in the prevailing systems for conducting large multi-country clinical studies and trials.
There is clearly a need for large-scale, cross-country scientific collaboration for rapidly detecting and responding to emerging infections – and also to address existing regional public health priorities such as dengue, MDR tuberculosis, and more.
This has also made evident a need for a paradigm shift in the way clinical research is conducted. There is a need to create resilient capacity to generate scientific evidence in a timely manner, against a range of possible future infectious disease outbreaks.
As we know, these adverse public health events have also has impacts on the economic prosperity of the countries.
But beyond crisis response and advancements in clinical and public health, in today’s rapidly evolving word, science and innovation are crucial pillars of national development.
Most of the countries in our WHO South-East Asia Region are either low-income, or lower-middle income countries.
Now, there is research that shows that every dollar invested in R&D typically generates multiple dollars in economic return1.
The implication of this is clear: investments in science and innovation will the crucial to many of our Member States achieving ‘developed country’ status in this century.
As we know, science and innovation drive advancements and development in health care, agriculture, industry, and environmental sustainability. They directly impact the well-being and prosperity of our people.
We also know that realizing the full potential of science requires more than just brilliant minds, laboratories or universities. It requires a multifaceted interconnected ecosystem where research flourishes, innovation thrives, and discoveries translate into tangible benefits for society.
I’m very pleased that many of our member states have been increasing their budget allocation for science and innovation, with several national initiatives on digital transformation, green technologies, telemedicine.
In additional some cross-Regional initiatives underway - such as ASEAN plan of action on Science, Technology and Innovation.
Our WHO South-east Asia Region is also well placed to capitalise on these developments, because we have a youthful population, strategic location and increasing global interest.
Even though investments are increasing, we still have several challenges. One of them is that we have a shortage of skilled labor in emerging tech fields. We also sometimes have complex and bureaucratic regulatory and approval procedures, and intellectual property laws. This hinders innovation. For some of our smaller countries, achieve economies of scale is also challenging.
So, I’d like to pose a series of questions which we will need to answer to chart the best way forward.
How should our Member States structure their science ecosystems, and what can they learn from the countries that have such ecosystems thriving?
What key actions do our Member States need to take to build robust, scalable and sustainable science ecosystems?
How should our member states invest and reform STEM education, to cultivate a pipeline of talented scientists, researchers and innovators?
What policy frameworks can encourage collaboration between academia and industry, and ensure equitable access to scientific benefits?
How, and where, should Member States invest their limited domestic resources in Science Ecosystems to maximize the returns?
What specific strategies should Member States follow to address the existing inequalities in access to scientific resources and benefits, particularly for low- and middle-income countries?
Finally, how do we measure our progress in these efforts to strengthen domestic science ecosystems? What should be the key indicators and metrics that we measure and track over time?
The vision of the proposed WHO “Science for health and economic growth” is bold – and South-East Asia certainly stands to benefit the most. Many of our countries - such as India, Indonesia, and Thailand - are already taking important steps in this direction.
I am sure the planned “Science for Health and Economic Growth Commission”, which is co-sponsored by UNESCO and several sponsoring Member States, will answer many of the questions I have posed.
Of course, we are realistic about knowing the answers to these questions will be vary from country to country. Nonetheless, as a Region, we’re excited to start developing the frameworks to drive these developments across our countries.
Thank you.
Part 2
What are the key considerations when deciding between a national science system and a pooled regional approach for funding and resource allocation?
Are there examples of successful pooled regional approaches, and what lessons can be learned from them?
We are currently in a complex context of evolving geo-political and public health situations, particularly with an increasing number of public health emergencies and emerging diseases. In a situation like this, both national and regional approaches have a place.
A national system can focus on national priorities and will have more direct control over budget allocations. But pooled regional approaches can provide economies of scale, shared infrastructure and funding, especially for shared regional concerns or priorities. These is especially beneficial to smaller countries with limited resources & research capacity. The optimal approach will depend upon on the specific regional context, and of course on strategic national and regional goals.
There are some apparently successful examples of regional approaches and programs. These include the European Research Area, and collaborative multi-year research and innovation programs under the European Union’s Framework Programs. The Southern African Development Community has also established regional research and innovation programs, to address common challenges such as food security and climate change2.
Closer to home, the ASEAN Science, Technology and Innovation platform3 facilitates research innovation in countries by addressing region-specific scientific challenges, and promoting funding of cross-border research initiatives.
I think the success of regional approaches will depend on having clear governance and coordination frameworks, including transparent funding mechanisms, mutual trust and commitment among participating countries. In addition, shared objectives and research priorities will ensure that resources are allocated effectively. Long term sustainability of these regional initiatives will depend upon careful consideration of funding mechanisms and governance structures.
Thank you.