At a lunch meeting at the ICSU General Assembly in Rio de Janeiro in September, 2002, representatives of several Unions decided that an ICSU cross-union collaboration initiative should be developed. The overall task is to develop a unique contribution representing the competence of the ICSU bodies.
The present meeting is characterised as a 'brain-storming session' to delineate the scope of the initiative and to formulate a mission statement, as well as potential areas for collaboration.
Dr Pierre Ritchie was unable to participate in the meeting but sent a letter which comments: 'the initial proposal from our collective group needs to be very high quality to ensure longer term credibility with the Committee on Scientific Planning and Review (CSRP) and ICSU, a full scale proposal for 2004 might be ideal, its feasibility remains to be determined…. I believe it is valuable for the group to strongly recommend the theme of health (with or without elaboration) as a priority for the 2005 grants. If it is feasible to propose a 'seeding activity' for the 2004 grants (due March 1) that would be fine….' (He commented as an individual, rather than a representative of CSRP or his Union.)
A presentation was made by Dr. Anne-Hélène Prieur-Richard (DIVERSITAS) on the Global Change Program, a coordinated activity initiated in 2001. The Earth System Science Partnership is a joint effort including the International Program of Biodiversity Science (Diversitas), International Human Dimensions Program on Global Environmental Change (IHDP), World Climate Research Program (WCRP) and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP). The program studies the environment and its effect on humans but essentially leaves out health aspects. It shows for instance that an increased biodiversity in water may have a beneficial effect on the vector-borne zoonosis wheras reduction of predators may increase the rodents and other animals that carry the Lyme disease. Human migration may transfer parasites to previously uninfected areas. Changes in temperature may facilitate the spread of vector-borne diseases, e.g. malaria, to other zones. A scoping meeting will be arranged in Paris in February with participation of the above-mentioned bodies and WHO under the chairmanship of Prof Tony McMichael, Australia, and Prof Ulisses Confalioneri, Brazil.
In the following discussion Prof. Thomas Rosswall informed the group that the evaluation of the ICSU in 1995 suggested that the Council should strengthen its collaboration with several different organisations and scientific fields. This has been largely achieved except for the health sector and the present ICSU initiative is one effort in that direction. There has been a lack of concerted action from the health sciences but now the medical academies of sciences are preparing a program for child health. The ICSU welcomes help to fill the gap to reach the UN millennium goal and to foster science and technology for sustainable development.
The discussion then went on to identify areas where science might have most impact; these included the following topics:
He further commented on the Health and Wellbeing initiative in the ICSU context ICSU is now focusing on future priorities --
health has been largely a 'side issue' for ICSU for many years;
the problem is to define what ICSU can do with comparative advantage --
it does not need a long list of obvious topics for its work;
it needs an agenda that identifies comparative advantage and distinctive, if not unique, contributions;
a consensus document regarding science and health to feed into the CSPR emerging issue exercise would be extremely helpful.
Smith briefly discussed other relevant ICSU programs--
We heard about DIVERSITAS initiative from Prieur-Richard;
Several Unions such as IUMS and bodies such as SCOPE do some health-related projects, but he is not aware of any major inter-disciplinary initiatives within ICSU;
There are funding opportunities within ICSU, WHO, and elsewhere.
The Schmidt report (external review of ICSU) lends support for the idea of moving deliberately, especially because of the need to build links with WHO in order to proceed without missteps; on the other hand, unions are constantly in flux. Perhaps a middle ground is modest funding (from ICSU?) to be certain that this effort survives the normal changeover within the unions, and the accompanying shifts in priorities.
Smith commented that many unions have their own direct contacts with WHO, but there is probably merit in consolidating them under the broader ICSU umbrella. ICSU grants are meant to be used as seed money, bringing together different ICSU bodies around common interests, and CSPR would be very interested in good health-related proposals.
Smith believes that in order to properly address health issues we must engage the clinical community:
Consensus within the group that contacts and understandings with WHO should be pursued quickly and vigorously.
Smith addressed several questions:
- How distinct or unique need the health and wellbeing initiative be?
Smith urged that we stress interdisciplinary and multinational facets, which enables this group to address issues more narrowly-focused efforts cannot grapple with effectively. He noted that ICSU funding for global environmental change programs is for the coordination of research, not for the research itself.
Wahlquist commented that we need to demonstrate that we can do what is needed with specific examples of past accomplishments.
- What can we expect from WHO?
Smith noted that the recent leadership change is an inherent opportunity. He also stated that internally, we have to find our points of commonality and synergy; externally, we need to explore external relationships and funding opportunities. We need to do both in parallel.
- What would be the impact on health of fuller participation by the non-medical and non-health sciences?
As well as helping to fulfill ICSU's mission of strengthening international science for the benefit of society, a focus on health and well-being could rebound to the benefit of ICSU's prestige and visibility within the world of science.
- Is there a role for UNESCO?
Smith stated that WHO has the lead on health in the United Nations; UNESCO focuses on science per se, though ICSU sometimes finds itself playing a bridging role among UN agencies and organizations.
- What is the audience for what we're trying to do here?
- Who are the players?
- What outcomes do we seek? Should focus more on those questions.
Open discussion ensued: Wahlquist proposed spending the rest of the day formulating a proposal to WHO and InterAcademy Medical Panel to fund identification of key issues in health and wellbeing by this group during the next twelve months. Deliverable to be a report to ICSU and WHO due in May 2004. No clear decision from the group regarding the proposal but agreed to by absence of an alternative.
Purview could profitably be extended to the science community (including medical science) as well. Many of our members are insular. Should do what we can to counter specialization and parochialism. Need also to address policy makers.
One of our major contributions would be to demonstrate that funding for the broader science community is as important to human health and wellbeing as funding for the biomedical sciences. The non-medical and non-health sciences have a lot to offer medical science and health. Would also be a major contribution to ICSU's effectiveness.
Seek private partners?
WHO linkages schema to be pursued.
- What can this group and WHO do for each other?
- Related question is what to expect from ICSU?
Prior experience with WHO has been mixed, and not certain what resources they have to offer. May have to focus on collaboration rather than funding of research external to their own programs? A productive strategy may be to work jointly with WHO on funding from third parties.
Key concepts and words for WHO effort (topics, etc. in which we are interested that might be attractive to WHO).
- Stories (with translations) and context- and culture-specific adaptations.
- Electronic linkages.
- Clearinghouse?
Developing and maintaining a complete and useful electronic information portal is not a simple task. CCBS is already developing an education clearinghouse/portal in collaboration with IAP and the French Academy of Sciences.
- Global burden of disease. Mechanisms by which ways of life contribute to different diseases in different times and places. Disease clusters and complexes do exist. What is missing in WHO's work is the degree to which environmental factors contribute to the top ten diseases worldwide. Zinc deficiency, for example, is number 6 or 7 as a world health problem. Obesity and diabetes result from inability to exercise safely. Focus should be on indices and measurement.
- Focus should be on common action drawing upon the many facets represented at this meeting and within the ICSU family. Should refocus on the kinds of collaboration that will be effective within the ICSU family. Worry about external constituencies later?
- As regards education, how many unions have commissions on education, and does their purview range from elementary school through post-secondary education?
- Could focus on metabolic diseases and computer-related diseases.
- Are there unrecognized facets of such diseases as obesity and diabetes that the non-medical and non-health sciences can identify? Can we demonstrate and document the oversights?
On-line discussion on information society being launched today that will be the major ICSU consultation with the scientific community regarding information technology in advance of the Summit in Geneva 2003 and Tunis 2005.
Possible topics to pursue (parallel with WHO contacts) and ways that members of the ICSU family might collaborate, on what topics, what would be produced, and for whom (need one page summaries for tomorrow)
- Water availability and water quality
- Air pollution at household and larger scales
- Ozone hole and amphibian reproduction and speciation
- Foodways and disease v Urbanization (and megacities) and resulting stress and disease
- Technological sources of disease, including virtual reality and internet addiction (Denis)
- Terrorism and disease v Self-diagnosis and self-treatment of disease (Wahlquist)
- Diabetes and obesity and the limited success of science in counteracting them
Overarching concepts for these specific topics
- Living Environments
- Foodways
- Introduction of modern culture
- Microorganisms P
- sychological stress
- Settlements, especially cities and megacities
- Water
- Technologies and Cultures Session
3. 11.02.03 Morning
Development of themes
The participants divided into 3 groups to prepare an outline of possible activities on 3 themes under the headings: topic of focus, potential Unions involved, outputs, audience. The chairs of the groups were:
Living Environments (Ron Abler, IGU)
Water (Jo Anne Joselyn, IUGG)
Technology (Michel Denis, IUPsyS).
Output should be a document that sets out themes around which unions can collaborate.
The session started with some general discussion on the topics to be included in each group. It was noted that there are significant overlaps, (water is relevant to environments; technology impinges on most things.) There are also social factors that could not be properly addressed within this group.
Each group reported back to the full meeting.
Living Environments
The report from this group was circulated (See Working Paper #1).
Water
The report from this group was circulated (See Working Paper #2). There was discussion on the need to specify minimum requirements for water. There would be cultural factors involved. There was a question on how to bring these issues into a coherent plan to link water with healthcare. All of these topics have been studied individually, how should they be integrated? A conceptually cohesive proposal is needed. MW(ake) suggests that topics be enlarged and then developed into full themes. Input from health scientists is necessary. Consumption of water is an indication of wealth.
Technology
(See Working Paper #3) Input had been made from Michel Denis that was concerned with the functions of the nervous system, and this was used as the definition of the topic. A separate paper was circulated summarising the discussions.
Food technology was considered to be another important topic because it has a significant impact on nutrition, which in turn has an impact on mood (depression). Alcohol is another aspect, as are computer games.
Further development of topics
Leaders of the teams above were asked to develop the themes for further discussion within the Unions. The procedure would be:
Rapporteurs to send text to MW.
MW will put these together and send to all participants with a request to send comments to chairs.
Chairs to flesh out descriptions and return to MW for final editing to send to Unions and ICSU.
It was considered to be important to plan further action at all levels: science and strategy. We could consider looking for funding from European Commission (Framework Programme 6) and from other sources because of the seriousness of health problems, particularly in Africa. The World Bank is another possible source of funding. A good proposal was an essential prerequisite.
MW suggested two further developments: a recommendation to ICSU and interchange of people at Union meetings (Council and Conferences), and also at lower levels (task forces, working groups, committees) within the Unions.
Session 4. 11.02.03 Afternoon
Decisions at Final Session:
1. That the consortium adopt a strategy to fulfill the mission statement which would include:
(1) Develop core domains for inter-union collaboration:
(a) Living Environments
Chair: Professor Ron Abler (IGU)
(b) Connections between water and health
Co-Chairs: Professor Joann Joselyn (IUGG), Professor Ian Dowman (ISPRS)
(c) The Impacts of Technology on Health and Well-being
"The Functions of the Nervous system, Behaviour and New Technology"
Co-Chairs: Professor Michel Denis (IUPsyS), Professor Ove Petersen (IUPS)
Advice will be sought on these domains from interested Unions as to how they might generate projects and funding proposals.
(2) Seek Alliances between the ICSU consortium and major international partners in "Science for Health and Well-Being", using the "Core Collaborative Domains" document, especially with:
(i) WHO
- - A delegation to be led by the Executive Director of ICSU, Professor Thomas Rosswall, accompanied by the Consortium Chair, Professor Marvalee Wake, and the Chairs of the "Core Collaborative Domains" working groups
- To meet the new WHO Secretary-General, Dr Lee, of South Korea
(ii) WMO
(World Meteorological Organisation)
(iii) International Social Sciences Council at UNESCO, Paris
(especially the International Association of Sociologists)
- (iv) World Medical Association (WMA)
(v) The EU Science/Development Secretariats
- as well as
-
- (vi) The Private Sector
- (vii) Foundations
(viii) NGOs.
(3)
(i) To promote conjoint events at Union Conferences, particularly in the form of Symposia and Workshops involving 2 or more Unions, with the underlying theme of Science for Health and Well-being, invited speakers, etc.
(ii) An index of Union meetings will be established in a more current and comprehensive fashion on the ICSU web-site
and
(iii) Union web-sites will direct to each other's sites for information about their meetings.
(4) ICSU will compile information on UN Resolutions on Well-being and Sustainable Development, to form a basis for future development of the "Well-Being" agenda.
(5) To recommend to ICSU the following:
The representatives of ICSU Unions and ICSU bodies (IGU, IUBS, IBRO, IUGG, IAHS, IUNS, IUPAC, IUPESM, IUPS, IUPsyS, ISPRS, and SCOPE), assembled 10-11 February 2003 to consider an initiative for multi-Union collaboration, strongly recommend to ICSU that it consider the general topic of the relationships and contributions of science, broadly construed, to maintain and increase the health and wellbeing of humans and all other living species as a primary focus for funding for 2005.
