In “Understanding the Development and Perception of Global Health for More Effective Student Education” [1], Chen has outlined a comprehensive account of global health and the potential teaching and learning opportunities for global health within medical education. According to Chen, these include education to enhance a global health perspective; to engender an understanding of descriptive global health research, global health etiology, and cross-cultural competence; and to enable better interventions in global health. This description is certainly wide-ranging; however, it is worth considering how the average medical school or postgraduate training authority could include all these features within a curriculum that is already full. Global health might also have to compete for curricular time with other emerging disciplines for adequate coverage in curricula — examples might include chronic disease management, health informatics, or change management, to name but a few. There is also the pressure in medical schools to deliver social accountability in medical education and, in doing so, to provide the types of doctors that the local population needs. How will medical schools balance the conflicting pressures of globalization and localization?In the past 20 years, a portmanteau word has emerged: glocalization. The word attempts to capture a new concept that might enable educators to manage the twin and sometimes opposing forces of globalization and localization. The concept has probably made most progress in the world of business. For example, global restaurant chains can and have changed their branding and even their menus when setting up in new countries. This enables them to continue with their core product in a global field and yet also meet the needs of local populations. What might be the equivalent in medical education? It may be that equivalent is developing lifelong learners in our medical schools who are willing to be flexible when dealing with a variety of challenges and who know how and where to find new knowledge and skills when that is necessary. For example, in the field of cross cultural competency, it is unlikely that any graduate or even an experienced physician is able to truly declare themselves competent. There are simply too many cultures in too many countries, and even within cultures, there are subtleties and complexities that can be difficult for the outsider to overcome. The overconfident novice might, in fact, do more damage than someone completely new to the situation but who is willing and ready to listen and learn. Willingness to listen and learn is surely one of the core competencies we wish to instil in our learners — in both local and global contexts.I fully agree with Dr. Walsh that the current medical education programs put a huge burden on medical educators as well as medical students. I believe that this high burden is also part of the reason why we have to initiate changes in our medical curricula in order to meet the needs of our society, which is rapidly going global. The concept of globalization is very provocative, as former WHO senior advisor Ilona Kickbusch indicated global health = global + local [1]. From the perspective of individual medical students and physicians, I prefer the notion of “think globally and act locally.” This is because not all medical students are interested in global health, and at any time, one doctor can stay and work only in one location. However, I also believe that more and more medical students will become global along with the development of globalization. We already have doctors/surgeons working in multiple countries in person or through telecommunication. It will not be a surprise to see more global doctors along with the development of global health. Global health will not happen in one day, and global health does not mean adding new courses, but instead tailoring the current education programs to meet global medical needs.As has been well recognized, our medical education is very strong locally and globally, if not the strongest in the developed countries. However, we need to strengthen and increase the competence of our students to go global. We cannot expect all medical students to be strong both locally and globally; however, we can at least now provide training to those students who are interested in pursuing opportunities beyond their local geographic areas. We also need to reform our medical education to attract students across the globe and rethink our medical education to meet the global need. Certainly, making any of these changes would be challenging; however, ignoring significant opportunities associated with global health may leave a medical school behind. An Internet review of the medical schools in the United States by myself and others [2] suggests that a number of approaches that medical educators are using now to promote global health education include 1) establishment of specialized programs to train students who are interested in global health; 2) establishment of international exchange programs for senior medical students and/or medical graduates to complete their training abroad; and 3) preparation of new or a revision of the existing textbooks by incorporating global epidemiology of diseases and global profile of health care systems and services.