Literature DB >> 32650973

After the pandemic: the role of science in the future of the countries.

Ricardo Palacios1, Dimas Tadeu Covas2, Luiz Carlos Pereira Júnior3, Sergio Cimerman4.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32650973      PMCID: PMC7340047          DOI: 10.1016/j.bjid.2020.06.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Braz J Infect Dis        ISSN: 1413-8670            Impact factor:   1.949


× No keyword cloud information.
Investments to decrease the impact of unexpected occurrences are often imposed by tragedies. We use seat belts in cars and other vehicles after several lost lives. It is a common understanding that such devices have a cost but are necessary expenses. Analogously, communities pay firefighters, military and security forces that have large amounts of people and resources to be ready to answer any call. In between, training and continuous improvement are required as well as planning for preventive actions. Again, societies accept the costs and will hardly agree on any cut on these areas fearing being unprotected. In contrast, scientific activities have suffered continuous lack of investment in several countries, besides its reduced impact in overall public accounts. Science is one of the usual targets in any public budget cut proposal. Furthermore, requests of scientific advisory by lawmakers or elected officers are not usual as compared with other areas, i.e. those related to the economy. Suddenly, any emerging or reemerging disease appears on the horizon. Societies call back the scientists and expect from them to provide a rapid response. Since the issuing of the new International Health Regulations in 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared six Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. Three of them in the last five years, two of those, Zika and COVID-19, causing a heavy impact in Latin America and particularly in Brazil. Probably, it is time to learn the lesson. After the 2014 Ebola outbreak, some changes at thee international level occurred. The creation of the WHO R&D Blueprint to forecast possible new emergencies and determine route maps for action was one of them. The foundation of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a new international actor focused in foster initiatives to respond to potential emerging infectious disease, was the other significant change. Both initiatives are part of an evolving mindset from a pure reactive to a more proactive attitude. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the two most advanced projects for a vaccine are ready to start phase III clinical trials in Brazil in less than seven months after the identification of the new pathogen. That amazing acceleration is not by chance, but because both groups inherited trajectories from previous projects on coronavirus vaccines. By the time of the pandemic, The Jenner Institute in Oxford, supported by CEPI, was already working in a MERS-CoV vaccine that was tested in a phase I clinical trial in 2018. In the case of Sinovac, the process used in the current pandemic is analogous to the one for the SARS-CoV-1 vaccine that reached phase I clinical trial in 2004. Then, those efforts, largely unknown until recently, are currently the hope of the public. Collaboration between scientists to relieve the suffering has not stopped despite political disputes or geopolitical biases. Brazilian scientists are now taking a leading role in the definitive tests of the vaccines with the confidence of enabling access to protect our people. After this pandemic is controlled, countries have to decide whether science should be a strong actor of the society as part of the preparedness and prevention of upcoming emergencies or just wait to the next one and react with weakened forces. Science is not only one of the more powerful drivers of economic strength, but also is one of the finest manifestations of humanity. The relation of each country with science might define which one will have a better chance to face the future.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
  4 in total

1.  Safety and immunogenicity from a phase I trial of inactivated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus vaccine.

Authors:  Jiang-Tao Lin; Jian-San Zhang; Nan Su; Jian-Guo Xu; Nan Wang; Jiang-Ting Chen; Xin Chen; Yu-Xuan Liu; Hong Gao; Yu-Ping Jia; Yan Liu; Rui-Hua Sun; Xu Wang; Dong-Zheng Yu; Rong Hai; Qiang Gao; Ye Ning; Hong-Xia Wang; Ma-Chao Li; Biao Kan; Guan-Mu Dong; Qi An; Ying-Qun Wang; Jun Han; Chuan Qin; Wei-Dong Yin; Xiao-Ping Dongs
Journal:  Antivir Ther       Date:  2007

2.  Safety and immunogenicity of a candidate Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus viral-vectored vaccine: a dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, uncontrolled, phase 1 trial.

Authors:  Pedro M Folegatti; Mustapha Bittaye; Amy Flaxman; Fernando Ramos Lopez; Duncan Bellamy; Alexandra Kupke; Catherine Mair; Rebecca Makinson; Jonathan Sheridan; Cornelius Rohde; Sandro Halwe; Yuji Jeong; Young-Shin Park; Jae-Ouk Kim; Manki Song; Amy Boyd; Nguyen Tran; Daniel Silman; Ian Poulton; Mehreen Datoo; Julia Marshall; Yrene Themistocleous; Alison Lawrie; Rachel Roberts; Eleanor Berrie; Stephan Becker; Teresa Lambe; Adrian Hill; Katie Ewer; Sarah Gilbert
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2020-04-21       Impact factor: 25.071

3.  CEPI-a new global R&D organisation for epidemic preparedness and response.

Authors:  Børge Brende; Jeremy Farrar; Diane Gashumba; Carlos Moedas; Trevor Mundel; Yasuhisa Shiozaki; Harsh Vardhan; Johanna Wanka; John-Arne Røttingen
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-19       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  The need for global R&D coordination for infectious diseases with epidemic potential.

Authors:  Marie Paule Kieny; John-Arne Rottingen; Jeremy Farrar
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 79.321

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.