A powerful new wave of health-related life sciences, energized by the knowledge and tools of the Human Genome Project, is upon us. Genomics\u2014 the study of the entire genetic material of an organism\u2014 holds the promise of significantly improving health care at all levels in the foreseeable future. This revolution will undoubtedly become a force in shaping international relations.<\/p>\n
Science and technology are now widely recognized as factors in the economic health of nations. Industrialized countries use them as competitive tools to advance their relative power in the global economy. As evidence, note their centrality in international controversies involving food and drugs. They have been central in negotiating international legal regimes, informing the countries’ positions and interactions with industry and nongovernmental organizations.<\/p>\n
Although there has long been an emphasis on managing the risks posed by science and technology, more recently science and technology have been promoted as tools for improving the human condition and addressing the needs of the poor\u2014 a case made persuasively in the UNDP Human Development Report (2001). However, far too often technological revolutions have created divides (for example, the \u201cdigital divide\u201d) between industrialized and developing countries. Much of the research in genomics takes place in developed countries, where it primarily addresses the health needs of people in those countries. The 2000 Global Forum for Health Research report identified this notorious \u201c10\/90\u201d gap, whereby 90 percent of health research dollars are spent on diseases affecting 10 percent of the world’s population.<\/p>\n
Genomic and related biotechnologies have a potential global significance that will give rise to problematic access-to-knowledge issues and attempts to assert global influence over them as emerging resources. They will bring new opportunities to solve global health problems, but they will also test our skill in managing international relations, a phenomenon we call \u201cgenome diplomacy.\u201d<\/p>\n
In this paper we argue that: a) science and technology are becoming important elements of foreign policy and international relations; b) genomics is relevant to people in developing countries, but interventions need to be targeted to avoid a \u201cgenomics divide\u201d; c) there are compelling reasons why Canadians should share the fruits of genomics with the developing world; and d) Canada has an opportunity to take the lead in ensuring that the rewards of genomics benefit both Canada and the developing world\u2014 that is, to become the world’s premier \u201cgenome diplomat.\u201d<\/p>\n
In the United States, the Bush administration is highlighting the role of science in US diplomacy. In a recent address to the National Academy of Sciences, Secretary of State Colin Powell said that in issues ranging from creating conditions for sustainable development to stemming the global HIV\/AIDS pandemic, \u201cthe formulation of our foreign policy must proceed from a solid scientific foundation.\u201d The State Department is supporting the US National Research Council (NRC) study into the role of science within the US Agency for International Development, similar to an NRC inquiry three years ago that helped pave the way for the reinstatement of a science office within the State Department. The recent increase of over $2 billion in the National Institutes of Health budget\u2014 with most of it devoted to bioterrorism\u2014 is also a testament to the role of science and technology in international affairs. At the World Summit for Sustainable Development, held in Johannesburg in August 2002, Powell stressed \u201cthat good governance, including solid science and technology policies, are fundamental to sustainable development.\u201d<\/p>\n
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the July 2000 white paper, \u201cExcellence and Opportunity: A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21st century,\u201d drew attention to the growing importance of the international dimension of science and technology work for wealth creation in the UK. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is expanding the network of science and technology specialists at posts overseas, and it has established a dedicated Science and Technology Unit supported by secondees from UK research councils. In a recent speech parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Bill Rammell said \u201cMore than ever the global challenges we face in the 21st century, whether the issue is international terrorism, sustainable development, HIV\/AIDS, or the environment, require a strong partnership between UK science and technology and UK foreign policy. Science to understand problems and technology to tackle them. Science and technology are in my view integral elements in shaping our foreign policy.\u201d<\/p>\n
These American and British government views of science and technology are echoed by industry. In June 2002, at the biotechnology industry’s annual convention held in Toronto, Carl Feldbaum delivered his presidential address on \u201cBiotechnology’s Foreign Policy.\u201d In his speech he argued that the biotechnology industry needed to \u201cformulate its first foreign policy, one which is cognizant of the miserable judgments and mistakes of other industries\u2014 and avoids them,\u201d with the goal of ensuring \u201cthe widest possible dissemination of biotechnology’s benefits while respecting the diversity of the world’s nations and peoples.\u201d The first point of his 10point plan was that the industry \u201cmust work with governments and international bodies to integrate biotechnology into compelling responses to public-health crises.\u201d<\/p>\n
Science and technology also appeared in NEPAD\u2014 the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. In placing NEPAD firmly on the agenda of the G8 summit in Kananaskis in 2002, Canada also showed its understanding that Africa needs more than aid: it needs partnerships, trade and investment.<\/p>\n
The 2001 United Nations Development Program report, Making New Technologies Work for Human Development<\/em>, clearly documents the historical role of science and technology in human development. It argues that it would be to developing countries’ benefit to adopt and leverage science and technology to improve both their economic performance and their populations’ health. In his foreword to the report, Mark Malloch Brown, administrator of the UNDP, says that we have \u201cmoved in a new direction this year by challenging some cherished opinions about what the third world needs.\u201d The report looks at three areas\u2014 food, medicine and information systems\u2014 where high technology can be made relevant and useful to poor countries, as long as\u00a0the risks are well managed.<\/p>\n In its seminal report, Genomics and World Health<\/em>, the World Health Organization (WHO) explores genomics potential to improve the health of people in developing countries. When the report was released in May 2002, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the director general of the WHO, said: \u201cGenome research, if we handle it correctly, can change the world for all health care. In particular, it has the potential to allow developing countries to leap frog decades of medical development and bring their citizens greatly improved care and modern methods in the much more immediate future.\u201d WHO Collaborating Centres, aware that genetic defects contribute a significant burden of disease in developing countries, met in Toronto in 2002 to plan concrete steps to provide basic genetic services in developing countries.<\/p>\n Genomics, however, goes beyond basic genetic services. It is the study of whole genomes, and it is rapidly spawning major new disciplines such as proteomics, bio-informatics and metabolomics, which will not only help scientists to understand diseases at a molecular level and allow us to develop novel preventive and therapeutic tools, but will create new economic opportunities for those able to harness its potential.<\/p>\n Although developing countries have so far been largely excluded from cutting-edge genomics research, they have a number of important assets to leverage in the long term. First, they are potential consumers, and 90 percent of the world’s population lives in developing countries. Even though current research focuses on the developed world and its concerns, it is quite likely that, as with vaccines, in the long term, the largest numbers of consumers will be in the developing world. Second, much of the world’s biodiversity resides in developing countries in the genomes of its vast stores of flora and fauna. Third, in the developing world there are a still number of homogeneous, well-defined communities that we should study because of their genetic predisposition to certain diseases. The results of such studies would be useful for all of humanity. Fourth, once they have been developed and standardized, genome-based technologies (for example, PCR, or the polymerase chain reaction, which is a method of amplifying minute amounts of DNA for research and diagnosis) are actually quite easy to transfer and adopt. Fifth, the diaspora of scientists from developing countries working in the developed world is a grossly underutilized resource that could, with imaginative policies, be utilized to transfer knowledge, skills and investment to their countries of origin.<\/p>\n In the Canadian Program on Genomics and Global Health at the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, we have addressed the issue of how best to harness genomics and related biotechnologies to reduce global health inequities, highlighting some important applications in developing countries. To focus on specific biotechnology platforms, we have recently completed a foresight study where we have identified the top 10 biotechnologies that are most likely to improve the health of people in developing countries. These technologies are likely to improve health not only directly but also indirectly through improved agriculture and increased economic activity. We are currently engaged in studying the biotechnology innovation systems of Cuba, Mexico, Brazil, India, China, South Africa, Egypt and South Korea\u2014 all countries that appear to be establishing active biotechnology industries\u2014 to see if there are any generalizable lessons that would enable other developing countries to benefit. For example, since the 1980s, Cuba has invested heavily in biotechnology research infrastructure and manufacturing. It holds a number of international patents in the biotech field, and has developed the only meningitis B vaccine. One can assume that biotechnology is destined to become a major export industry in Cuba.<\/p>\n Concerted action is needed, however, to avoid a genomics divide in health. In a 2001 issue of Science, Singer and Daar identify the need for research, capacity strengthening, consensus building, public engagement and investment.<\/p>\n First, innovative research is required to explore the barriers to the application of genomics knowledge for developing countries. Which specific biotechnologies offer the greatest promise for improving the health of people in developing countries? How can potential barriers to their application be overcome? How important is public investment in education and research? How can productive international research and development alliances be forged? Can intellectual property rights be used creatively to ensure meaningful returns while also benefiting the needy? We share Bloom and Trach’s hope that \u201cknowledge of the genome will encourage some medical researchers to seek new interventions that are population based and that emphasis will be put on developing inexpensive drugs (comparable to aspirin and beta-blockers) and vaccines that prevent disease and disability in populations, rather than individual based designer therapies.\u201d<\/p>\n Second, there must be sufficient capacity in developing countries to address both the scientific and policy aspects of genomics and biotechnology. There is already very significant genomics research in some developing countries such as Cuba, China and India. Science and technology policy units such as the African Centre for Technology Studies in Nairobi will surely be an important advisory resource for developing country governments. There will be a need for people to address the ethical aspects of genomics research, such as those trained through the bioethics and genetics networks established by the Fogarty International Center of the US National Institutes of Health. There is also a need for short workshops on genomics and public health policy that will bring together stakeholders from government, NGOs, industry, universities and the media.<\/p>\n Third, we need mechanisms for building consensus among those stakeholders, and also from international organizations and the public. Examples of such mechanisms are the highly influential international commissions such as the Evans Commission on Health Research for Development (1990) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). A genomics and global health commission, or a global public policy network, could serve as a platform for stakeholders to develop a modus operandi that would focus on their common interest in improving the health of people in developing countries and closing the health equity gaps. \u00a0<\/p>\n Fourth, the views of people in developing countries must be heard as the health biotechnology revolution unfolds. Developing countries need to have a voice of their own where science and technology policy is concerned. A September 11, 2000 article in the Washington Post<\/em> quoted Nigeria’s former minister of agricultural and rural development, Hassan Adamu as saying: \u201cWe want to have the opportunity to save the lives of millions of people and change the course of history in many nations.\u201d Adamu warns, \u201cThe harsh reality is that, without the help of agricultural biotechnology, many will not live.\u201d What happened? Burundi’s sick and dying were not among those protesting in Brussels. The views of people from developing countries were not at the forefront in the agricultural biotechnology debate, especially early on; they must be there in the health biotechnology debate. How this opinion can best be captured poses a methodological challenge. We believe that identifying opinion leaders and tapping their views could be instructive. Information technology could provide\u00a0the platform for network of global opinion leaders\u2014 a large-scale, on-line discussion of genomics, biotechnology and global health.<\/p>\n Finally, mechanisms for financing genomics research and development as well as its ultimate application will be required. This would probably take the form of a combination of public grants (using a model such as the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria), public-private partnerships (such as the Medicines for Malaria Venture), and private venture capital funds targeting genomics and developing countries.<\/p>\n Canadians should care about global inequities and the opportunity to harness genomics to improve them for both altruistic and self-interested reasons. Global health inequities are one of the biggest ethical challenges facing the world today. Life expectancy in some developed countries, such as Australia, Canada and Japan, is approaching 80 years, while in 7 subSaharan African countries it is 40 years and dropping. By some estimates, by 2010, 11 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa will see their life expectancies fall to near 30 years.<\/p>\n Much media space is devoted to the debate about the impact of globalization and liberalized trade, drawing attention to increased disparities between developed and developing countries, notwithstanding evidence of positive economic benefits for some countries such as India and China. Many have argued that these disparities exacerbate international tensions, and that in order to address these increasing tensions we have to reduce poverty, increase communication and give a voice to the powerless. Now, more than ever, we need to find common ground.<\/p>\n We need a global health ethics that seeks to identify the key ethical problems faced by the world’s six billion inhabitants and envisions and implements solutions that can transcend national borders and cultures, say Benatar, Daar and Singer in a recent issue of International Affairs<\/em> (2002). Similarly, Frenk and Go\u00cc\u0081mez-Dant\u00e9s, in the British Medical Journal<\/em> (2002), point to the unifying role of health in the era of globalization. They quote Martin Luther King, who said: \u201cIt really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.\u201d<\/p>\n Genomics, of course, is by no means the only issue that needs to be addressed to improve global health equity. The current focus on improving governance and reducing conflict is more fundamental. However, we are at a moment in history when a major technological revolution is about to unfold, and this is the right time to try to harness genomics so it benefits all.<\/p>\n In addition to the ethical case for developing genomics so that it benefits the developing world, there is also an economic case to be made. Ninety percent of consumers are in developing countries, and it seems unwise, economically, to ignore this \u201cmarket.\u201d Rather than focusing on \u201cblockbuster\u201d drugs for markets in developed countries, pharmaceutical companies could focus on \u201cglobal blockbusters\u201d that would have far more consumers but lower profit margins. Over time, the individual purchasing power of people in developing countries is likely to increase.<\/p>\n Genome Canada, funded with $300 million from the federal government, positions Canada as a serious international player in genomics. Canada already has about 400 biotechnology companies, with revenues of $3 billion a year. The Ontario BioCouncil has recently set out to make Ontario a major world player in biotechnology, aiming to become the third most productive cluster after Boston and the San Francisco Bay area in the United States. Quebec has a large and growing biotechnology industry. We argue that in the long run the health of the biotech sector in Canada could benefit from looking at a huge global market of six billion people rather than focusing exclusively on the six hundred million people in North America and Western Europe. Canada should make the first move to serve this market for genomics technologies.<\/p>\n Canada has always been at the forefront of advocacy for the interests of developing countries. Lester Pearson said: \u201cThere can be no peace, no security, nothing but ultimate disaster, when a few rich countries with a small minority of the world’s people alone have access to the brave, and frightening, new world of technology, science, and of high material living standard, while the large majority live in deprivation and want, shut off from opportunities of full economic development; but with expectations and aspirations aroused beyond the hope of realizing them.\u201d Canada’s current policy is very supportive of this sentiment. Last year, in introducing Canada’s innovation strategy, the prime minister said, \u201cIn the 21st century, our economic and social goals must be pursued hand-inhand. Let the world see in Canada a society marked by innovation and inclusion, by excellence and justice.\u201d<\/p>\n At a time when Canada is being criticized for its weakened role in world affairs, we believe that Canada could and should take bold steps to become the world’s premier genome diplomat. To accomplish this, Canada could consider the following international and domestic agenda.<\/p>\n Foreign Policy:<\/em> Canada should examine how to explicitly include genomics and biotechnology as a plank in its foreign policy. Canada is currently ranked 15th in the world with regard to its support for national science and technology research. In the past five years, the Canadian government has invested $8 billion in innovation initiatives. This includes the formation of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the Canada Research Chairs, Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR). The federal government is expected to continue to invest in Canadian innovation and move Canada from its present position to 5th globally.<\/p>\n If the innovation agenda is good domestic policy, it could also be good foreign policy. There is enormous potential for these Canadian assets and resources to be leveraged into a foreign policy agenda. There are already signs of movement in this direction. These include CFI’s International Funds, CIHR’s Global Research Initiative, and DFAIT’s Going Global S&T Fund. But this move into foreign policy needs much more. It needs a \u201cdiscontinuous leap\u201d to by-pass the evolving, piecemeal approach and mobilize Canadian research talent. A national innovation strategy directed at international development is needed to invigorate Canadian science and technology research and ensure that Canada earns a position of leadership among other countries presently engaged in similar initiatives.<\/p>\n Governance:<\/em> Achieving an integrated national science and technology for development agenda will require creative thought about an appropriate governance model. It will not be easy to harness foreign policy and adequate financial resources to encourage and facilitate collaboration among technologies as diverse as genomics, nanotechnology and information technology. We should support the development of innovative intellectual property models that balance competing economic, managerial, and ethical concerns by providing different levels of protection of, and access to, biomedical innovations. In a 2003 issue of the journal Global Governance<\/em>, Dowdeswell, Daar and Singer propose that Canada could take a leadership role in establishing a global networked policy formulation mechanism of communities committed to avoiding a genomics divide.<\/p>\n Human Resources:<\/em> The effects of worsening economic circumstances, the exodus of trained staff, poor pay, the devastating impact of diseases like HIV and low morale all have their impact on the workforce in developing countries. Before they can be in a position to meet the challenges of sustainable development, they need to devote considerable attention to human resource management in science and technology innovation. The Rockefeller Foundation is currently examining how it can provide support for developing countries to boost their public health human resources. The US National Academy of Science is also prioritizing education and training needs to address global health concerns.<\/p>\n Canada needs to focus on these issues in a way that links its foreign policy to its domestic science and technology innovation agenda. Canada is perhaps the most multi-ethnic society in the world. We have talented immigrants who are contributing greatly to our innovation agenda. We should study models to help harness the skills, knowledge, connections, and investment capability of the people from the developing world who live and work here. As well, we could create, on a massive scale, a Canadian scholarship program for scholars from developing countries, particularly from Africa. We could help to increase the global genomics and biotechnology capacity by leveraging our strong research community to develop partnerships with centres of excellence in developing countries, by increasing access to our science library holdings, and by supporting genomics and health policy education in developing countries<\/p>\n Advocacy:<\/em> Internationally, Canada should advocate including science and technology for development, and genomics in particular, on the agendas of the various international forums. We should continue to support WHO programs that address the health needs of developing countries, particularly through genomics and related biotechnologies, and support the development of simple regulatory regimes for genetics and genomics in developing countries.<\/p>\n Domestically, Canada should promote a global approach in the development of its own biotechnology industry. For example, if the biotechnology industry had focused on golden rice (enriched with provitamin A to address vitamin A deficiency), disease resistant indigenous crops, and in general the needs of the developing-country consumer, instead of Flavr Savr tomatoes (genetically engineered to improve shelf life in Western supermarkets), things might have worked out differently in agricultural biotechnology.<\/p>\n We should encourage CIHR and Genome Canada to support genomics research in areas that are relevant to developing countries; and we should encourage CIDA and IDRC to incorporate genomics and related biotechnologies into their strategies, in order to address the emerging genomics divide.<\/p>\n Investment:<\/em> Realizing the potential of science and technology will require financial investment. While reallocating existing public funds and private sector spending would be a positive move, bolder measures would hasten achievement of this goal. Canada should consider creating an investment fund geared to leveraging and networking Canadian science and technology for development. Such a fund could invest in mature technologies that would address the health needs of developing countries, to help rectify market failures.<\/p>\n A coherent and dedicated plan of action that incorporates all these elements could make a significant contribution to Canada and the world. If we mobilized the best of Canada’s scientific and technological innovation capacity in academia; public institutions such as the NRC, IDRC, Health Canada and Industry Canada; federal funding agencies such as Genome Canada, CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC; and industry; we could generate innovative solutions for sustainable development in industrially less advanced countries. Preventing a health genomics divide is an objective worthy of Canadians. By continuing along the path set by visionary leaders of the past, Canada could well become the world’s premier genome diplomat.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A powerful new wave of health-related life sciences, energized by the knowledge and tools of the Human Genome Project, is upon us. Genomics\u2014 the study of the entire genetic material of an organism\u2014 holds the promise of significantly improving health care at all levels in the foreseeable future. This revolution will undoubtedly become a force […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false,"apple_news_api_created_at":"2025-10-07T23:36:22Z","apple_news_api_id":"930b31a9-e715-4568-9775-1a887fdc9363","apple_news_api_modified_at":"2025-10-07T23:36:22Z","apple_news_api_revision":"AAAAAAAAAAD\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/w==","apple_news_api_share_url":"https:\/\/apple.news\/AkwsxqecVRWiXdRqIf9yTYw","apple_news_cover_media_provider":"image","apple_news_coverimage":0,"apple_news_coverimage_caption":"","apple_news_cover_video_id":0,"apple_news_cover_video_url":"","apple_news_cover_embedwebvideo_url":"","apple_news_is_hidden":"","apple_news_is_paid":"","apple_news_is_preview":"","apple_news_is_sponsored":"","apple_news_maturity_rating":"","apple_news_metadata":"\"\"","apple_news_pullquote":"","apple_news_pullquote_position":"","apple_news_slug":"","apple_news_sections":[],"apple_news_suppress_video_url":false,"apple_news_use_image_component":false},"categories":[9346],"tags":[],"article-status":[],"irpp-category":[],"section":[],"irpp-tag":[],"class_list":["post-261676","issues","type-issues","status-publish","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"apple_news_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n