Antimicrobial resistance needs intergovernmental action, updated for today.
The Society of Biology called for a centre of excellence, but the Medical Research Council’s chief executive John Savill said a single centre would not be enough. “The approach needs to be based much more on bringing experts from different cities together in UK-wide consortia,” he said. “We’ve identified substantial funding from our own resources to do that.”
Sally Davies, the UK’s chief medical officer, said an international effort equivalent to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change might be needed. The World Health Organization is producing an action plan in April that might include an IPCC-type arrangement. But is an intergovernmental panel appropriate for antimicrobial resistance? Is it appropriate at all in today’s world? This is not easy to answer.
The IPCC was founded in 1988 in similar circumstances. Scientists had detected a transnational threat (climate change) and major knowledge gaps. The IPCC, a partnership between scientists from universities, campaign groups, industry and governments, was convened to help answer critical questions. Perhaps the biggest of those was to what extent humans were responsible for global warming. Thanks to the panel’s five-yearly reports we have the answer. Without the IPCC, this answer would likely have taken longer to find—and we might not have globally agreed targets on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
A similar kind of partnership is needed to solve the problem of antimicrobial resistance, albeit updated for the 21st century. A five-year cycle of reporting, for example, seems almost laughable today.
But whether such a partnership would deliver the same impact as the IPCC has done needs more considered thought and debate. One reason the IPCC’s reports have helped convert science into actual legislation such as Kyoto is the privileged position of government scientists in the process. Major IPCC reports have to be signed off by government scientists in closed meetings. The architects of this system say it is needed to allow governments to ‘own’ the reports as much as the scientists. Such ownership, they claim, gives governments a reason to implement the findings.
Meetings behind closed doors run counter to today’s hyperconnected world. Those advocating an IPCC model for antimicrobial resistance must find another way of obtaining the confidence of governments.
An alternative model is that of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. This also began life as an IPCC-type structure, designed to help us understand and take steps to halt biodiversity loss. IPBES’s founders, however, have departed from the original script, taking on board some of the lessons, both good and bad, from the IPCC. Indeed, it includes many IPCC veterans such as the former co-chairman Bob Watson.
So here’s a memo to Sally Davies: if you haven’t already done so, do get on the phone to Bob. He would be delighted to take your call.