{"id":1150,"date":"2026-04-23T07:00:41","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T07:00:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjleader\/?p=1150"},"modified":"2026-04-20T17:10:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T17:10:08","slug":"leading-on-science-for-health-in-the-who-south-east-asia-region-by-catharina-c-boehme","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjleader\/2026\/04\/23\/leading-on-science-for-health-in-the-who-south-east-asia-region-by-catharina-c-boehme\/","title":{"rendered":"Leading on Science for Health in the WHO South-East Asia Region. By Catharina C. Boehme"},"content":{"rendered":"

Under the theme <\/span>\u201cTogether for health. Stand with science\u201d<\/span><\/i>, World Health Day (7 April) launched a year-long campaign highlighting the power of scientific collaboration to protect the health of people, animals, plants, and the planet through the One Health approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

Speaking to countries across the South-East Asia Region, Dr Catharina Boehme emphasized WHO\u2019s leadership not only in scientific achievements but also in fostering multilateral cooperation to turn evidence into action.<\/span><\/p>\n

Scientific progress is accelerating, yet trust in science is under strain. In an era of interconnected health threats, leaders must redesign research systems to be more transparent, integrated, and inclusive\u2014reconnecting evidence with policy and society.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trust in Science Is Now a Leadership Test<\/b><\/p>\n

Trust in science is no longer purely a technical issue\u2014it is a test of leadership. Governments and institutions rely on evidence to guide decisions shaping health, economies, and security. Yet public confidence remains uneven, even as scientific capability advances at unprecedented speed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Science underpins modern life\u2014from safe water and food to pandemic preparedness. Yet for many, research feels distant, complex, and opaque. Leadership systems have not kept pace with the need to make evidence visible, accessible, and actionable. Fragmented communication and closed governance structures too often obscure knowledge that should guide public action.<\/span><\/p>\n

This gap carries tangible consequences. Antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic diseases, and climate-related health risks demand coordinated, science-led responses, yet policy often lags behind evidence, and public understanding remains limited.\u00b9 Rebuilding trust requires systemic change\u2014not incremental fixes.<\/span><\/p>\n

Leading in an Interconnected Risk Landscape<\/b><\/p>\n

Today\u2019s defining health challenges emerge at the intersection of human, animal, and environmental systems. Yet leadership and research structures remain siloed across sectors, disciplines, and institutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

The COVID-19 pandemic showed both what is possible and what is at risk. Scientific collaboration enabled the rapid development of vaccines, but fragmented surveillance, limited data sharing, and uneven governance weakened the timeliness and equity of the global response.<\/span><\/p>\n

Across South-East Asia, uneven research capacity and limited community engagement in priority-setting continue to constrain impact, resulting in duplication, delays, and missed opportunities to translate evidence into policy.\u00b3<\/span><\/p>\n

Geopolitical tensions add further complexity. Increasing restrictions on data and technology\u2014while often justified\u2014risk fragmenting global science ecosystems and slowing innovation.\u00b2 Leaders must balance national priorities with the shared benefits of open, collaborative science.<\/span><\/p>\n

From One Health Ambition to System Leadership<\/b><\/p>\n

The One Health approach recognises the interdependence of human, animal, and environmental health. For leaders, it is not just a framework, but a model for systems transformation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Operationalising One Health requires leadership that connects ministries, research institutions, and communities\u2014ensuring that evidence flows across boundaries and informs coordinated action. Without integration, One Health risks remaining aspirational.<\/span><\/p>\n

Participatory research models, in which communities contribute to surveillance and study design, generate more relevant and trusted evidence.\u2074 Digital innovation strengthens this shift: electronic research management and ethics platforms can streamline processes, enhance transparency, and expand participation, including community oversight.\u2076<\/span><\/p>\n

Rebuilding the Relationship Between Science and Society<\/b><\/p>\n

System reform alone is insufficient without a shift in how science engages with society. Leaders must ensure that evidence is not only generated but understood and trusted.<\/span><\/p>\n

Concepts such as antimicrobial resistance or zoonotic spillover must be communicated in ways that resonate beyond technical audiences. This requires sustained investment in engagement strategies that connect science to lived experience.<\/span><\/p>\n

Citizen science, participatory priority-setting, and community-based surveillance are central\u2014not peripheral\u2014to rebuilding trust. When people help shape research, they are more likely to trust and act on its findings. This represents a shift from delivering science to co-producing it.<\/span><\/p>\n

A Leadership Agenda for Trust<\/b><\/p>\n

Rebuilding trust in science demands a renewed social contract grounded in transparency, equity, and collaboration. Key priorities include:<\/span><\/p>\n