Change Agent: Calls veterinary toxicology a poorly understood profession

Change Agent: Calls veterinary toxicology a poorly understood profession

Change Agent: Calls veterinary toxicology a poorly understood profession

AMES, Iowa – Wilson Rumbeiha calls veterinary toxicology a poorly understood profession in the United States, and it’s easy to see his point.

The equipment required to run a veterinary toxicology lab is costly, and some veterinary schools don’t keep a board-certified toxicologist on staff at all, Rumbeiha said.

Unless there’s a sudden crisis, such as the 2007 pet food recalls during which cats and dogs across the country were sickened by food tainted with the industrial chemical melamine, most Americans simply don’t think about veterinary toxicology too much.

But in the developing world – where infrastructure, health care and food safety concerns abound – it’s not so much that people don’t often think of veterinary toxicology. It’s that they have no conception of it at all.

“Even in this country, toxicology is a niche discipline,” Rumbeiha said. “But in Mongolia, for instance, it’s practically nonexistent.”

2. Change agentRumbeiha, a professor of veterinary diagnostic and production animal medicine and a staff toxicologist at the Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, has devoted much of his career to nurturing a better understanding of the importance of toxicology in developing nations such as Mongolia and his native Uganda.

His international vision has led him to locales across the globe, working to instill a newfound awareness of the importance of veterinary toxicology. Since 2009, Rumbeiha has served as the president of Toxicologists Without Borders, a nonprofit organization that seeks to alleviate human disease contracted through exposure to toxins in developing countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.

It’s not just an animal health issue, he said.  His work bolsters food safety and human health as well.

One Health

Rumbeiha traveled to Africa this month to lay the groundwork for a new program called One Health Uganda, which he hopes will allow ISU veterinary students to study abroad in Uganda to gain experience with communicable diseases that affect livestock, wild animals and humans.

“I want to lay foundations for new joint programs and opportunities to collaborate,” he said. “The world is becoming a global village, and our students need to adjust to that reality.”

Rumbeiha has worked with Katie Davidson, a program assistant in the ISU College of Veterinary Medicine, and faculty at the veterinary school at Markere University in Kampala, Uganda, to establish the study abroad opportunity. Progress on the program slowed last year due to concerns with the Ebola virus, but Rumbeiha said he plans to work on establishing some curriculum guidelines during his current visit to Uganda.

He’ll also spend part of his time while in Uganda working with the Carnegie African Diaspora Fellowship Program, which fosters collaboration among African-born faculty living in the U.S. or Canada and faculty at institutions in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda.

Rumbeiha also traveled to Mongolia in 2014 under the auspices of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency to help locals establish toxicology programs. He said mining operations in Mongolia have polluted resources essential to herding cattle, creating a need for veterinarians with experience in toxicology to monitor and treat animals exposed to pollutants.

So Rumbeiha led workshops and practical lab demonstrations to improve the capacity of Mongolians to diagnose any toxicological challenges that threaten their food supply. Following his return to Ames, a Mongolian student visited Iowa State to receive additional toxicological training.

Mongolia illustrates some of the classic challenges developing nations face, he said. For instance, it’s difficult to set up a new toxicology lab in Mongolia not only because of the expense, but also the lack of qualified technicians to maintain and repair the gear.

“In Mongolia, as in many other places in the developing world, you see broken equipment because no one is trained to maintain it,” Rumbeiha said. “It’s just collecting dust because no one can fix it.”

An outlook born in Uganda

Rumbeiha was born in Uganda, the oldest of nine children in his family. His parents and siblings still live there, and, though he’s now a U.S. citizen, Rumbeiha visits his family at least once a year.

He earned his doctorate of veterinary medicine degree from Markere University in 1982. He was awarded a scholarship to Guelph University in Ontario, Canada, where he completed a Ph. D. After stints in industry and at Kansas State and Michigan State, he came to Iowa State in 2011, where he is one of two faculty toxicologists.

But it was at Guelph in Canada where he discovered his interest in toxicology.

“My eyes were opened at Guelph when I realized how important toxicology is and how many other disciplines it interacts with,” Rumbeiha said.

Wherever his travels have taken him, however, he said he carries the perspective and priorities he learned early in life.

“My background and my outlook come from Uganda,” Rumbeiha said. “I’m always attuned to international issues important in the developing world.”

This post originally appeared at the Iowa State University, News Service section of the website.

7

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

Human and companion animal oncologists convene

Human and companion animal oncologists convene

Human and companion animal oncologists convene

Earlier June 2015, human and animal oncologists convened in Washington, D.C. to discuss how they might collaborate for the benefit of both. And the subject was dogs.

Purebred Golden Retriever dog outdoors on a sunny summer day.

Purebred Golden Retriever dog outdoors on a sunny summer day.

Spearheaded by Colorado State Colorado State University (CSU) and its Flint Animal Cancer Center, the June 8-9 comparative oncology event focused on translational cancer research, i.e., studies that seek effective cancer treatments initially with animals but benefiting both animals and humans.

The event had two objectives within veterinary oncology, reported CSU.

First, it sought to identify how to more fully characterize the genetic makeup of tumors that develop in dogs and people, and, second, to further investigate the role of cancer immunology in dogs.

The event was triggered by a need to integrate clinical studies in pets within the larger cancer research continuum.

Many new therapies fail in human clinical trials because rodent models lack the key characteristics of human cancer. However, because human and pet tumors share many characteristics, there is now renewed interest in companion animal studies about naturally occurring tumors.

The National Cancer Policy Forum hosted the event. About 20 academic and nonprofit organizations sponsored the event, which was also live-streamed.

Presentations and videos from the event are available on the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies website.

This post originally appeared American Animal Hospital Association website.

7

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

Ebola a wake up call for Ecohealth Alliance

Ebola a wake up call for Ecohealth Alliance

Ebola a wake up call for Ecohealth Alliance

Peter Daszak, President Ecohealth Alliance, in this short video reiterates on how Ebola was a wake up call for them and that their research at the Ecohealth alliance has shown that emergence of disease is a result of anthropogenic actions of man to the environment. Further he states that governments are more concerned about economics than conservation, but when conservation threats are packaged as economic threats then this triggers change, he gives an example of China closing down the wildlife market (which they did as a result of safeguarding health and not conservation per se).

View the four minute video here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KLY3jXXs3ZQ&feature=youtu.be

7

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

What are the alternatives for a Global One Health Governance Body?

What are the alternatives for a Global One Health Governance Body?

What are the alternatives for a Global One Health Governance Body?

Since there is no blueprint for making ‘One Health‘ operational, I agree with the Atlanta Report that the alternative of having a One Health governance body is to have a ‘One Health Global Guidance Group’-G3 that will provide neutrality, credibility and build on the existing international, regional and sub-national platforms, so as to find practicable approaches that factor in the needs of all “actors” in developed and developing worlds.

The proposed One Health Global Guidance Group will champion the concepts and goals of One Health and act as a facilitator and enabler and not a “government”. In my opinion the success of the guidance group will be through emphasizing the need for a bottom-up collaboration and catalyzing leadership at all levels since the ultimate responsibility lies within individual countries to develop a framework evolving from local issues by including community participation and building local capacity and avoid “a one size-fits it all approach.”

The proposed “soft governance” approach through a Global Guidance Group is a sound alternative built on existing individual country frameworks. I will also propose to have country “One Health ambassadors” who will work with the Global Guidance Group at the country level. These ambassadors should be volunteers from the Ministry of Health/Agriculture/Environment. As much as it is a sound alternative, let‘s now find out some of the factors that may encourage or discourage a truly global commitment to One Health in the next post.

References

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

Should we have a Global One Health Governance Body or not?

Should we have a Global One Health Governance Body or not?

Should we have a Global One Health Governance Body or not?

global government

To start as off lets first adopt a definition for One Health as a movement dedicated to building new levels of trust and transparency between disciplines, nations, organizations, and people. Moreover, that One Health is a rational way of thinking that mirrors the reality of people‘s lives and livelihoods. Lets come back to our question, is leadership essential to One Health‘? Should we have a Global One Health Governance Body? Let‘s proceed and try to answer this question in the next few paragraphs.

We have established that One Health is integrally about collective action that entails crossing borders to achieve a common goal. When crossing borders one cannot rely on traditional forms of authority and therefore the capacity to create collective action (especially without formal authority) becomes even more perilous. Loosely speaking, does it mean that to provide “border control” we need a One Health governing body? To actually try and provide an answer to this question let‘s consider the arguments proposed by different scholars in the next two paragraphs.

Boustfield and Brown (2011) suggests that one way to comprehend One Health (and by extension shading light on how it should be governed) is to meditate what it isn‘t. Firstly, it is not an institution, and as stated by Okello et al., (2015) the many institutions have well-defined (and many a times) different mandates and may lack trust amongst themselves. Secondly, it has no set of reference laws rather it is an agreement between the “players” this characteristic of being fluid as noted by Chien (2012) is attractive and readily appropriated by international agencies and networks since it has no specified binding laws, what has been described as “soft governance” by Leboeuf., (2011). Thirdly, it is not owned by anyone, it is a global public good as noted by Normandeau., (2011). Normandeau (2011) acknowledges that One Health should remain flexible, resilient, comprehensive, based on a strong foundation and that One Health should not be institutionalized! If we stop here I believe we have an answer already, but let‘s consider the counter arguments in the next paragraph by other scholars.

Gilbert et al., 2014 outlines that governance and coordination are imperative for One Health; this will enable it to face the societal challenges and avoid the rat trap in which global health governance finds itself at the moment. Galaz et al., (2015) supports Gilbert et al., (2014) when they say, “It is clear that in the current times there is tension between making One Health an informal, networked ‘movement’ and a more formalized organizational change.” Normandeau (2011) recognizes that the absence of coordination can weaken the One Health movement and finally Lee. K and Brumme Z. (2013) also affirms that One Health is in the struggle to achieving institutional independence.

It is clear that there are pros and cons in having &not having a One Health governance body. In my opinion having no governing body has far reaching advantages since it will render One Health to reach and include a wider array of players. It will be more acceptable since it camouflages with the participating organizational structures. It will invite a wider audience of scientists through its collaborative model and doesn‘t risk having the problems facing global health governance since it will have a wider network of both traditional and non-traditional health actors but at the same time not having a governing body reduces the ability of One Health to push for a “favourable agenda” when it comes to disease prioritization, attract sufficient funding and accrue policy support especially when dealing with endemic neglected tropic diseases (Mableson., 2014). At the same time we know that it is in these resource deficient settings that the economic case/proof of concept for One Health is continually gaining momentum and producing tangible results (Zinsstag et al., 2005; Zinsstag et al., 2007).

Therefore what is the take home message, to have or not to have a governing body for One Health? Okello et al., (2015) suggests a sound solution, which is to establish a model of governance that is acceptable to all One Health stakeholders. That seems impossible, right? Since we already said that these stakeholders (institutions) have different mandates! In this dilemma of establishing a model of governance that is acceptable to all, how then do we ensure OH needs of leadership are met while maintaining the flexibility of the One Health movement that has made it so appealing? This means we need n alternative for a Global One Health Governance body…..stay tuned for my next post that will propose an alternative.

References

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories

What can people from different disciplines contribute to One Health?

What can people from different disciplines contribute to One Health?

What can people from different disciplines contribute to One Health?

For the One Health concept to move from “Vision to Fashion” an inter and cross disciplinary true partnership and cooperation is warranted among (but not limited to) the following disciplines:

  • Veterinarians, Physicians and Public Health professionals are involved in the regular education on risks of acquiring zoonoses, promotion of food safety, responding to epidemics and pandemics, responding to bioterrorism, and environmental health;
  • Para-veterinarians, nurses, paramedics perform and contribute to patient careOne Health
  • Wildlife scientists also work towards reducing zoonoses and other ecosystem risks;
  • Other environmental and public health issues also require the expert opinion of ecologists to understand host-pathogen ecology and methods of studying diseases
  • Environmental health professions (to associate how biotic and abiotic factors and behavior influence diseases)
  • Industrial hygienists (to understand safe food production)
  • Toxicologists (to determine, understand and control environmental contaminants)
  • Anthropologists (to understand genesis of risk factors if social tagged)
  • Agricultural extension officers (who are key in information dissemination and training of farmers)
  • Farmers (who are the main stakeholders in implementing advise given)
  • Sociologists (to understand how the thinking and behavior of people influence health)
  • Economists (to understand how the world/regional monetary systems affect diseases an health of people and evaluate economic viable systems) and many more others (you can suggest more by commenting!)

This simply tells us that One Health is not a “single driver” concept but is a “multiple spearheaded” concept by a diverse pool of disciplines. To actualize the goals of One health we therefore need to have a multidisciplinary approach with special interest to the problem at hand.

References

Updates direct to your Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts and opportunities by email.

Join 7,243 other subscribers

Post categories