[ad#GBAF-1-text]
In a series of articles published in the Lancet, international team of researchers suggests that efforts to eradicate malaria in some countries may be counter-productive. They believe that a policy of eradication in some areas could lead to unintended consequences such as swings in funding and political commitment elsewhere. Specifically, they suggest that most sub-Saharan African countries are better off pursuing a policy of shrinking the areas affected by malaria than one focused on eradication.
It is not a closed case for sub-Saharan African though. The researches state that
“When confronting malaria, elimination is worthy, challenging, and just possible, but it must be pursued with balance, humility, and rigorous analysis. Malaria will only be truly eliminable (or eradicable) when an effective vaccine is available.”
Do we really have to just accept the conclusion from these researchers? As a scientist myself, I believe we have to separate policy descriptions from scientific possibilities. I’ll be responding fully to these papers in the next few days.
[ad#GBAF-1-text]
