Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 15, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
Letters
Letters ONE HEALTH
History of One Health and One Medicine
Economics and One Health
MAX Murray and his colleagues have well described the fulcrum role that Sir William Weipers played in ensuring the development of the concept of One Medicine (VR, March 1, 2014, vol 174, p 227). In my long friendship with him it was always a matter about which he believed strongly. He often used as an example of One Medicine the pioneering work of the Campbeltown, Argyllshireborn veterinarian Duncan McEachran, a friend of James McCall, the founder of the Glasgow Veterinary College (Green 2013). McEachran practised in Montreal in the 1880s and introduced Canadian pathologist Sir William Osler to comparative pathology, collaborating with him on pathology of parasitism in animals and on tuberculosis. He also involved Osler and his colleagues in teaching at the Montreal Veterinary College and in 1889 they succeeded in absorbing the then private college into McGill medical school as the faculty of comparative medicine and veterinary science. This was the model that Weipers very much espoused. Osler maintained his links with McEachran, despite moving to the UK, and at the British Congress on Tuberculosis in London in 1901, a major point in the history of tuberculosis research, he ensured that McEachran, an FRCVS, was appointed a vice-president and provided with a section of comparative pathology of this serious human and animal disease. Osler became a foundation professor at Johns Hopkins University and went on to become regius professor of medicine at the University of Oxford, but his interest and contribution to animal pathology are widely recognised even today. The Osler-McEachran axiom of One Medicine is perhaps typified by Sir William Osler’s oft quoted aphorism, ‘The desire to take medicine is perhaps the main feature which distinguishes man from animals’.
PAUL Gibbs provided an excellent overview of One Health (VR, January 25, 2014, vol 174, pp 85-91). I agree with his respectful response to A. R. Michell, that a paradigm shift is occurring (VR, February 8, 2014, vol 174, p 152). Mannion and Shepherd’s letter (VR, February 8, 2014, vol 174, pp 151-152) illustrates the huge variety of people and ideas that need to be drawn together just in the case of human dog bites. We need to draw all One Health stakeholders together for the long haul, with an easily agreed hook. Professor Gibbs said it was fear that provoked the global response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). He referred to the US $4.3 billion pledged internationally for its control between 2005 and 2009. The US Federal Reserve bought US $85 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month during the third round of quantitative easing last year. Given that HPAI threatened the lives of almost 1 per cent of the world population, it seems we are more terrified by the thought of money dying than by that of people dying. Money is a great tool. The money ecosystem crosses all boundaries – geographical, racial, religious, the rural-urban divide, and the boundary between rich and poor. Everyone can understand money in a way that only a tiny proportion of people will ever understand epidemiology. Welfare and health correlate strongly with wealth, and we use money to decide how best to use the latter to optimise the former. But somehow, the way we use money is messed up. From Nordhaus and Tobin (1972) and Fritz Schumacher in 1973 to Pope Francis last year, thinkers have called for economics in which people matter. Yet budgeting and funding is still completely dominated by bottom-line analysis. One Health must include all life, and can draw widespread support through an explicit acknowledgement that for effective international cross-sectoral improvements in human, animal and ecosystem health, a fundamental re-examination of our economic assumptions is urgently required. I would put this at the top of a list of priorities for consideration for the One Health project.
Ronald J. Roberts, 9 Alexander Drive, Bridge of Allan, Stirling FK9 4QB e-mail: [email protected]
Reference
GREEN, P. D. (2013) Visionary Veterinarian: the Remarkable Exploits of Dr Duncan McNab McEachran. Alconalces Publishing
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2064
Alex Briault, Stone Pit Cottage, Hollins Lane, Forton, Lancashire PR3 0AA e-mail: [email protected] March 15, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 283
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 15, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
History of One Health and One Medicine Ronald J. Roberts Veterinary Record 2014 174: 283
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2064 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/11/283.2
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
Letters
Letters ONE HEALTH
History of One Health and One Medicine
Economics and One Health
MAX Murray and his colleagues have well described the fulcrum role that Sir William Weipers played in ensuring the development of the concept of One Medicine (VR, March 1, 2014, vol 174, p 227). In my long friendship with him it was always a matter about which he believed strongly. He often used as an example of One Medicine the pioneering work of the Campbeltown, Argyllshireborn veterinarian Duncan McEachran, a friend of James McCall, the founder of the Glasgow Veterinary College (Green 2013). McEachran practised in Montreal in the 1880s and introduced Canadian pathologist Sir William Osler to comparative pathology, collaborating with him on pathology of parasitism in animals and on tuberculosis. He also involved Osler and his colleagues in teaching at the Montreal Veterinary College and in 1889 they succeeded in absorbing the then private college into McGill medical school as the faculty of comparative medicine and veterinary science. This was the model that Weipers very much espoused. Osler maintained his links with McEachran, despite moving to the UK, and at the British Congress on Tuberculosis in London in 1901, a major point in the history of tuberculosis research, he ensured that McEachran, an FRCVS, was appointed a vice-president and provided with a section of comparative pathology of this serious human and animal disease. Osler became a foundation professor at Johns Hopkins University and went on to become regius professor of medicine at the University of Oxford, but his interest and contribution to animal pathology are widely recognised even today. The Osler-McEachran axiom of One Medicine is perhaps typified by Sir William Osler’s oft quoted aphorism, ‘The desire to take medicine is perhaps the main feature which distinguishes man from animals’.
PAUL Gibbs provided an excellent overview of One Health (VR, January 25, 2014, vol 174, pp 85-91). I agree with his respectful response to A. R. Michell, that a paradigm shift is occurring (VR, February 8, 2014, vol 174, p 152). Mannion and Shepherd’s letter (VR, February 8, 2014, vol 174, pp 151-152) illustrates the huge variety of people and ideas that need to be drawn together just in the case of human dog bites. We need to draw all One Health stakeholders together for the long haul, with an easily agreed hook. Professor Gibbs said it was fear that provoked the global response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). He referred to the US $4.3 billion pledged internationally for its control between 2005 and 2009. The US Federal Reserve bought US $85 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month during the third round of quantitative easing last year. Given that HPAI threatened the lives of almost 1 per cent of the world population, it seems we are more terrified by the thought of money dying than by that of people dying. Money is a great tool. The money ecosystem crosses all boundaries – geographical, racial, religious, the rural-urban divide, and the boundary between rich and poor. Everyone can understand money in a way that only a tiny proportion of people will ever understand epidemiology. Welfare and health correlate strongly with wealth, and we use money to decide how best to use the latter to optimise the former. But somehow, the way we use money is messed up. From Nordhaus and Tobin (1972) and Fritz Schumacher in 1973 to Pope Francis last year, thinkers have called for economics in which people matter. Yet budgeting and funding is still completely dominated by bottom-line analysis. One Health must include all life, and can draw widespread support through an explicit acknowledgement that for effective international cross-sectoral improvements in human, animal and ecosystem health, a fundamental re-examination of our economic assumptions is urgently required. I would put this at the top of a list of priorities for consideration for the One Health project.
Ronald J. Roberts, 9 Alexander Drive, Bridge of Allan, Stirling FK9 4QB e-mail: [email protected]
Reference
GREEN, P. D. (2013) Visionary Veterinarian: the Remarkable Exploits of Dr Duncan McNab McEachran. Alconalces Publishing
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2064
Alex Briault, Stone Pit Cottage, Hollins Lane, Forton, Lancashire PR3 0AA e-mail: [email protected] March 15, 2014 | Veterinary Record | 283
Downloaded from http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/ on April 15, 2015 - Published by group.bmj.com
History of One Health and One Medicine Ronald J. Roberts Veterinary Record 2014 174: 283
doi: 10.1136/vr.g2064 Updated information and services can be found at: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/174/11/283.2
These include:
Email alerting service
Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the box at the top right corner of the online article.
Notes
To request permissions go to: http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions To order reprints go to: http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform To subscribe to BMJ go to: http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/
