Description
During the COVID-19 pandemic, a phrase became widely used by governments, international organizations, and citizens around the world: “leave no one behind.” It encapsulated a shared aspiration—the idea of a humanity united in the face of a common threat and the conviction that the benefits of science should be available to all.
Yet reality turned out to be very different. Millions of people were left behind in access to vaccines, treatments, medical equipment, and scientific capabilities. The inequalities between developed and developing countries became more visible than ever before. The pandemic revealed that international solidarity has limits when confronted with economic interests, concentrated industrial capacities, and profound technological asymmetries.
At the time, particular concern focused on Africa. Many experts predicted a health catastrophe of historic proportions. Yet although the continent experienced severe economic and social consequences, observed mortality rates were lower than many initial forecasts had suggested. Several factors contributed to this outcome: a relatively young population, different patterns of internal mobility, previous experience in managing epidemics, and forms of social resilience developed through repeated crises.
That experience provided an important lesson. The absence of an even greater tragedy did not mean that inequalities had disappeared. It simply showed that demographic and social factors partially mitigated the effects of a structural vulnerability that remains in place today. Scientific and technological dependence continues to be one of the principal weaknesses of the Global South.
Today, only a few years after the pandemic, two seemingly different developments once again raise the same fundamental question. On the one hand, new Ebola outbreaks in Africa remind us that infectious diseases remain a persistent threat. On the other, recently announced advances in the fight against pancreatic cancer offer extraordinary hope to millions of people, while also raising questions about who will actually benefit from these innovations.
Ebola serves as a reminder that health emergencies have not disappeared. Each new outbreak tests the capacity of health systems to conduct epidemiological surveillance, diagnosis, research, and rapid response. It also demonstrates that regions with limited scientific infrastructure remain heavily dependent on decisions, resources, and technologies developed elsewhere.
The case of pancreatic cancer, however, is even more revealing of the challenges facing the Global South.
Pancreatic cancer is one of the deadliest diseases in the world. Every year it causes approximately half a million deaths globally. In Latin America and the Caribbean, an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 people die annually from the disease. It has one of the lowest survival rates among all forms of cancer because it is often diagnosed only after reaching an advanced stage.
For decades, progress has been limited. However, at the recent Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), results were presented that many specialists consider among the most promising in recent years. New targeted therapies and innovative treatment approaches have demonstrated significant improvements in survival and quality of life, fueling hopes that medicine may be entering a new era in confronting a disease that has historically been extremely difficult to treat.
These developments are a legitimate source of hope. But they also raise an uncomfortable question: how long will it take for these advances to reach patients in Latin America, Africa, and other regions of the Global South?
Historical experience suggests that the answer may be measured in years rather than months.
Between scientific discovery and effective access to its benefits lies a complex chain that includes research, patents, industrial production, regulation, financing, logistics, and institutional capacity. Countries that control this chain generally gain access to innovations first. Others depend on transfer processes that are often slow, costly, and incomplete.
Adding to this challenge is a new source of uncertainty. In the United States, policymakers are discussing mechanisms aimed at lowering the price of certain medicines through international price referencing, an approach associated with so-called “most favored nation” policies. Although the stated objective is to reduce treatment costs for American patients, some analysts warn that such measures could influence the global commercialization strategies of the pharmaceutical industry.
If prices charged in other countries affect revenues generated in the most profitable markets, pharmaceutical companies may have incentives to delay the introduction of certain medicines in middle- and low-income countries. This is not an inevitable outcome, but it is a possibility that deserves careful attention.
Should such a trend materialize, a troubling paradox could emerge. Just as science begins to offer new opportunities against devastating diseases, a significant portion of humanity could gain access to them only after years of delay.
The underlying issue extends far beyond healthcare. It is fundamentally a question of scientific and technological sovereignty.
The pandemic demonstrated that countries capable of generating knowledge, developing technology, and producing strategic supplies were able to respond more rapidly and autonomously. Those that depended entirely on external providers remained vulnerable to decisions made beyond their borders.
For this reason, the debate over large-scale scientific infrastructure has an importance that extends far beyond academia. The issue is not merely the production of scientific papers or improved positions in international rankings. It is about building capacities capable of transforming knowledge into concrete solutions for society.
In this context, synchrotrons represent one of the most powerful tools of contemporary science. These facilities generate extremely bright beams of light that make it possible to study the structure of materials, proteins, biological tissues, and complex systems with extraordinary precision.
Their applications span numerous strategic fields, including health, pharmacology, biotechnology, energy, advanced agriculture, nanotechnology, and new materials. In biomedicine, they allow researchers to investigate molecular mechanisms associated with cancer, identify biomarkers for earlier diagnosis, and accelerate drug discovery processes.
The case of Sirius in Brazil is particularly important for Latin America. Sirius is one of the most advanced scientific infrastructures in the Southern Hemisphere and demonstrates that the region possesses the technical and human capabilities required to participate at the frontier of knowledge.
More importantly, Sirius shows that investment in Big Science is not a luxury reserved for major powers. It is a development tool. Around facilities of this kind, innovation ecosystems emerge that connect universities, hospitals, technology centers, companies, and public institutions. International experience demonstrates that regions hosting major scientific infrastructures also tend to develop advanced industrial capabilities and knowledge-based value chains.
For precisely this reason, projects such as the Global Caribbean Light Source Initiative (GCLSI) should be understood as much more than research infrastructures. They represent a strategic investment in the region’s capacity to generate its own knowledge and to participate actively in creating solutions to its own challenges.
History shows that no country has achieved a significant position in the knowledge economy by limiting itself to importing technologies developed elsewhere. The nations that lead innovation today are those that, over decades, invested simultaneously in higher education, scientific research, technological infrastructure, and advanced industry.
The real question is what role the Global South wishes to play in the emerging world.
It can choose to remain primarily a consumer of technologies developed elsewhere, accepting inevitable delays in access to critical innovations. Or it can gradually build the capacities required to participate in their development.
The new Ebola outbreaks and the advances against pancreatic cancer represent two sides of the same reality. In one case, the priority is responding rapidly to an infectious threat. In the other, it is ensuring access to complex treatments resulting from decades of advanced research. Both challenges lead to the same conclusion: technological dependence carries a human cost.
During the pandemic, it was repeatedly said that no one should be left behind. The phrase expressed a noble and necessary ideal. But ideals alone do not change reality.
If no one is to be left behind in the decades ahead, more than declarations will be required. It will be necessary to invest in universities, strengthen research, develop technological and pharmaceutical industries, promote regional cooperation, and build scientific infrastructures capable of placing the Global South at the frontier of knowledge.
Otherwise, the future may present a profoundly unjust paradox: a humanity capable of controlling diseases that for centuries seemed invincible, while millions continue to die not because science is lacking, but because access to science is denied.
Sovereignty in the twenty-first century will no longer depend solely on natural resources, territory, or military power. It will also depend on the ability to produce knowledge, transform it into innovation, and convert it into social well-being.
That is the true lesson offered by both Ebola and pancreatic cancer. And that is why science, international cooperation, and major research infrastructures must occupy a central place in any development strategy for the Global South.
