BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//CERN//INDICO//EN BEGIN:VEVENT SUMMARY:Leaving No One Behind: Science\, Sovereignty\, and the Risk of a N ew Health Inequality DTSTART;VALUE=DATE-TIME:20260609T200000Z DTEND;VALUE=DATE-TIME:20260609T203000Z DTSTAMP;VALUE=DATE-TIME:20260606T112934Z UID:indico-contribution-10370@events.saip.org.za 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 th at the benefits of science should be available to all.\n\nYet reality turn ed out to be very different. Millions of people were left behind in access to vaccines\, treatments\, medical equipment\, and scientific capabilitie s. The inequalities between developed and developing countries became more visible than ever before. The pandemic revealed that international solida rity has limits when confronted with economic interests\, concentrated ind ustrial capacities\, and profound technological asymmetries.\n\nAt the tim e\, particular concern focused on Africa. Many experts predicted a health catastrophe of historic proportions. Yet although the continent experience d severe economic and social consequences\, observed mortality rates were lower than many initial forecasts had suggested. Several factors contribut ed 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.\n\nThat experience provided an important lesson. The absence of an even greater tragedy did not mean that inequalities had disappeared. It simply showed that demograp hic and social factors partially mitigated the effects of a structural vul nerability that remains in place today. Scientific and technological depen dence continues to be one of the principal weaknesses of the Global South. \n\nToday\, only a few years after the pandemic\, two seemingly different developments once again raise the same fundamental question. On the one ha nd\, new Ebola outbreaks in Africa remind us that infectious diseases rema in a persistent threat. On the other\, recently announced advances in the fight against pancreatic cancer offer extraordinary hope to millions of pe ople\, while also raising questions about who will actually benefit from t hese innovations.\n\nEbola serves as a reminder that health emergencies ha ve not disappeared. Each new outbreak tests the capacity of health systems to conduct epidemiological surveillance\, diagnosis\, research\, and rapi d response. It also demonstrates that regions with limited scientific infr astructure remain heavily dependent on decisions\, resources\, and technol ogies developed elsewhere.\n\nThe case of pancreatic cancer\, however\, is even more revealing of the challenges facing the Global South.\n\nPancrea tic cancer is one of the deadliest diseases in the world. Every year it ca uses approximately half a million deaths globally. In Latin America and th e 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 cance r because it is often diagnosed only after reaching an advanced stage.\n\n For decades\, progress has been limited. However\, at the recent Annual Me eting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)\, results were p resented that many specialists consider among the most promising in recent years. New targeted therapies and innovative treatment approaches have de monstrated significant improvements in survival and quality of life\, fuel ing hopes that medicine may be entering a new era in confronting a disease that has historically been extremely difficult to treat.\n\nThese develop ments are a legitimate source of hope. But they also raise an uncomfortabl e question: how long will it take for these advances to reach patients in Latin America\, Africa\, and other regions of the Global South?\n\nHistori cal experience suggests that the answer may be measured in years rather th an months.\n\nBetween scientific discovery and effective access to its ben efits lies a complex chain that includes research\, patents\, industrial p roduction\, regulation\, financing\, logistics\, and institutional capacit y. Countries that control this chain generally gain access to innovations first. Others depend on transfer processes that are often slow\, costly\, and incomplete.\n\nAdding to this challenge is a new source of uncertainty . In the United States\, policymakers are discussing mechanisms aimed at l owering the price of certain medicines through international price referen cing\, an approach associated with so-called “most favored nation” pol icies. Although the stated objective is to reduce treatment costs for Amer ican patients\, some analysts warn that such measures could influence the global commercialization strategies of the pharmaceutical industry.\n\nIf prices charged in other countries affect revenues generated in the most pr ofitable markets\, pharmaceutical companies may have incentives to delay t he 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.\n\nShould such a trend materialize\, a troubling parado x 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.\n\nThe underlying issue extends far be yond healthcare. It is fundamentally a question of scientific and technolo gical sovereignty.\n\nThe pandemic demonstrated that countries capable of generating knowledge\, developing technology\, and producing strategic sup plies were able to respond more rapidly and autonomously. Those that depen ded entirely on external providers remained vulnerable to decisions made b eyond their borders.\n\nFor this reason\, the debate over large-scale scie ntific infrastructure has an importance that extends far beyond academia. The issue is not merely the production of scientific papers or improved po sitions in international rankings. It is about building capacities capable of transforming knowledge into concrete solutions for society.\n\nIn this context\, synchrotrons represent one of the most powerful tools of contem porary science. These facilities generate extremely bright beams of light that make it possible to study the structure of materials\, proteins\, bio logical tissues\, and complex systems with extraordinary precision.\n\nThe ir applications span numerous strategic fields\, including health\, pharma cology\, biotechnology\, energy\, advanced agriculture\, nanotechnology\, and new materials. In biomedicine\, they allow researchers to investigate molecular mechanisms associated with cancer\, identify biomarkers for earl ier diagnosis\, and accelerate drug discovery processes.\n\nThe case of Si rius 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 capabi lities required to participate at the frontier of knowledge.\n\nMore impor tantly\, Sirius shows that investment in Big Science is not a luxury reser ved 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 infrastructu res also tend to develop advanced industrial capabilities and knowledge-ba sed value chains.\n\nFor precisely this reason\, projects such as the Glob al 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 participat e actively in creating solutions to its own challenges.\n\nHistory shows t hat no country has achieved a significant position in the knowledge econom y by limiting itself to importing technologies developed elsewhere. The na tions that lead innovation today are those that\, over decades\, invested simultaneously in higher education\, scientific research\, technological i nfrastructure\, and advanced industry.\n\nThe real question is what role t he Global South wishes to play in the emerging world.\n\nIt can choose to remain primarily a consumer of technologies developed elsewhere\, acceptin g inevitable delays in access to critical innovations. Or it can gradually build the capacities required to participate in their development.\n\nThe new Ebola outbreaks and the advances against pancreatic cancer represent two sides of the same reality. In one case\, the priority is responding ra pidly to an infectious threat. In the other\, it is ensuring access to com plex treatments resulting from decades of advanced research. Both challeng es lead to the same conclusion: technological dependence carries a human c ost.\n\nDuring 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.\n\nIf no one is to be left behind in the dec ades ahead\, more than declarations will be required. It will be necessary to invest in universities\, strengthen research\, develop technological a nd pharmaceutical industries\, promote regional cooperation\, and build sc ientific infrastructures capable of placing the Global South at the fronti er of knowledge.\n\nOtherwise\, the future may present a profoundly unjust paradox: a humanity capable of controlling diseases that for centuries se emed invincible\, while millions continue to die not because science is la cking\, but because access to science is denied.\n\nSovereignty in the twe nty-first century will no longer depend solely on natural resources\, terr itory\, or military power. It will also depend on the ability to produce k nowledge\, transform it into innovation\, and convert it into social well- being.\n\nThat is the true lesson offered by both Ebola and pancreatic can cer. And that is why science\, international cooperation\, and major resea rch infrastructures must occupy a central place in any development strateg y for the Global South.\n\nhttps://events.saip.org.za/event/274/contributi ons/10370/ LOCATION: URL:https://events.saip.org.za/event/274/contributions/10370/ END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR