Good news, except that local scientists are outside the loop
News of significant progress in the development of effective vaccines to prevent Ebola virus infection deserves notice, particularly considering the expert confirmation of their safety. “This is the first study to show comparable safety and immune response of an experimental Ebola vaccine in an African population,” according to Dr Julie Ledgerwood from the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health, USA. Dr. Ledgerwood, lead author of the findings from the first trial of filovirus vaccines in Africa published in The Lancet, gave a helpful insight into the importance of the experimental success: “This is particularly encouraging because those at greatest risk of Ebola live primarily in Africa, and diminished vaccine protection in African populations has been seen for other diseases.”
The two new DNA vaccines that code for Ebola virus proteins were developed from the Zaire and Sudan strains and the Marburg virus protein; and they have opened fresh possibilities in the counter-Ebola international campaign. Dr Ledgerwood said: ”These findings have already formed the basis of a more potent vaccine, delivered using a harmless chimpanzee cold virus, which is undergoing trials in the USA, UK, Mali, and Uganda in response to the ongoing Ebola virus outbreak.” It is a reflection of the seriousness with which scientists are treating Ebola, as well as the gravity of the disease itself, that the trials leading to the reported findings took place about four years ago, before its current occurrence.
It is worth mentioning that the evolving 2014 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak has thrown the West African sub-region, in particular, into understandable apprehension. Indeed, the scale of the epidemic has acquired a global tint, forcing the international community to acknowledge that it constitutes a major public health crisis. Against this background, the positive news about Ebola vaccine development has far-reaching implications not only for African populations, but also for other peoples across the world.
However, it is relevant to highlight an important response by Dr. Saranya Sridhar from the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford in the UK, who said the findings deserved to be “the focal point around which the broader question of vaccine development, particularly for Africa, must be addressed.” Dr. Sridhar further said: “we must ask ourselves whether a filovirus vaccine should have been in more advanced clinical development.” In other words, it is possible that political and economic considerations may have hampered the speed of progress. Hopefully, the speed and purpose with which clinical vaccine development has been pursued, and has progressed, in the context of international response to the present Ebola outbreak, will be sustained for the good of all mankind.
The scientific breakthrough holds useful lessons for local scientists in Africa, who should see it as a wake-up call. Beyond the interest and intervention of the international scientific circle, which should be commended, Africa-based scientists ought to be more involved in finding solutions to Ebola, especially given that the continent’s populations appear to be more vulnerable to the disease. Unfortunately, such expectations bring up issues of socio-economic underdevelopment and inadequate research and health infrastructure, among other negatives that constitute a drawback.
In a profound sense, the international efforts to develop effective and safe Ebola vaccines reinforce the idea of a global humanity. The concept of a global village is given further expression through such all-embracing actions. For a disease with such deadly consequences and high fatalities, the wise saying that prevention is better than cure makes a lot of sense. It is hoped that Ebola vaccines will not only be perfected, but will also be available and affordable wherever they are needed.
