Towards equitable genomics governance in Africa: Guiding principles from theories of global health governance and the African moral theory of Ubuntu

Mutuality as a method: advancing a social paradigm for global mental health through mutual learning

PURPOSE

Calls for "mutuality" in global mental health (GMH) aim to produce knowledge more equitably across epistemic and power differences. With funding, convening, and publishing power still concentrated in institutions in the global North, efforts to decolonize GMH emphasize the need for mutual learning instead of unidirectional knowledge transfers. This article reflects on mutuality as a concept and practice that engenders sustainable relations, conceptual innovation, and queries how epistemic power can be shared.

METHODS

We draw on insights from an online mutual learning process over 8 months between 39 community-based and academic collaborators working in 24 countries. They came together to advance the shift towards a social paradigm in GMH.

RESULTS

Our theorization of mutuality emphasizes that the processes and outcomes of knowledge production are inextricable. Mutual learning required an open-ended, iterative, and slower paced process that prioritized trust and remained responsive to all collaborators' needs and critiques. This resulted in a social paradigm that calls for GMH to (1) move from a deficit to a strength-based view of community mental health, (2) include local and experiential knowledge in scaling processes, (3) direct funding to community organizations, and (4) challenge concepts, such as trauma and resilience, through the lens of lived experience of communities in the global South.

CONCLUSION

Under the current institutional arrangements in GMH, mutuality can only be imperfectly achieved. We present key ingredients of our partial success at mutual learning and conclude that challenging existing structural constraints is crucial to prevent a tokenistic use of the concept.

A review and analysis of accountability in global health funding, research collaborations and training: towards conceptual clarity and better practice

INTRODUCTION

Accountability is a complex idea to unpack and involves different processes in global health practice. Calls for accountability in global health would be better translated to action through a better understanding of the concept and practice of accountability in global health. We sought to analyse accountability processes in practice in global health funding, research collaborations and training.

METHODS

This study is a literature review that systematically searched PubMed and Scopus for articles on formal accountability processes in global health. We charted information on processes based on accountability lines ('who is accountable to whom') and the outcomes the processes were intended for ('accountability for what'). We visualised the representation of accountability in the articles by mapping the processes according to their intended outcomes and the levels where processes were implemented.

RESULTS

We included 53 articles representing a wide range of contexts and identified 19 specific accountability processes for various outcomes in global health funding, research collaborations and training. Target setting and monitoring were the most common accountability processes. Other processes included interinstitutional networks for peer checking, litigation strategies to enforce health-related rights, special bodies that bring actors to account for commitments, self-accountability through internal organisational processes and multipolar accountability involving different types of institutional actors. Our mapping identified gaps at the institutional, interinstitutional and broader system levels where accountability processes could be enhanced.

CONCLUSION

To rebalance power in global health, our review has shown that analysing information on existing accountability processes regarding 'who is accountable to whom' and 'accountability for what' would be useful to characterise existing lines of accountability and create lines where there are gaps. However, we also suggest that institutional and systems processes for accountability must be accompanied by political engagement to mobilise collective action and create conditions where a culture of accountability thrives in global health.

Towards an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing: a call to synergistic action

The CRISPR-Cas9 system has revolutionised the biotechnology of human genome editing. Human germline gene editing promises exponential benefits to many in Africa and elsewhere, especially those affected by the highly prevalent monogenic disorders - for which, thanks to CRISPR, a relatively safe heritable radical therapy is a real possibility. Africa evidently presents a unique opportunity for empirical research in human germline gene editing because of its high prevalence of monogenic disorders. Critically, however, germline gene editing has raised serious ethical concerns especially because of the significant risks of inadvertent and intentional misuse of its transgenerational heritability. Calls for due prudence have become even more pronounced in the wake of the 2018 case of He Jiankui's 'CRISPR'd babies'. Meanwhile, Africa is seriously lagging in articulating its position on human genome editing. Conspicuously, there has been little to no attempt at comprehensively engaging the African public in discussions on the promises and concerns about human genome editing. Thus, the echoing key question remains as to how Africa should prudently embrace and govern this revolutionary biotechnology. In this article, therefore, I lay the groundwork for the possible development of an appropriate African framework for public engagement with human genome editing and call upon all stakeholders to urgent synergistic action. I particularly highlight the World Health Organisation's possible leadership role in promptly establishing the requisite expert working group for this urgent need.