p u b l i c h e a l t h 1 2 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 5 e1 1 6
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Public Health journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/puhe
Editorial
Who do you think you are?
Regular readers of Public Health will be aware that we have been known occasionally to take our inspiration for editorial matter from television programmes. It may be the programme’s theme that allows a connection to be made with the public health issues being explored within the issue, or its format. We try to ensure that any TV programme to which we refer is likely to be recognized by our broad, international readership; though with the globalization of television syndication, this is less problematic than one might think. It is, however, rare that we take a lead from not one, but two television shows for our editorial, in this case introducing this special issue on the reform of the World Health Organisation (WHO), but more of that later. We are extremely pleased that for this special issue of Public Health our Guest Editors, Larry Gostin from Georgetown University [Washington DC] and Devi Sridhar from the University of Edinburgh [UK], have brought together 13 commissioned papers from distinguished international academics and commentators to explore differing aspects of the current debate on the future function and form of the WHO. The editorial introduction1 to these papers we shall leave to them, but we have been struck by the way in which each of the authors, whilst offering their own views on WHO reform, are united in a passion for seeing the continuing development of the organization to secure its effective future role. This is clear too in the accompanying commentary from colleagues at the WHO.2 We would like to take this opportunity to thank Gostin and Sridhar and all the contributors for their efforts in bringing this issue of the journal to press. That said, we do feel it is important to share with you why we wanted to devote a whole issue of Public Health to this topic. So back to TV: two current and very popular UK television programmes illustrate these reasons rather well. The first programme is called ‘Who do you think you are?’ This programme, which draws on a widespread interest in genealogy, allows well known personalities to research elements of their ancestry and share the stories of some of their forebears. The programme follows a selective process that sifts out the everyday and highlights the remarkable. So each edition ends up casting a light on aspects of social and cultural history through the eyes of people that mainstream historians may have overlooked: from the grinding poverty of 19th century Glasgow which reduced a hardened contemporary television journalist to tears, to the Turkish journalist and politician who
was murdered in the 1920s and whose great, great grandson is currently Mayor of London. Apart from the voyeurism engendered by the format, the programme draws on a basic premise that knowing your own history will help you understand yourself more fully and allow you to grow as a person. In the same way, knowing the history and development of the WHO is an important component in considering its reform. Drawing on its remarkable achievements will be essential; and like ‘Who do you think you are?’, so too will be the everyday successes and limitations. As Edmund Burke (1729e97) noted: ‘Those who do not know history, are destined to repeat it.’ The second television programme is something of a national institution within the UK: ‘Dr Who’. From its first episode in 1963, watched in black and white by an audience of six million at a time when roughly 75% of the population had a television and access to only two TV channels, to its 50th anniversary show, which was simulcast to over 90 countries and watched by an estimated 100 million viewers last November, Dr Who has travelled in time and space, seeing the sights and having adventures. On the way he has found he has needed to solve problems, challenge injustice, intervene in inter-species (and trans-dimensional) xenocide, even restore galactic harmony and all that with only the aid of the TARDIS (Time and Relative Dimension in Space e a sentient time and space ship), a sonic screwdriver, and a range of (mainly) human companions. As the last of the Gallifreyan Time Lords, he has one unique characteristic: he is able to undergo physical regeneration. All of which is incredibly useful for television scriptwriters, directors and producers: not for the Dr Who production team, the fear that the departure of the leading actor will undermine the programme’s viability. Indeed, the regeneration of the Doctor provides a wonderful opportunity to revise, and refresh the character and the series, while retaining the essence of the character and what he stands for. Of course the risk is that someone unsuited to the role e or not favoured by the core audience e is asked to play ‘The Doctor’. The fact that the BBC re-arranged its prime-time schedule to make the live announcement of the actor to play the newest (re-) incarnation of Dr Who, shows how important a decision it has become. It is satisfyingly ironic that Peter Capaldi, who plays the latest Dr Who, may be more recognizable to some international film audiences from his role in ‘World War Z’ where he is credited as ‘W.H.O. Doctor’.
116
p u b l i c h e a l t h 1 2 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 5 e1 1 6
At the end of the 50th anniversary episode of Dr Who, we knew that the narrative arc had a new focus. So, too, for WHO reform. Perhaps what is needed is not a redesign or reinvention process, but bold regeneration and restatement of the organization’s core values? As the planet’s global health agency, it would most effectively take the lead in solving new and emerging public health threats; challenge the injustices of population health in the 21st century; and intervene to improve health outcomes on Earth. We consider that reform of the WHO is so important that we will be returning to this theme again in 2014, and welcome your thoughts and considered views on the topic.
2. Cassels A, Smith I, Burci GL. Commentary: Reforming WHO: the art of the possible. Public Health 2014;128(2):202e4. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.12.006.
P. Mackie F. Sim C. Johnman The Royal Society for Public Health, John Snow House, 59 Mansell Street, London E1 8AN, UK E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Mackie) Available online 3 January 2014
references
1. Gostin L, Sridhar D. Guest Editorial: World Health Organization: past, present and future. Public Health 2014;128(2):117e8. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.12.007.
0033-3506/$ e see front matter ª 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.12.008
In this Issue With WHO reform being high on the agenda of the member states of the World Health Assembly, it is with great pleasure that we are publishing this special issue of Public Health: ‘WHO Past, Present and Future’. Under the Guest Editorship of Larry Gostin and Devi Sridhar, we present 13 papers that explore the history of the WHO and opportunities for its reform and future governance. In considering the past of the WHO we have papers that set the WHO in the context of global health from 1851 onwards and the organizations that sought to provide global public health leadership in the first half of the 20th century. We also consider the history of the organization from the 1940s to the present, taking in reflections on the public health life of Gro Harlem Brundtland. In considering the present and future of the WHO we have papers which explore provide reflections on organization, its governance, and its future role. In regard to WHO governance there are papers on the use of non-binding instruments for global health governance, developing a Framework Convention on Global Health, the evolution and future of human rights through global health governance, and democratizing the WHO. In relation to the role of the WHO we have papers which consider what is to be learned from global debates around research and development in determining the WHO’s future role, and the ways in which the member states can affect the focus of the role. We even have a radical suggestion that the WHO role be split into two with one function being to strengthen political decision-making and the second providing independent scientific advice. Finally, in a response from the WHO itself, we present a reflection on the reform process and the art of the possible. We hope you find this as exciting an issue as we do.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Public Health journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/puhe
Editorial
Who do you think you are?
Regular readers of Public Health will be aware that we have been known occasionally to take our inspiration for editorial matter from television programmes. It may be the programme’s theme that allows a connection to be made with the public health issues being explored within the issue, or its format. We try to ensure that any TV programme to which we refer is likely to be recognized by our broad, international readership; though with the globalization of television syndication, this is less problematic than one might think. It is, however, rare that we take a lead from not one, but two television shows for our editorial, in this case introducing this special issue on the reform of the World Health Organisation (WHO), but more of that later. We are extremely pleased that for this special issue of Public Health our Guest Editors, Larry Gostin from Georgetown University [Washington DC] and Devi Sridhar from the University of Edinburgh [UK], have brought together 13 commissioned papers from distinguished international academics and commentators to explore differing aspects of the current debate on the future function and form of the WHO. The editorial introduction1 to these papers we shall leave to them, but we have been struck by the way in which each of the authors, whilst offering their own views on WHO reform, are united in a passion for seeing the continuing development of the organization to secure its effective future role. This is clear too in the accompanying commentary from colleagues at the WHO.2 We would like to take this opportunity to thank Gostin and Sridhar and all the contributors for their efforts in bringing this issue of the journal to press. That said, we do feel it is important to share with you why we wanted to devote a whole issue of Public Health to this topic. So back to TV: two current and very popular UK television programmes illustrate these reasons rather well. The first programme is called ‘Who do you think you are?’ This programme, which draws on a widespread interest in genealogy, allows well known personalities to research elements of their ancestry and share the stories of some of their forebears. The programme follows a selective process that sifts out the everyday and highlights the remarkable. So each edition ends up casting a light on aspects of social and cultural history through the eyes of people that mainstream historians may have overlooked: from the grinding poverty of 19th century Glasgow which reduced a hardened contemporary television journalist to tears, to the Turkish journalist and politician who
was murdered in the 1920s and whose great, great grandson is currently Mayor of London. Apart from the voyeurism engendered by the format, the programme draws on a basic premise that knowing your own history will help you understand yourself more fully and allow you to grow as a person. In the same way, knowing the history and development of the WHO is an important component in considering its reform. Drawing on its remarkable achievements will be essential; and like ‘Who do you think you are?’, so too will be the everyday successes and limitations. As Edmund Burke (1729e97) noted: ‘Those who do not know history, are destined to repeat it.’ The second television programme is something of a national institution within the UK: ‘Dr Who’. From its first episode in 1963, watched in black and white by an audience of six million at a time when roughly 75% of the population had a television and access to only two TV channels, to its 50th anniversary show, which was simulcast to over 90 countries and watched by an estimated 100 million viewers last November, Dr Who has travelled in time and space, seeing the sights and having adventures. On the way he has found he has needed to solve problems, challenge injustice, intervene in inter-species (and trans-dimensional) xenocide, even restore galactic harmony and all that with only the aid of the TARDIS (Time and Relative Dimension in Space e a sentient time and space ship), a sonic screwdriver, and a range of (mainly) human companions. As the last of the Gallifreyan Time Lords, he has one unique characteristic: he is able to undergo physical regeneration. All of which is incredibly useful for television scriptwriters, directors and producers: not for the Dr Who production team, the fear that the departure of the leading actor will undermine the programme’s viability. Indeed, the regeneration of the Doctor provides a wonderful opportunity to revise, and refresh the character and the series, while retaining the essence of the character and what he stands for. Of course the risk is that someone unsuited to the role e or not favoured by the core audience e is asked to play ‘The Doctor’. The fact that the BBC re-arranged its prime-time schedule to make the live announcement of the actor to play the newest (re-) incarnation of Dr Who, shows how important a decision it has become. It is satisfyingly ironic that Peter Capaldi, who plays the latest Dr Who, may be more recognizable to some international film audiences from his role in ‘World War Z’ where he is credited as ‘W.H.O. Doctor’.
116
p u b l i c h e a l t h 1 2 8 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 1 1 5 e1 1 6
At the end of the 50th anniversary episode of Dr Who, we knew that the narrative arc had a new focus. So, too, for WHO reform. Perhaps what is needed is not a redesign or reinvention process, but bold regeneration and restatement of the organization’s core values? As the planet’s global health agency, it would most effectively take the lead in solving new and emerging public health threats; challenge the injustices of population health in the 21st century; and intervene to improve health outcomes on Earth. We consider that reform of the WHO is so important that we will be returning to this theme again in 2014, and welcome your thoughts and considered views on the topic.
2. Cassels A, Smith I, Burci GL. Commentary: Reforming WHO: the art of the possible. Public Health 2014;128(2):202e4. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.12.006.
P. Mackie F. Sim C. Johnman The Royal Society for Public Health, John Snow House, 59 Mansell Street, London E1 8AN, UK E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Mackie) Available online 3 January 2014
references
1. Gostin L, Sridhar D. Guest Editorial: World Health Organization: past, present and future. Public Health 2014;128(2):117e8. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.12.007.
0033-3506/$ e see front matter ª 2013 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.12.008
In this Issue With WHO reform being high on the agenda of the member states of the World Health Assembly, it is with great pleasure that we are publishing this special issue of Public Health: ‘WHO Past, Present and Future’. Under the Guest Editorship of Larry Gostin and Devi Sridhar, we present 13 papers that explore the history of the WHO and opportunities for its reform and future governance. In considering the past of the WHO we have papers that set the WHO in the context of global health from 1851 onwards and the organizations that sought to provide global public health leadership in the first half of the 20th century. We also consider the history of the organization from the 1940s to the present, taking in reflections on the public health life of Gro Harlem Brundtland. In considering the present and future of the WHO we have papers which explore provide reflections on organization, its governance, and its future role. In regard to WHO governance there are papers on the use of non-binding instruments for global health governance, developing a Framework Convention on Global Health, the evolution and future of human rights through global health governance, and democratizing the WHO. In relation to the role of the WHO we have papers which consider what is to be learned from global debates around research and development in determining the WHO’s future role, and the ways in which the member states can affect the focus of the role. We even have a radical suggestion that the WHO role be split into two with one function being to strengthen political decision-making and the second providing independent scientific advice. Finally, in a response from the WHO itself, we present a reflection on the reform process and the art of the possible. We hope you find this as exciting an issue as we do.
