In the past few years, several authors1–5 have written about how veterinarians in the United States can contribute to enterprises around the globe. As two veterinarians who have worked extensively in various programs in several parts of the world and with a variety of missions and goals, we agree that US veterinarians have the considerable technical expertise needed to make important contributions to worldwide animal and human health, international agriculture, and global security.
But, one lesson our experiences have taught us is that as important as technical expertise is, the personal attributes individuals bring to overseas assignments—especially the desire and ability to form bonds of trust and friendship—are vital to ensuring that engagements are not just successful but also sustainable.6 Without adequate soft skills and a genuine interest in our professional colleagues’ challenges and futures, we are likely to find that any technical improvements that occur may be only temporary.
One of us (DRF) has extensive experience working at the interface between health and security and, since the end of the Cold War and the beginning of the period marking the destruction of bioweapons arsenals, has written, lectured, and consulted on the topic of human relationships in the complex world of biological science. The other (CB) has worked in more-traditional aid-related programs involving service delivery to and training of small-holders and veterinarians in the field of agricultural animal health; this work was focused in a range of resource-poor areas across Africa and Asia. At a recent meeting, we found common ground in our understanding that, without meaningful relationships between humans, no amount of technology or science could sustainably create a more secure or more productive global environment.
When one leaves an area or project after an overseas engagement, there is no guarantee that biosecurity will be maintained or that reagents, instruments, or safe laboratory practices and procedures will be sustained. What we need to leave behind is the capacity to maintain and grow without dependence on continuing foreign aid. In the final analysis, how sustainable any overseas engagement will be depends on human connections and human capacity building.
In his roles as chief inspector for the UN Special Commission in Iraq and as a technical expert for the trilateral inspection teams charged with assuring redirection of the Soviet weapons program, Franz learned the value of “listening more than talking” and, in the course of his work, successfully built global networks of lifetime connections.6 Building these trust relationships made sharing both good and bad news easier, something that is essential for enhancing security.7
The same principles apply in the arena of smallholder food security and programs to build national animal health systems. As Dr. Terry Wollen, who was awarded the AVMA's XIIth International Veterinary Congress Prize in 2015, has advised, “if you're talking more than 25% of the time, that's too much.”a For Brown, the most successful engagements were those that involved delivering training and facilitated learning on a topic requested by the participants and in an environment that was comfortable, friendly, and fun. Use of adult learning principles, especially fostering mutual respect and maintaining a warm, social atmosphere, contributed to the development of human connections, and as a result, she has continued to correspond with colleagues around the world on a myriad of professional issues surrounding animal health.
Recent analyses8,9 of factors contributing to the success of collaborative scientific endeavors support the importance of interpersonal connections and mutual trust. Successful programs often involve diverse teams, which certainly applies in global settings. Maintaining high-performing teams depends on social sensitivity, which in turn is the main predictor of group intelligence or the group's abilities to solve problems.10 Central to this is a foundation of trust.11 Although much of the literature surrounding collaborative research teams uses metrics such as publications and citations, many investigators are now promoting other measures, such as translation of research findings to policy, education, and public engagement. With specific application to the field of infectious diseases, Fair et al9 have posited that the so-called return on relationships should be considered, in addition to the more traditional return on investment, and that the return on relationships should figure into funding decisions. Rapid dispersal of information between collaborators and across long distances will only happen if transparency and trust are in place, two metrics that are not quantifiable by currently used systems.9 But, it is precisely these characteristics and connections that could serve as a key piece in addressing emerging disease threats and potentially saving billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
In the post-9/11 world, developmental programs are now often combined with security efforts, and foreign assistance is often aimed at not only enhancing capacity but also decreasing potential threats. Improving standards of living and encouraging socioeconomic development, traditionally the purview of aid programs, are now intertwined with geopolitical initiatives to promote peace and stability and, more specifically, counter terrorism. Some have called this the “wedding of the three Ds: defense, diplomacy, and development.”12 One consequence is that aid is often presented now as a single combined package incorporating all of these aims. Several federal agencies have followed this paradigm, instituting large programs aimed at improving agricultural economies and human health infrastructures while also securing biothreat agents.13
There are and will continue to be many opportunities for veterinarians to become engaged in these large programs by, for example, delivering training, establishing laboratories, and enhancing recognition and control of high-consequence animal and zoonotic pathogens. We applaud these programs. We also believe that there are few hardened security or technological fixes and that our hope for a more secure world rests in the development of human capacity at the source. Unfortunately, we know that the key factor in forging true and equal partnerships with international colleagues has often been undervalued or left out of the equation by funders and implementers. Trust and human relationships do not make easily measurable outputs and, because they are not technological interventions, are easily overlooked and ignored.
As veterinary scientists with advanced technical training and expertise, we have seen that it is not just the technological expertise but also the soft skills of our veterinarians who go overseas that make programs successful and sustainable and improve health and security. Human relationships are the glue of engagement programs. We need to focus our overseas efforts on our human counterparts by applying active listening skills, supporting their needs, and working within their systems. Only by enhancing our connections with our colleagues and working to promote bilateral understanding and learning can we realistically expect to ensure the sustainability of global health and security efforts.
Footnotes
Wollen TS, Livestock Adviser, Mansfield Center, Conn: Personal communication, 2015.
References
1. Kelly AM, Ferguson JD, Galligan DT, et al. One health, food security, and veterinary medicine. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;242:739–743.
2. Graham TW, Turk J, McDermott J, et al. Preparing veterinarians to work in resource-poor settings. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2013;243:1523–1528.
3. Hollier PJ, Fathke RL, Brown CC. The veterinary profession and precarious values. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2014;244:1130–1132.
4. BeVier GW. The role of the US veterinary profession in improving livestock health and productivity and reducing poverty in the developing world. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;248:369–370.
5. Carlson R, Adams G, Bernardo T, et al. Global food security as a national responsibility (lett). J Am Vet Med Assoc 2016;248:1107–1108.
6. Franz DR. Engaging the states of the former Soviet Union in health security. Biosecur Bioterror 2014;12:366–369.
7. Federation of American Scientists. Scientist Spotlight with David Franz. Available at: fas.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/fasinterviewdf_final.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2016.
8. Cheruvelil KS, Soranno PA, Weathers KC, et al. Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Front Ecol Environ 2014;12:31–38.
9. Fair JM, Stokes MM, Pennington D, et al. Scientific collaborations: how do we measure the return on relationships? Front Public Health 2016;4:1–7.
10. Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, et al. Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 2010;330:686–688.
11. Falcone R, Castelfranchi C. Trust and relational capital. Comput Math Organ Theory 2011;17:402–418.
12. Brinkerhoff J, Brinkerhoff DW. International development management: a northern perspective. Public Adm Dev 2010;30:102–115. For all commentaries, views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the AVMA.
13. National Academies of Science. Global security engagement: a new model for cooperative threat reduction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.