’Tunji Ajibade(tunjioa@yahoo.com 08036683657)
The Director General of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu, was on Channels TV recently. He responded to questions on the myriad of challenges Nigeria had combating COVID-19. It’s obvious he’s enthusiastic about his job. But there’s an aspect of what is being done to curb COVID-19, and regarding which I think his enthusiasm is misdirected.
The TV host wanted to know what Ihekweazu thought about Remdesivir, a US drug that the White House said could be tested on COVID-19 patients. Ihekweazu effusively thanked his host for the question, said it was a good question, and enthusiastically attacked it as though he was impatient to be asked. Among other things, he said they, the medics, had been waiting for such a drug. He talked about the history of the drug, using the pronoun ‘we’ several times, and I wouldn’t know if he was connected in any way with its development or the Gilead Sciences, USA, that worked on the drug. His enthusiasm showed more in the extent to which he celebrated the drug. He wanted to have it tried on patients in Nigeria, promising to get NAFDAC to give the necessary approval.
I watched Ihekweazu say all these things about a drug developed outside of Africa and I was uncomfortable, which was putting it mildly. I have no issues with any drug that could save lives. But that feeling of solution found once more in western countries rather than Africa is there. This cannot but be the case for anyone who followed the trajectory of global efforts to find drugs to deal with COVID-19. The WHO offhandedly dismisses anything that comes out of Africa, including COVID-Organics, the herbal mixture that Madagascar’s president sends by airplane to fellow leaders, claiming science hasn’t verified it. Medics in Nigeria never add or delete from the WHO’s science excuse, and they give no attention to the solutions that many of our people claim they have found for COVID-19. Ihekweazu and the NCDC behave the same way. But the moment a drug was mentioned in the US, he enthused as though the drug were developed in Nigeria, an achievement that would have put us on global map.
Ihekweazu’s response gives me reasons to ponder the gap in awareness that exists between people in the sciences and those in the Arts or the Social Sciences. Aside from the reading materials on how Europe undeveloped Africa that we were made to read as Social Science students, a background in History, Government, Political Science etc. would make one see clearly what had been done to place Africa where it is. Science-based people essentially miss out on this. As I write this, there are documents around me containing information from this same decade in the 20th century. As I read them for the purpose of a book I’m writing, I see how the colonialists used Ordinances and naked force to destroy what was indigenous to our people in their communities, and introduced what would benefit their own economy. This awareness always makes me wish we get to a point in this country where we single-mindedly promote what is ours. What we see however is a situation where those who are in position promote what is foreign.
I give thought to why this is the case, and I make a few conclusions. There’s a category of Africans who, as professionals in different fields, have the drive, urge, as well as patriotism to want to use their knowledge to promote what is African. They have therefore situated their career, means of earning a living, as well as how they want to make a name for themselves in this very endeavour. So, we hear of doctors who engage in integrated medical practice, or agricultural scientists who are into organic farming, thereby promoting what we have locally. On the other hand there’re professionals whose careers, means of earning a living, as well as ambition are woven into western ways of practicing medicine, agriculture etc. The implication is that, for them, to actualise their dreams they must be good ambassadors of whatever the west promotes in specific professions.
That way, they play the role of middlemen, suave professionals who eye what is in it for them that western nations have to offer career-wise. Here’s where the politics and economics of science play a role. We hear what such professionals say about introducing GMO crops in Nigeria after they’ve taken research dollars from western nations. Through Ihekweazu, we heard good words about Remdesivir after western nations gave money to Nigeria to fight COVID-19. Often, these professionals who close their eyes to what is good in our clime but enthusiastically promote what is foreign are the ones politicians put into offices. Rarely do we get professionals who have the drive to promote what is ours and thereby help us compete on the world stage. Nigeria’s Vision 2020 includes promotion of traditional medicine, just as China does, but I can’t recall any top health official in Nigeria who actively promotes homegrown solutions. In the event, Africa pays with its backwardness.
Ivory Coast is a foremost producer of cocoa. But it exports it. There’re policymakers who could make the country add value to its cocoa. But they won’t because they’re middlemen who benefit from keeping things the way they are. One young Ivorian worked in Italy making chocolate for a company. He saw the kind of money these people made and, driven by patriotism, he returned home, formed cooperatives among impoverished farmers and made them turn their cocoa into chocolate which they then exported. The young Ivorian has devoted himself to a cause, and is prepared to follow it for the benefit of his people. For as long as we put in position professionals who are not driven by the kind of mindset this young Ivorian has, Africa will continue to experience a situation where public officials don’t show enthusiasm when our people provide solution to a challenge.
Added to the foregoing is the fact that we don’t have politicians in offices who, driven, by patriotism, formulate policies and programmes that ensure we promote what is ours. Even citizens are not bothered. The last time I wrote on this page about promoting what is ours, a Nigerian commented that what I wrote was “neither here nor there.” Meanwhile, middlemen masquerading as professionals disregard what we have, claiming science hasn’t approved them. Politicians who should whip these professionals into position regarding the promotion of what is ours are not there. The other day, someone wondered why most public officials just don’t show the willingness to engage in efforts that promote what we have. I said the issue was with the successive political leadership. If political leadership doesn’t drive the herd to focus on what is ours, professionals will continue to show enthusiasm for what is foreign as against what is homemade. A few years ago, I was discussing with the aide of a former minister reputed to have done his best while he was in office. The aide told me the minister was the architect of whatever they achieved, as he was always steps ahead of them. He showed vision, he led in the direction he wanted, and others followed.
For years, Nigerian scientists have been coming up with what they say are homegrown solutions to certain health-related issues. But I don’t recall a policymaker who gave them his backing to ensure their solutions met set ‘science’ standard, so that such products could be brought into the global space. Generally, what we hear is the same kind of comment Ihekweazu makes that treatments for COVID-19 which some Nigerians talk about have not been scientifically proved. As he said in his TV interview, “We’ve had” Remdesivir in the US since the Ebola outbreak happened. Work, he adds, has continued on it until it’s now found to be good for COVID-19. This assertion from him naturally makes one ask a question: Between the time of Ebola and now, knowledgeable Nigerians have been claiming they have medicinal solutions to either Ebola or COVID-19. How many of these Nigerians did Ihekweazu, professionals at the NCDC, or our health ministry assist to the point that their drugs were ‘scientifically’ proved. It’s exactly what the US government has done for Gilead Sciences, is it not?
END
Be the first to comment