In the latter category is the broad variety of research problems raised by such a universally significant topic as that of radioactive fallout. The very mention of the problem of contamination of the atmosphere raises the entire issue of air pollution, a subject of increasing interest to scientists everywhere. It is manifest that a great expansion of research into problems of this nature is imperative. The enlarging of WHO research interests will require recruitment of specialists to the Secretariat of the high caliber which the world has come to expect in WHO. As WHO itself so well realizes, the meeting of these research responsibilities will depend upon followthrough by the permanent Secretariat in addition to the work of additional consultants brought in for temporary assistance from time to time. Relationship with proposed new institute at NIH Meanwhile, we may anticipate the availability of the proposed new National Institute for International Medical Research, as proposed under Senate Joint Resolution 41, 86th Congress, by U.S. Senator Lister Hill, and as cosponsored by myself and others. This Institute would become the administrative structure for oversea activity by the present seven categorical institutes, headquartered in Bethesda, Md. WHO can play an invaluable role with the proposed new Institute in identifying problems, in advising on competent sources well qualified to work on collaborative projects, and in catalyzing such collaboration. Experts of our National Institutes of Health have indicated their awareness of the splendid services which WHO is in a position to help make available to the International Institute. Very often a multilateral organization with complete worldwide acceptability can perform services which an agency of any one government, our own, or any other power however highly regarded, could not undertake. Possible epidemiology missions in selected countries are a case in point. WHO survey missions have proven virtually universally acceptable. A variety of factors might prevent teams of personnel of any one nationality from surveying problems in particular countries. Yet under WHO's auspices, the same type of research data can be obtained with a comparative minimum intrusion of factors which might otherwise prevent effective and harmonious survey work. Part V THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS OF WHO The World Health Organization has been able to stimulate and coordinate disease control and research programs of a very substantial varied, and farflung character on a relatively small budget. This is made possible by the contributed services of individuals, laboratories and organizations, and because of extensive cooperative work involving not only contributions but simply working together. The tremendous store of well-deserved good will that has been generated by the WHO is in fact its most priceless asset. This, combined with respect for the work of the organization, makes it possible to draw upon services and facilities which are literally priceless, and which could be drawn together through no other means. Specific examples of unique talents placed at the disposal of WHO will be cited below. While the array of cooperative arrangements devised by WHO is extremely complex, they can be placed in three broad categories for descriptive purposes-cooperation with individuals, cooperation with laboratories, and cooperation with national and international organizations. These groupings are somewhat arbitrary. Ultimately cooperative efforts in international health and medical research depend heavily upon individuals. Nevertheless, the division of the collaborative efforts into three kinds is a useful way of examining the farflung network. A. COOPERATION FROM INDIVIDUALS Individuals cooperate with WHO both formally and informally. The willingness of the best public health experts and scientists in the world to contribute their time to international health and medical research activities is indispensable to the planning and operation of WHO programs. From the recent history of WHO, the planning of an extended medical research program offers an instructive example of informal collaboration by individuals. This task fell into two parts. The first was to outline the general principles which should guide WHO in expanding its research activities. Questions of substantial importance could be answered correctly only through consultation with persons experienced in research and in large scale research administration. To deal with these questions, the Director-General of WHO called together two groups. 1. WHO research planning conferences The Director General first invited five advisers to discuss with him. in Geneva on August 18-21, 1958, the basic principles that should underlie a study and plan for an expanded research role for WHO. Those in attendance were: Prof. Robert Loeb, Bard professor of medicine, Columbia University, New York. Prof. Charles Oberling, professeur titulaire de la Chaire de Medecine, experimentale au College de France, Paris. Dr. C. J. Pandit, Secretary, Indian Medical Research Council, New Delhi. Sir George Pickering, Regius professor of medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford (member of the British Medical Research Council). Prof. Bror Rexed, Department of Anatomy, University of Uppsala, Uppsala (Secretary of the Swedish Medical Research Council). The participation of a member of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences was expected, but unfortunately, arrangements for attendance could not be made. The Director General then convened a somewhat larger group in Geneva on October 20-24, 1958, to discuss in greater detail the general observations and suggestions of the first group. Those in attendance were: Dr. Z. M. Bacq, director, Laboratoire de Pathologie et de Therapeutique Generales, University of Liege, Liege (Belgium). Dr. I. Berenblum, professor of cancer research, the Weizmann Institute of Science, Dr. J. Charvat, professor of medicine, Charles University, Prague (Czechoslovakia). Dr. R. Doll, lecturer in medical statistics and epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom). Dr. S. Gard, professor of virology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm (Sweden). Dr. H. Hamperl, professor of pathology, University of Bonn, Bonn (Germany). Dr. C. Heymans, professor of pharmacology, University of Ghent, Ghent (Belgium). Sir Harold Himsworth (Chairman), Secretary, British Medical Research Council, London (United Kingdom). Dr. C. M. MacLeod, professor of research medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (United States). Dr. J. A. Shannon, Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. (United States). Dr. E. L. Stebbins, dean, School of Hygiene and Public Health, the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. (United States). Dr. Alan O. Stevenson, director, Population Genetics Research Unit, Medical Research Council, Oxford, (United Kingdom). Dr. A. Vannotti, professor of medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne (Switzerland). Dr. Paul Wood, director, Institute of Cardiology, 35 Wimpole Street, London, W.I. (United Kingdom). The names of those attending the two planning meetings are listed to indicate the noteworthy qualification of those who are willing to give freely of their time to help establish a broader international medical research program. The three Americans who participated in this conference are each outstanding leaders. Dr. C. M. McLeod is a distinguished researcher; Dr. James Shannon is the director of what is universally acknowledged as the world's foremost research facility, and Dean E. L. Stebbins heads one of the greatest schools of public health in this or any other land. In London, subsequently, I had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of the able conference chairman, Sir Harold Himsworth, a scientist of similar great stature. The second general step in research planning was to examine the significant areas of medical research to determine research needs, opportunities and resources. As an illustration of the quality of the people engaging in this planning, there follows a list of participants in a conference on research on virus diseases held in Geneva on November 17-22, 1958: SCIENTIFIC GROUP ON VIRUS DISEASES November 17-22, 1958 Sir Macfarlane Burnet, Chairman; director, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research. Dr. C. H. Andrewes, World Influenza Center, National Institute for Medical Dr. R. Dulbecco, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif. Dr. J. H. S. Gear, director of research, the Poliomyelitis Research Foundation, Dr. R. J. Huebner, Chief, Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Prof. A. A. Smorodintsev, Department of Virology, Institute of Experimental As an indication of the importance attached to these planning sessions by scientific leaders, Sir Macfarlane Burnet, one of the world's most eminent virologists, flew from Australia-a 40-hour airplane trip-and back to serve as chairman of a group which met for 1 week. 2. Expert advisory panels In addition to ad hoc informal conferences, WHO has an extensive apparatus of formal advisory groups. WHO is in touch with more of the world's leaders in matters of public health, medical education and research, and related fields than is true of any other organization. This worldwide network of personal relationships enables the WHO to establish panels of highly qualified experts who are available to help the organization. Expert advisory panels supply WHO with technical advice by correspondence and individual contact. They are also the source from which members of expert committees, discussed below, are drawn. WHO, in turn, keeps panel members informed of developments in their fields. |