As part of our strategy development process, the strategy task force identified several ‘tough issues’ where we are seeking insights and feedback from external partners. One of the areas concerns ways that we can best ‘address the interface of animal and human health.’
In working up the questions, Delia identified some questions we would like to ask colleagues inside ILRI to think about (share your feedback here):
- Specialize or generalize in house: do we want vets who can work with economists or vets who also know a good deal about economics and vice versa?
- Do we expand nutrition or keep it as a watching brief?
- Is there any advantage in separating animal health from human health aspects and concentrating in separate units?
- How do we get more people-power: post-docs, collaborations, sabbaticals. . .?
- How do we best connect to get team like activities across all the different parts of ILRI – MGL, BT, BecA, regions, RMG, CAST. . .?
More generally, and this goes beyond the health and nutrition area:
- How could we get more, or to better bring out the ‘wow’ factor of ILRI’s existing work?
What do you think?
ILRI Announcements 
ILRI is a good place for inter-disciplinary work, given the challenges we have and topics we cover; but also applying inter-disciplinary work in-house, could influence other partners to do the same. The key for inter-disciplinary work is that each specialist has a general understanding of different areas of knowledge, to help her/him to communicate properly with other specialists, but more importantly to recognize the relevance of the contribution different areas could do in ILRI’s work.
Some suggestions:
Specialize or generalize in house: do we want vets who can work with economists or vets who also know a good deal about economics and vice versa?
Probably both (in the spirit of ‘diversity’)! What we DON’T want are vets and economists who undervalue the other discipline.
Do we expand nutrition or keep it as a watching brief?
As human nutrition is such a huge area, but the impacts of livestock livelihoods on human nutrition so under-researched to date, could we explore innovative ways of working closer with the few experts in this area, and attracting some young people into this field?
Is there any advantage in separating animal health from human health aspects and concentrating in separate units?
This begs the question of whether separating the kinds of research conducted, as we do now?—e.g., technical interventions are conducted mostly by biotech groups, institutional/social interventions are conducted mostly by markets groups, capacity building interventions mostly by BecA—remains useful, or should we mix these groups up for better synergies, quicker benefits . . .
How do we get more people-power: post-docs, collaborations, sabbaticals. . .?
By walking the talk (e.g., ‘human resources are our most important resources’), especially when that is particularly hard to do. By hiring more ‘star power’ that will attract more early-career scientists to ILRI. By hiring/contracting superb science communicators (either scientists with demonstrable communication skills or communicators with ability to find and tell great science stories) who can inject science issues into public affairs. By assembling a group of high-quality editorial resources for scientists to employ. By taking more risks in innovating ways for scientists with proven track records to work with or for us.
How do we best connect to get team like activities across all the different parts of ILRI – MGL, BT, BecA, regions, RMG, CAST. . .?
By making someone in each of these groups responsible for cross-cutting communications through social media, etc. By providing strong disincentives for any communications staff to work solely in and for her or his group. By providing a regular institutional physical event for scientific get-togethers. By improving video-conferencing for more regular high-quality get togethers.
More generally, and this goes beyond the health and nutrition area:
How could we get more, or to better bring out the ‘wow’ factor of ILRI’s existing work?
> Some of the above could help. But the biggest thing I see to get out of the way is our own disbelief that we have wow factors! While not wanting to over-sell ourselves and what we do, we often go the opposite direction and under-sell ourselves — or, even worse, criticize the work of staff in other departments. Speaking as a communicator, I don’t know of a single bit of ILRI’s research that doesn’t have a wow factor in it. But 9 times out of 10, the wow aspect of the research is not even mentioned by scientists, other than in passing. I think we have to train ourselves to look for the stats, analogies, metaphors, etc., that enable us to attract global attention to the issues we, and some 1 billion-plus poor people, are dealing with.
Specialize or generalize in house: do we want vets who can work with economists or vets who also know a good deal about economics and vice versa / How do we best connect to get team like activities across all the different parts of ILRI – MGL, BT, BecA, regions, RMG, CAST. . .?
All knowledge is one, but often separated only for didactic reasons, so all endeavours should be towards inter-disciplinarity. How will continue to be a challenge
Is there any advantage in separating animal health from human health aspects and concentrating in separate units?
Advantage depends on what synergy there is. In my view synergy is best realised when working towards common objectives. Whereas the underlying health or population medicine skills are often similar, the objectives of animal and human health work are different up to a point: non-zoonotic animal health can be directly linked to a farm productivity index but human health linkage to that is more tenuous, and may only apply if there was is a higher level objective (perhaps some common value chain improvement or livelihood index).So advantage will depend on clarifying what the common objectives are.
Specialist vs generalists: specialists, but with a sufficient understanding of the other disciplines, so that they understand their relevance and how they can complement each other. Activities such as the ILRI APM and other discussion forum may help individuals understand the different specialties “available” at ILRI and how they can work together?
Connect to get team like activities across all the different parts of ILRI: in addition to the suggestions made by Susan, I wonder if it could help to have a person whose role is to connect the teams / parts of ILRI. Group-specific people responsible for inter-disciplinary communication/activity may not know or have time to explore all possibilities, so they may need to contact a person who centralise the information and has the overall and updated view of the different groups/parts of ILRI?
> Specialists but with a common understanding (and more important: a good attitude) of what other disciplines do; and sufficient teambuilding, so every knows about each other’s expertise.
> Animal nutrition or human nutrition? Either way it should be a because pro-poor is not only about quantity but also quality.
> I don’t see the advantage of separating animal health and human health; especially not when it comes to the interface of both.
> We also need more people (other than animal health specialists or economists) who can facilitate internal/external communication; write proposals; public relations; organize student workshops; coaching…
>Connecting teams to learn about what they do and/or for specific projects? I think the first is crucial to at least know about possible links to other themes which is a prerequisite for forming synergies. If we know about each other’s have’s and need’s, email is easy enough. Please, no more wikis and online platforms. In Kampala, IFPRI organizes a monthly 2-hour seminar and invites the other GGIAR staff based here. Each time, somebody is presenting on ongoing research. This could be done within ILRI in Nairobi as part of the APM or more frequently.
>Do we have a common ‘wow’ factor?