Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
2005, 6). the openness bred by globalisation multiplies global disease, as it makes
them travel faster and further around the world. and the new vulnerability can lead
back to harm the old, with soldiers and civilians whose immune systems have been
weakened by disease are consequently more susceptible to attacks from chemical
and biological weapons.
while all countries share this intensifying equality of the new vulnerability, it
often takes a shock, or several, to inspire innovation in response. Price-Smith and
Huang show that a punctuated equilibrium (Pe) model of shock-driven innovation, far
more than the functionalist or epistemic community alternatives, defined the cadence
of innovation in the SarS case. those hit by second or subsequent shocks were the
leading innovators, with the 1997 avian influenza aiding Hong Kong's response to
SarS in 2003. the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the environmental haze that
came later fuelled asian regional cooperation in response to SarS, as it made even
china recognise how vulnerable it was to these new threats. and the shock of SarS
helped highly afflicted countries such as canada innovate preventively against avian
influenza.
Yet shocks do not inspire innovation in all cases. although the spread of HIv/
aIDS into north america and europe inspire the G8 to take up the subject, the
disease's move into russia and eurasia led russia as G8 host in 2006 to make health
one of the G8's three priority themes, such shocks did not lead the G8 members
to comply with their health commitments. nor were single or sequential shocks
necessary to drive the process of innovation in the case of access to aIDS medicines
and tobacco control. while catastrophe often spurs innovation when it leaves behind
enough capacity, leadership and civil society action can produce innovation before
true disaster comes.
Innovativeness
Does such innovation, however driven, become embedded as a dynamic, self-
sustaining, expanding force in a reformed global healthcare system or does it yield
only a set of specific innovations to treat the crisis and challenge at hand? The Pe
model suggests that innovation has a short self-life, with the innovative instinct
rapidly falling off once the current danger has passed. the one-time innovations
become standardised into new routines, and the innovative urge fades. but how
much has innovation turned into what might be termed innovativeness, where the
entire system shows high degrees of reflection, learning, acceptance, spread, and
institutionalisation of new lessons, and a permanent culture of innovation?
there are some cases of innovative attrition, notably in avian influenza. Here some
are responding slowly and slightly, respite the shock of SarS. and the innovative
impact of SarS on WHO governance may be specific to that case and short lived,
as Kamrandt-Scott concludes. but there is also much evidence of spreading, self-
sustaining innovation in many forms. SARS inspired reflection and 'lessons learned'
exercises in canada with the political leaders and other countries brought in to
share and spread the spirit and results. In asia, lessons spread from bangkok back
