The World Health Organization (WHO) tells us that 50 million people globally have epilepsy.

Their 2022 technical brief “Improving the lives of people with epilepsy” describes the actions needed to do just that, and implement the approach of “The Intersectoral global action plan on epilepsy and other neurological disorders (2022-2031),” adopted in 2022 by the World Health Assembly.

Citing several research studies including the open access paper “Dramatic outcomes in epilepsy: depression, suicide, injuries, and mortality” from the journal Current Medical Research and Opinion, WHO gives the startling statistic that “the risk of premature death for people with epilepsy is estimated to be three times that of the general population, but this risk may be up to seven times higher in some low-resource settings.”

The WHO brief continues: “Up to 70% of people with epilepsy could become seizure-free after appropriate diagnosis and antiseizure medicines, which can cost as little as US$ 5 per year, and could lead full, productive lives … Despite this evidence, there is a treatment gap for epilepsy which means that more than 50% of people with epilepsy in most LMIC (low- and middle-income countries) do not receive the treatment they need.”

You can read the WHO report here.

The topic of artificial intelligence (AI) is so ubiquitous right now that a Google search brings up over a billion results. McKinsey analysts Michael Chui and Martin Harrysson sum up AI’s importance: “AI is fast becoming an invaluable part of the human-development toolkit.”

The European Parliament Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) has investigated AI’s relevance to human-development, particularly as it relates to food production, with their 2023 study “Artificial intelligence in the agri-food sector.” The report affirms that: “Artificial intelligence (AI) could be a powerful tool in helping organisations cope with … increasing complexity in modern agriculture. Intensive data collection paves the way for growers, and all other actors in the value chain, to adopt artificial intelligence as a data-driven practice to gain more insights and, ultimately, better control the processes that affect producer income.”

The study continues: “(AI may) lead to more efficient production and improve workers’ wellbeing and animal welfare … AI is also an important tool for the automation and robotics that may relieve workers of drudgery.”

In the Executive Summary of the report, the authors acknowledge that there are ethical and policy issues that need to be addressed: “This study defines several issues that may require special measures or policy action to ensure all stakeholders have access to a fair and equitable participation in the benefits that AI may bring to agriculture.”

“Artificial intelligence in the agri-food sector” cites 91 research sources, including the Taylor & Francis open access paper “Managing the risks of artificial intelligence in agriculture” from the journal NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences.

In their paper, authors Robert Sparrow, Mark Howard, and Chris Degeling “offer an initial survey, and evaluation, of the ethical, social, and policy issues that are likely to arise as AI begins to impact on agriculture.”

The authors analyze current uses of AI in agriculture, as well as some of the proposed uses, along with highlighting “applications of AI in the broader society and economy that are likely to impact on agriculture.” They also look at benefits, risks, and ethics.

The team of researchers concludes: “Key questions that we believe should be considered in such deliberations (of whether to implement AI or not) include: how to ensure AI is used to expand sustainable agriculture rather than simply to intensify existing, unsustainable, agricultural practices; how to respond to the prospect of widespread job losses in the agricultural sector in the longer term; the risk that AI will exacerbate rather than reduce inequality; who should own data generated by AI and what they should be allowed to do with it; how to ensure that relations between farmers, seed and chemical companies, and suppliers of AI systems are productive and not exploitative; and, the philosophical and cultural implications of coming to see the world solely through the lens of ‘data.'”

You can read the European Parliament report here, and the Taylor & Francis study here.

Gene editing that inadvertently creates monsters has become a plot staple for many science fiction and horror movies and TV shows. This is no surprise, because it is still a relatively new technology that inspires a combination of fear and wonder, and mistakes – which tend to make sensationalist news headlines – do happen.

The importance of research when it comes to this awesome power of being able to change the very DNA of an organism cannot be overstressed. So science and evidence-based studies, such as “Gene editing and agrifood systems” from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), are crucial to providing insights on “the consequences for human hunger, human health, food safety, effects on the environment, animal welfare, socioeconomic impact and distribution of benefits.”

Utilizing over 296 research outputs, including an open access article from the journal Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, the FAO paper gives this summary: “Gene-editing technologies represent a promising new tool for plant and animal breeding in low- and middle-income countries. However, as for any new technology, they have their merits and demerits. There is, as yet, no international consensus regarding if and how gene-edited organisms should be regulated.”

The Taylor & Francis paper cited in “Potential use of gene drive modified insects against disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species poses new challenges for risk assessment” addresses that regulation when it comes to the modification of insect genes, and offers recommendations.

72% of the world’s crops require insects for pollination, and up to 40% of global crop production is lost to pests annually, so having the ability to control insects has been on farmers’ to-do lists for centuries.

Setting the scene, the researchers let us know that we are still in the very early stages of GDs (engineered gene drives): “While current research is investigating the development of engineered GDs in insect populations and deploying them, it will take many years before they can be applied to practical disease vector/pest management. At present, some GDMIs are either in development or have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, often with multigenerational data and model simulations. However, no “contemporary” GDMIs have been assessed in small-scale physically and/or ecologically confined field trials, or open release trials.”

The risks they put forth for gene-modified insects include a shopping list of ecological disasters: unintended spread beyond the target population; human exposure to toxic substances through consumption of GD-modified individuals; reduced quality or eradication of the GD-modified individuals where they are a food source; altered water quality due to the suppression of the target organism from algal bloom; and resurgence of “an intrinsically harmful target organism due to future failure of an engineered GD (e.g. genetic and phenotypic instability) or resistance to either the GD or its cargo/payload genes, possibly coupled with reduced immunity in human populations that have had a reduced disease challenge while the control was effective.”

They close their paper with practical recommendations for risk assessment: “To ensure that the risk assessment guidance for GDMOs is proportionate, practical and current, it may need to be tailored to the most likely cases moving to practical applications for release. It should also offer an overarching framework that is flexible and outlines general principles and methodology for risk assessment instead of being overly prescriptive. The process of guidance development must ensure an iterative process of design, revision, and refinement, including the review of actual case studies by risk assessment experts and consultation with relevant stakeholders.”

Read the FAO study here, and the Taylor & Francis paper here.

One of the goals of the World Bank is to “help countries share and apply innovative knowledge and solutions to the challenges they face.”

In its recent paper “Designing and delivering government-led graduation programs for people in extreme poverty” it cites the open access study “The effect of financial inclusion on multidimensional poverty: the case of Vietnam” as one of its sources of information.

A graduation program differs from what many of us might see as “traditional” aid. Asian Development Bank (ADB) has a great explanation on its site:

“Also called cash plus programming, economic inclusion, or social protection for employment, the graduation approach promotes economic opportunities and social inclusion to give the poor and vulnerable a big push toward sustainable livelihoods and resilience.”

The study from Huong Thi Thanh Tran, Ha Thi Thu Le, Nga Thanh Nguyen, Tue Thi Minh Pham, and Huyen Thanh Hoang found that “households having bank accounts, bank savings, using debit cards, credit cards, or investing in stocks or bonds are less likely to fall into multidimensional poverty.” They advise that “the government’s policies should encourage households to use financial products and services.”

This research directly influenced the conclusions in The World Bank’s paper: “Governments can increase the impact and scale of their initiatives for reducing extreme poverty by establishing and investing in the systems, processes, and capacities needed to identify those individuals and households that are farthest behind and addressing the multidimensional socioeconomic barriers that often exclude them.”

Encouraging households to use financial products is one of the “four pillars” of the “Graduation approach” that the World Bank advocates: “… meeting people’s basic needs, generating income, connecting participants to financing and facilitating savings, and coaching and empowering participants” to “provide a framework for designing, delivering, and monitoring a program to break the poverty trap.”

In its report “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022: Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable” the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) paints a dire picture of the current state of world hunger:

“Projections are that nearly 670 million people will still be facing hunger in 2030 – 8% of the world population, which is the same as in 2015 when the 2030 Agenda was launched.” The authors cite COVID-19, climate extremes, and conflict as some of the major reasons global hunger has not improved.

The FAO sees the issue as complex, and requiring a diversity of approaches to solve:

“Given the diversity of each country’s context, repurposing efforts will need strong institutions on a local, national, and global level, as well as engaging and incentivizing stakeholders from the public sector, the private sector, and international organizations.”

In light of this, a recent open access study from the Journal of Applied Economics by Marco V. Sánchez and Martín Cicowiez, specifically on agricultural policy in Ethiopia, was one of the papers they were able to glean some knowledge from in their attempt to attack this problem.

The study “Optimising policies to achieve agricultural transformation objectives: an application for Ethiopia” explains the harsh reality impeding many policy objectives: lack of funds.

Sánchez and Cicowiez write, “Policymakers simultaneously pursue several objectives, some of which are even in conflict, and their budgets are typically too limited to achieve all of them simultaneously, particularly in developing countries and even more so during the current economic recession context in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

The economists continue their analysis: “…when seeking to achieve higher economic growth, a policymaker may also be aiming at ensuring that the new economic growth trickles down to the poor.”

“Importantly, some of these objectives may be conflicting. For example, poverty reduction programs may conflict with achieving fiscal consolidation.”

The researchers propose the use of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) techniques, which are techniques “applied to several economic problems in which it is not reasonable or operational to assume the existence of a single goal or objective.”

The FAO paper specifically cites Sánchez and Cicowiez’ policy optimization tool in their section on Optimizing public budgets to align agricultural transformation and health diets’ affordability objectives: Evidence for Ethiopia.