This infographic outlines nine governance principles on equity, flexibility, and accountability based on lessons from the Montreal Protocol and adapts these lessons to the context of antimicrobial resistance.
his policy brief outlines nine principles on equity, flexibility, and accountability based on lessons from the Montreal Protocol and adapts these lessons to the context of antimicrobial resistance.
Join us in a conversation with Julianne Piper, Carly Ching, Isaac Weldon, and Jeremy Grimshaw while they highlight how a collaborative, One Health approach can help safeguard our global pool of antimicrobials for future generations.
An independent panel on evidence for action against AMR (IPEA) is needed to review science and raise AMR’s political profile. This brief explores two potential governance models for an IPEA’s implementation and the potential benefits.
In April 2024, the Bellagio Group for Accelerating AMR Action, made up of global health researchers, policymakers, and civil society representatives met to identify unifying global goals for AMR.
Join us for a conversation with Dr. Susan Rogers Van Katwyk and Dr. Mathieu Poirier as we dive deeper into what antimicrobial resistance really means, how AMR expands beyond human health to animals and infrastructure, and some ways that researchers are currently working with a global, interdisciplinary approach to address this issue.
This summary for the academic publication “Fit for Purpose?” Assessing the Ecological
Fit of the Social Institutions that Globally Govern Antimicrobial Resistance, highlights the need for robust institutions that sustainably manage the social and ecological factors accelerating AMR. It provides 5 design principles for building institutions to better harmonize the relationship between human and microbial ecosystems.
Dive into five principles for building institutions to better harmonize the relationship between human microbial ecosystems, while maintaining our ability to treat infectious disease:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many leaders said they were “following the science” when making public health decisions. This article fills a gap in existing research by examining how the phrase “following the science” misrepresents the role of scientific evidence in policymaking, the relationship among politicians and public health officials, and the locus of accountability for public health decisions.