Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The news of the creation of the European Commission project “European
Centre for Disease Control” (ECDC) is causing a stir (1). This is not
deserved. The project is for sure a progression in comparison with the
vague concept of a “virtual CDC” (connecting the existing centres by
electronic communication) (2, 3). However, it remains a pale and tiny
imitation of the reference structure for the whole world: the US CDC,
based in Atlanta, and staffed with no less than 1,500 people working full
time on transmissible diseases. By comparison, the ECDC will have a staff
of only 50. This is a glaring disproportion. Even a national structure,
the French Institut National de Veille Sanitaire, has a personnel of 250.
The project for the “European Centre for Infectious Diseases” (ECID) (4,
5) involved a planned staff of 500, which matches better its US model.
However, size is not the only problem with the ECDC. The successful recipe
of the US CDC is its triple mission of advanced research,
surveillance/control and professional training. This concept was retained
for the ECID too, while the ECDC will limit itself to a tiny
administration. A historical opportunity will be missed to bless the birth
of the great Europe of 25 with an ambitious project on the scale of its
means and of its needs. Apart from the key role that an ambitious European
CDC could have in facing major epidemic and bioterrorism threats, and in
boasting European biomedical science, this kind of highly symbolic
enterprise is sorely needed to give the new Europe a dimension of peaceful
historical epopee instead of this sad face of sordid economical
bargaining.
It is unexpected that no public debate was held among the European
scientific and medical community before launching this minimal project.
Whatever be the competence and dedication of its staff members, the ECDC
won’t be enough to face major epidemic disasters, and Europe will be
unable to counter the irresistible advance the USA are taking in this key
field through efficient structures and massive investment. The only hope
that is left to those who dream about other ambitions for our Europe is
that the ECDC will be only a first step, a pilot project towards a euro-
CDC worthy of the name, attractive for our young talents and vector of the
scientific and medical prestige of our continent (6).
The great Europe of 25 can afford more than this mini European CDC
The news of the creation of the European Commission project “European
Centre for Disease Control” (ECDC) is causing a stir (1). This is not
deserved. The project is for sure a progression in comparison with the
vague concept of a “virtual CDC” (connecting the existing centres by
electronic communication) (2, 3). However, it remains a pale and tiny
imitation of the reference structure for the whole world: the US CDC,
based in Atlanta, and staffed with no less than 1,500 people working full
time on transmissible diseases. By comparison, the ECDC will have a staff
of only 50. This is a glaring disproportion. Even a national structure,
the French Institut National de Veille Sanitaire, has a personnel of 250.
The project for the “European Centre for Infectious Diseases” (ECID) (4,
5) involved a planned staff of 500, which matches better its US model.
However, size is not the only problem with the ECDC. The successful recipe
of the US CDC is its triple mission of advanced research,
surveillance/control and professional training. This concept was retained
for the ECID too, while the ECDC will limit itself to a tiny
administration. A historical opportunity will be missed to bless the birth
of the great Europe of 25 with an ambitious project on the scale of its
means and of its needs. Apart from the key role that an ambitious European
CDC could have in facing major epidemic and bioterrorism threats, and in
boasting European biomedical science, this kind of highly symbolic
enterprise is sorely needed to give the new Europe a dimension of peaceful
historical epopee instead of this sad face of sordid economical
bargaining.
It is unexpected that no public debate was held among the European
scientific and medical community before launching this minimal project.
Whatever be the competence and dedication of its staff members, the ECDC
won’t be enough to face major epidemic disasters, and Europe will be
unable to counter the irresistible advance the USA are taking in this key
field through efficient structures and massive investment. The only hope
that is left to those who dream about other ambitions for our Europe is
that the ECDC will be only a first step, a pilot project towards a euro-
CDC worthy of the name, attractive for our young talents and vector of the
scientific and medical prestige of our continent (6).
Michel Tibayrenc, MD, PhD
Editor -in-chief Infection, Genetics and Evolution (Elsevier)
http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/meegid
Director Unit of Research 165 "Genetics and Evolution of Infectious
Diseases"
UMR CNRS/IRD 2724,
IRD, BP 64501,
34394 Montpellier cedex 5, France
Email Michel.Tibayrenc@mpl.ird.fr
Website http://cepm.mpl.ird.fr
(1) Watson, R. 2004. Europe to have its own centre for disease
control. British Medical Journal 3328: 426.
(2) The Editor. 1998. Not Another European Institution. The Lancet 352,
October 17: 1237.
(3) MacLehose, L., McKee, M. & Weinberg, J. 2002. Responding to the
challenge of communicable disease in Europe. Science 295: 2047-2050.
(4) Tibayrenc, M. 1997. Microbes Sans Frontières and the European CDC.
Parasitology Today 13 (12): 454.
(5) Tibayrenc, M. 1997. European Centres for disease control. Nature, 389;
2 October, 433.
(6) Tibayrenc, M. 2004. The European Commission pocket CDC: encore un
effort!. The Lancet Infectious Diseases: 4: 12-13.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests