The suspicion that China is not as open about disease outbreaks within its borders was not helped last week when a Research Correspondence in The New England Journal of Medicine from eight Chinese scientists reporting an early case of H5N1 infection was the subject of mysterious emails to the journal's editors asking it be withdrawn (see here and here). The source of the emails has not been established and the authors say they stand by their results. The whole affair was (or should be) an embarrassment to the Chinese authorities.
The major problem in China, however, has not been the Health Ministry but the Agriculture Ministry, described by The Economist, as a powerful and secretive bureaucracy:
For instance, May last year was the first time ever that the ministry officially reported outbreaks of foot-and-mouth, a disease that affects pigs, as well as cattle and sheep. As a member of the international body that monitors the disease, the World Organisation for Animal Health, China is supposed to report any cases of foot-and-mouth as they occur. But even though the disease had often been rampant in China (and has probably never been fully eliminated), reports were treated as state secrets.
[snip]
The limits of the ministry's flirtation with openness last year became quickly evident when foot-and-mouth broke out near the capital (it had done so before, but the ministry kept quiet about it). For more than two weeks after sealing off the township of Jiuxian, about 50km (30 miles) north of central Beijing, and slaughtering hundreds of its cattle, the authorities said nothing. Only in late May, a few days after reports began to surface in the Hong Kong media, did they finally confirm suspicions. (The Economist, June 29, 2006, print edition).
China has a deep hole to climb out of and so far it hasn't been very successful. It is not a monolith. The Agriculture Ministry is far worse than the Health Ministry, and has yet to share most of its viral isolates with the world scientific community. The peasants in the countryside are angry over the government's failure to compensate them for having to destroy their diseased animals so they cover up outbreaks and punish anyone who notifies authorities. Whatever the reasons -- and their are many -- it is still not possible to feel confident China is meeting its obligations to the international community to come clean about animal and human health within its borders.
Which is a shame, in every sense of the word.
- Log in to post comments
Money talks. I don't see a stimulus to do better.
Tom: I'm not sure what your point is here, but you seem to have a very simple theory of human behavior. It's all about money. Money is a powerful motivator, it's true. But people do things for other reasons, too. For example, we don't get paid for this blog and you don't get paid to comment at it. So for us, the blog, reading it and commenting on it aren't about the money. Something to remember.
http://www.fluwikie2.com/pmwiki.php?n=Forum.HowMuchBirdFluInChina
revere: People and systems have motivators/satisfiers to prompt behaviors/actions. Altruists like ALL of us, I am sure (LOL), may be spurred to action merely by the thought of assisting humankind.
BUT, I tend to agree with Tom DVM, in that most countries/systems are strongly directed by monetary flow. These are financial systems, and as such, live and die by their cash flow.
The reporting of an avian flu outbreak in birds or humans has a tremendous negative effect on the bottom line of any country. Hence, the reluctance to report.
Humanism requires emotional consideration. Financial dealings are typically done in a non-emotional environment. Those who mix emotion and finances are in the wrong job.
The above sentence is where we have our conflict. Somewhere, somehow, there must be a humanistic way to manage the financial dealings of a system. But it is like mixing oil and water.
nsthesia: I wasn't necessarily thinking of altruism. Ideology, politics, stupidity, tribalisms of all kinds also motivate people. As I said, it is a strong theory of human behavior to say all of these are reducible to money (or its equivalent).
What would be some good ways to motivate dirt-poor farmers in developing countries to:
1. report early
2. be willing to cull, and
3. change their centuries-old practices of animal husbandry?
I think Tom has a point, Revere (...and money does become an increasingly strong motivator when you don't have any).
The primary motivator of China's Ag Ministry is likely no different from that of anyone else's Ag Ministry -- do what it takes to help industry prosper. That's ultimately what the Mandarins get rewarded for, and any altruistic folks are usually reporting to those guys and thus limited in what they can do.
We'd question whether covering up such problems helps in the long run, but it does offer short-term benefits (and long-term benefits to the extent that a cover up is likely to hold). Other countries' Ministries certainly also do whatever they think they can get away with, though increasing transparency demands increasing subtlety (...notwithstanding Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's infamous "Shoot, shovel and shut up" advice to farmers following our first case of BSE, until public outrage forced a retraction).
When senior bureaucrats and/or their political masters are beholden to industry, either through "legal" political obligations (financing, voting blocks) or simple bribery/corruption, there is even more pressure.
Countries often test the international community to see how much they can get away with. If no response is forthcoming then pretty soon they are acting with impunity.
I have not forgotten Tianamen Square. I waited for my country (Canada) and the rest of the western world to do something or at least say something...
...the collected silence was deafening.
Why did they do nothing? Because they all wanted to trade with the Giant, and not affect trade by offending him.
The end result is that China got the message loud and clear. It can do what it wants whenever it wants as long as it continues to create the illusion of an economic carrot to dangle over the heads of Western countries.
You expect a country that would treat its children in this way would care what happens to our children.
Among China's other exports, are H5N1, Foot and Mouth Disease, SARS, Strepococcus suis, Emerald Ash Borer, Asian Longhorned Beetle etc. etc. etc.
So why do they do what they do...because they can. They have nothing to lose.
These comments relate only to the Communist Government of China and not in any way, to its citizens.
Name, Tom: Well, it's a strong theory of human behavior. Since there was a time when there was no money (people lived by barter), were those people different? I don't deny its power as a motivator. At issue is whether it is essentially the only significant motivator. That requires a theory of behavior. It seems to me one that is built primarily on the power of financial reward is not a very sophisticated theory and likely to leave a lot of important stuff out. Clearly it has great heuristic value and is sufficiently explanatory in many instances that other motivators are of second order importance. But when it comes to bureaucracies, its less clear. The Chinese Ministry of Health behaves differently, for example. Why?
While I certainly can see merit in the money motive, I tend more to think that the non-transperancy of China is primarily an underlying pattern best described as "the over riding need to save face." They are obsessive about this and have been throughout history. This pride, whether on a personal or national level, is a powerful motivator. It could be seen on a smaller scale in the Watergate stonewalling, but that was child's play when compared to the the Chinese. They see ANY form of negative as resulting in a loss of face and because they appear to value saving face higher than money [as a collective unconscious or DNA-deep value belief] this, more than economic loss, is their driving force. And, that does not mean that there are not individuals in present-day China whose motivations are money-related, and with the upcoming Olympics, that will become more wide-spread. I'm speaking here of the bigger or more long-term historical picture. Therefore, I believe that this is why, as a country, they are so consistent in hiding anything that they have determined reflects negatively on their image -- whether we would judge it that way or not.
Interesting theories, all... but I wonder if the need to cover up has as much to do with the nature of China's political system as with monetary or face-saving motives. The difference being that a political motive would be more about control of information, as well as international image. China's government doesn't like bad press, so it fines those who report bad news. (See a recent Revere post.) It doesn't like dissent, so it blocks websites that suggest or promote "subversive" ideas. The motive here may not be face or money, but exercising control to remain firmly in power.
Like Bush, they don't want to live in a reality-based world, so they pretend. Like Bush, it has and will bite them in the ass.
1...Old China(go back as far as you like)has ever had a deep,fundamental,unwavering belief in its superiority over Western,or for that matter,any other values or cultures.
2..Modern China is too big to threaten and knows it.
3..China knows the West would would trade with the devil itself for economic advantage.
4.."face" is still everything.
5..time to stop this;I'm getting glum.
China is not communist any more, it is now a post-Marxist dictatorship with a distinctive style.
For example, I haven't heard of other countries where military units support themselves by running businesses. At the edge of a military base you'll find a bicycle factory staffed with soldiers or a strip mall with soldiers selling flowers and fish.
mara's right: Non-disclosure is a keystone concept.
Neither will the information disclose nor will the information seeker ask.
And therein lies the insurmountable challenge.
"Money" is merely one factor in the daily grind called employment in China. Political power is much more valuable than any single payment of money. Respect and it's flip side, fear, dominate the Chinese society.
In business (I turn plenty of bucks there), they will extend themselves much more than any American company to do the right thing. What they have difficulty doing is proactively thinking about a specific task. As a case in point, regarding H5N1, there are significant political status risks for each individual who would be involved in release of information. Were a senior government official request this action, every underling, from Assistant A to Flunkie Z will respond fully and thoroughly, as then it is not only safe to disgorge information but it will be recognized that those individuals are doing their jobs well.
Until this, to the rational Western mind, repulsive political dynamic terminates, we, the seekers of information, will experience the full brunt of consequences.
Unless our political efforts are pointed towards the top individuals in charge of the Ministry, nothing will get accomplished. I'll repeat that, "nothing" will get done.
Over at CE/FC, when the Indonesian first human cases were reported, I made the same observation, that "nothing will get done." And so it has been. The difference is that in China, bribery has evolved into a much more sophisticated art form. In Indo, money will get the individuals to act... cite the missing 50,000 cartons of Australian Tamiflu. In China, few want to be shot by a firing squad for their theft. Instead, there would be a convoluted paper shuffle and a division of authority (the buck stops nowhere.
The West is quite incapable of wrapping its collective mind around the enormous gulf of weltanshaung differences; hence, we will experience nature as it evolves, without data from China or even from Indonesia (promises are meaningless in their world as nobody inferior dares enforce them!)
People in the health ministry may have more ganqxi (returnable favors) which is good will from other people. The agricultural people probably have less professional prestige. A series of diseases has rocked the Ag. boat. Making waves makes you lose face (i think mainzi).
Money talks. I don't see a stimulus to do better.