Thank you for this thoughtful and fair assessment. I appreciate the generosity of your reading and, more importantly, the structural lens you bring to the issue. I agree that many of the constraints were environmental rather than individual, and that limited institutional support shapes what is realistically achievable 

While low tax collection clearly constrains Nigeria’s fiscal capacity, I would argue that corruption is a more decisive bottleneck—both analytically and practically—than the tax-to-GDP ratio itself.

First, corruption weakens tax collection in the first place. Leakage, informal exemptions, weak enforcement, and negotiated compliance mean that even existing tax laws are not fully realized in revenue. In this sense, corruption is upstream of the tax problem: improving integrity and enforcement would likely raise effective tax collection without changing nominal tax rates. Many countries with comparable income levels collect more taxes not because their citizens are taxed more aggressively, but because compliance is higher and leakages are lower.

Second, corruption distorts how whatever revenue is collected gets allocated and spent. Even under current fiscal constraints, the marginal naira lost to misappropriation, inflated contracts, or politically motivated spending directly crowds out funding for universities, laboratories, and research grants. This is crucial: the issue is not only that the budget is small, but that within that small budget, research and higher education are systematically deprioritized or underfunded due to rent-seeking incentives that favor short-term, visible projects over long-term capacity building.

 I also think that many of the most tractable biosecurity opportunities sit on the policy and governance side rather than in primary research. I agree that the bar to entry is exceptionally high: the space is tightly regulated, heavily relationship-driven, and often inaccessible without sustained exposure to elite networks. This structure systematically disadvantages capable researchers from resource-constrained settings, even when they have relevant technical expertise and on-the-ground insight.

I agree, Lauren. Beyond attending conferences, I believe researchers in Africa should be given the freedom to pursue high-risk, high-reward science, and be allowed to fail in the process. There should be a dedicated funding system that supports this kind of exploration.

The current mindset among many African scientists is shaped by the need to think in ways that appeal to external funders, who often begin from the assumption that certain ideas are unlikely to succeed. This stifles originality and undermines confidence.

Let me share an example. During my time at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) for a mycology course, I reflected on a major global gap: there is still no approved vaccine for any fungal pathogen and only a few immunotherapies exist. When I returned to Nigeria, I started exploring how available platforms—like phage display or mRNA—could be used to develop antifungal vaccines. Phages, in particular, seemed promising because they require relatively little infrastructure.

However, the challenge quickly became evident—finding anyone willing to support the idea. The absence of local funding and infrastructure meant I had to reshape my proposal to fit the expectations of external funders, rather than pursue the science as I envisioned it. Over time, this kind of adjustment constrains creativity and discourages risk-taking.

If we had funding structures and mentorship programs that allowed African researchers to think freely, take risks, and even fail without penalty, it would create an environment where truly innovative science could flourish. That freedom to think boldly is what is most lacking across the continent.

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for this perspective. I’m very interested in collaborating. Please send the IRB documentation and any sample protocol or consent forms to eennadi@plasu.edu.ng.

I’ll review them and adapt what’s needed for local ethics submission here, and I can share practical notes on community engagement and sampling logistics for busy public venues in Jos. I also have prior field experience,  I participated in house-to-house nasal sampling during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, so I’m familiar with operational realities.

If that sounds good, I’d welcome a short (20–30 minute) call to align on aims, data-sharing, and next steps. I’m keen to explore a pilot we could co-design and co-author.

Best regards,

Nnaemeka

Thanks, Jeff. Interestingly, I already have access to both a qPCR system and a Nanopore sequencer. I’d be very interested in exploring this idea further. I can also envision expanding the work to include sampling from poultry farmers, abattoir workers, and even members of the general public for broader epidemiological insights

 

An interesting piece. I would like to share a perspective as a scientist working in a resource-constrained setting. Pathogen-agnostic approaches are indeed critical for pandemic preparedness. But how can these strategies be realistically implemented in regions that lack centralized wastewater systems? Another pressing challenge is the cost of sequencing technologies: metagenomic studies remain largely inaccessible in low-resource contexts because sequencing platforms are still prohibitively expensive. What we urgently need are affordable, scalable systems that make pathogen-agnostic surveillance feasible beyond high-income settings.

After attending the Biosecurity Fundamentals course by BlueDot, two key themes stood out to me: the central role of pathogen detection and the importance of vaccines as preventive measures. However, translating these insights into practice has not been straightforward. Building collaborations and partnerships remains a challenge, particularly in regions like Nigeria where little is being done on pathogen-agnostic approaches.

After the course, I sought funding to conduct metagenomic studies in military settings in Nigeria, recognizing that most barracks have centralized wastewater systems. Soldiers, given their mobility and exposure to diverse environments, could serve as important sentinels for pathogen surveillance. I also proposed to study rivers, since much of the population disposes waste into them; however, concentrating pathogens from such diffuse sources poses significant technical challenges. Despite several efforts, I was unable to secure funding for these projects.

In my laboratory, we have access to a nanopore sequencer, which I believe is an excellent tool for real-time pathogen detection. Unfortunately, the high cost of consumables continues to limit its use, underscoring once again the urgent need for affordable solutions and locally adaptable innovations tailored to resource-constrained environments.

Given these realities, I would greatly value candid advice on how to frame biosecurity work in resource-limited settings in a way that not only addresses local needs but also makes it attractive to potential collaborators and partners.

In ecosystems without strong accelerators, it’s hard to find mentors who understand both ambition and local constraints. At the same time, many of the brightest minds in Nigeria leave academia or the nonprofit space due to survival pressures. From your experience, what mentorship structures and co-founder matching practices are most critical to replicate in regions like Nigeria to help leaders retain talent and build resilient organizations?

In places like Nigeria, systemic barriers (weak infrastructure, scarce funding, policy gaps) often mean impact takes much longer to show. From your own leadership journey, what practices or mindsets have helped you sustain vision and motivation over the long term—and how might these lessons translate for founders working in Global South contexts where “quick wins” are rare?

Looking back at your journey from Charity Science to Ambitious Impact, what's one major strategic assumption you made early on that turned out to be completely wrong? How did that realization change your approach to launching new charities?

Your observation about the correlation between the modern animal welfare movement and secular or skeptical worldviews is astute and widely recognized. It's a valid point that for many, a non-religious framing of our relationship with animals feels more intuitive and less burdened by historical baggage.
However, the effectiveness of any approach depends heavily on the cultural and social context. In many parts of the world, including in some communities within historically Christian nations, a significant portion of the population is deeply religious. For these individuals, a purely secular argument for animal welfare may not resonate as deeply as one rooted in their faith tradition.
For someone whose worldview is shaped by their faith, demonstrating that compassion for animals is not only compatible with their beliefs, but is a core expression of them, can be a powerful motivator. This is where reinterpreting concepts like "dominion" comes in. It's not about ignoring the problematic history of the term, but about offering an alternative, faith-affirming understanding that emphasizes stewardship, care, and love for all of creation.
Ultimately, a multi-pronged approach is likely the most successful. Secular arguments can be very effective for one audience, while faith-based arguments can open doors and change hearts in another. The goal is to reduce animal suffering, and to achieve that, we should use every tool at our disposal, in a way that is most effective for the specific audience we are trying to reach.