WHO chief scientist says US exit from organisation has impacts on climate and health research beyond funding loss

But according to WHO chief scientist Dr Jeremy Farrar, the consequences extend far beyond financial considerations – and could seriously hamper climate and health research, global cooperation, and scientific progress.

The loss of US leadership, expertise and scientific engagement in WHO efforts poses a major challenge to tackling today’s most urgent global threats – from pandemics to extreme heat and rising sea levels, said Dr Farrar in an interview with Eco-Business when he was recently in Singapore for the annual Philanthropic Asia Summit. 

“To have it not contributing in the same way now is everybody’s loss,” he said, calling the move “very regrettable.”

The warning from the biomedical expert and former director of charity foundation Wellcome Trust comes amid broader signs of an American retreat from multilateral institutions. Since Trump announced its WHO exit in January – which will officially take effect in a year, Washington has also withdrawn from the Paris Agreement, and most recently, the United Nations scientific and cultural agency UNESCO. 

The Trump administration has also rejected proposed WHO pandemic reforms on the grounds of protecting national sovereignty, raising fresh concerns about America’s long-term role in shaping global health responses at a time when crises are increasingly interconnected and cross-border in nature.

In this interview, Dr Farrar shares his insights on how Asia, where emerging health risks and climate impacts are pressing, should tackle the vacuum in global health diplomacy. He also discusses what WHO is doing to tackle the climate-health crisis.

The world is still making sense of what a US withdrawal from WHO would mean for global health. How do you think it will impact Asia and how should we respond?

Any country can leave the WHO and no country is mandated to stay, but from our perspective, the US decision is very regrettable. Across the world, I think almost everyone would hope the US administration can still reconsider the decision. Everyone hopes it will decide that it is in its own interests and the world’s interests to remain in the WHO. 

We face enormous challenges, from pandemics to climate change, as well as challenges involving biodiversity, energy and water. None of these are national. They are at least regional, if not global. And they all need global responses, because the world is so connected now. We saw this during the pandemic, and it will be the same when it comes to climate impacts. 

There are, of course, financial implications of the US leaving WHO, because the WHO gets its funding from member states’ contributions. But we shouldn’t neglect that there is also a loss of US expertise that is concerning. The US is a scientific and research superpower and to have it not contributing in the same way now is everybody’s loss. It is about the money, but it is also about the expertise and much more beyond that. 

Can you give us some examples of the display of US leadership in science and research, particularly in the realm of health research?

Historically, one of the greatest achievements of the WHO in its 70 odd years of existence is the successful eradication of smallpox. That could not have happened without the contribution of the US. 

Over the last 10 to 30 years, efforts to eradicate and reduce the incidence of polio across the globe has seen incredible results too. But until we truly eliminate it, it will remain a threat. I was born in Singapore in the early 1960s. At that time, there was an enormous polio outbreak in the region. I recall that Singapore made a very brave choice and was one of the countries that deployed a new polio vaccine developed in the US. The effect was successful. 

Today, dengue is clearly a huge issue for Southeast Asia. Yet it is also increasingly a problem elsewhere in the world, including South Asia, Middle East, Africa, and also central and southern America. Mosquitoes don’t respect borders and dengue is now a universal problem, and it is hugely challenging. We do have a dengue vaccine, but it is not widely used. The incidence of the disease is going up and the US will not be spared. It will also need access to the solutions. In fact, most of the challenges we face in the 21st century – pandemics, climate change, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), rising sea levels – are going to need global solutions. They will affect Florida as much as they affect Singapore. 

For dengue or the other examples you cited, what would be the impact on the US in terms of its access to new research?

I think it might be too early to know what the dramatic impact will be but we are watching closely. 

We now have one licensed vaccine for dengue. Clinical trials supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are ongoing and this development is huge. It is scientifically important. Officially, as WHO withdrawal requires a one-year notice, Trump’s decision will need time to take effect. Similarly, a lot of focus has been on the financial repercussions, but there is also the loss of expertise that I want to emphasise, and that includes the loss of access to global expertise by the US too. 

How has the WHO reorganised itself around the intersection of climate and health? 

I have been with WHO for two years and I was privileged to work with many people and be involved in drafting what is called the General Programme of Work. It is known as the GPW14 and effectively maps WHO’s strategy from 2025 to 2028. 

Of the six areas that WHO will prioritise and work on, at least two of them are focused on the intersection of climate and health. It certainly is not the first time WHO has spoken about climate and health, but it was the first time it had been placed at that high level of strategic importance. 

The climate crisis is many things, but one of them we must recognise: it is a health crisis. It is a health crisis not just waiting to happen to our grandchildren or to future generations at the turn of the century or in 2050, but that is impacting us now. You see it in dengue, in extreme heat, and in other extreme weather events – the amount of rainfall, the forest fires, and how climate intersects with other issues such as urbanisation and pollution. 

These links are very real. It might be difficult to persuade individuals, communities and societies to make change when the impact will only be in decades to come, but we can feel the impacts of the climate-health crisis today. 

My colleague, Dr Maria Neira, [who is director of the department of environment, climate change and health at WHO], has done an incredible job of raising the profile of the climate-health challenge. In 2023, the Conference of the Parties (COP) summit had its first-ever Health Day, underscoring a growing recognition of this intersection. It was important because it meant that all the ministers and leaders governing other portfolios such as finance, education, transport and energy were in attendance too, and it is what is needed to drive the point across that climate impacts all areas of governance – how you plan your cities, architecture, transportation and taxation. 

Concerns have been raised about whether the global pandemic treaty adequately addresses equity – particularly in access to resources and decision-making. How should countries in Asia approach the treaty? 

The discussions around the treaty started before I joined WHO and have been ongoing for more than three years. I was peripherally involved and not central to the negotiations, and I have utmost respect for my colleagues who are involved. It is a different world now compared to three years ago. It is more fragmented and there is more polarisation within countries and between countries. So to be able to bring 194 countries together to reach an agreement despite the polarisation is remarkable. 

At the World Health Assembly, WHO member states have formally adopted by consensus the treaty, which is the world’s first pandemic agreement. Ultimately, I think nobody is going to get everything they want out of the treaty, but it does move the world forward in ensuring that if another pandemic happens, there will be sharing of samples, data and information, and also a reciprocal sharing of the benefits, whether these are diagnostics, vaccines or therapeutics. It is a massive step forward. It would be so in good times, but it is an even bigger achievement in such a polarised world. 

Asia is critical because it has a huge population. Of course, pandemics are no more likely to start in Asia than anywhere else, but they will start somewhere and ultimately affect everyone. Asia is at risk of future pandemics. I think the only way the world is going to be collectively safer is through an accord like this that does not take away any national sovereignty but balances out the risks and benefits of data sharing. It is an indication that multilateralism does have a future and a massive investment of hope. 

Do you have any advice for young and aspiring climate and health scientists? 

I think we can make a difference whether as scientists, policymakers or philanthropists. There is a lot of cynicism and pessimism, but despite all the challenges that the world faces, I will never give up on being an optimist and I think no one should give up. You can individually make a difference and by working with others, you can also make a bigger difference.