Wafaa M Rashed, Chair and Founder of Pan-African PGS Education and Research Initiative, shared a post on LinkedIn:
“Group 1 Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 1, supporting the motion:
“Should African governments invest in creating genomic databases for pediatric cancers, including leukemia, to improve treatment equity ?”
The Affirmative Team argues that African nations must invest in pediatric cancer genomic databases because:
- They enable precision diagnosis and tailored treatment for children across the continent.
- They help reduce harsh survival disparities between African children and those in high-income countries.
- They build critical genomic infrastructure for long-term cancer research in Africa.
- They support earlier detection, better outcomes, and more equitable access to care.
- They strengthen national and regional capacity in pediatric oncology, bioinformatics, and genomics.
Group 1 Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 1, opposing the motion:
“Should African governments invest in creating genomic databases for pediatric cancers, including leukemia, to improve treatment equity?”
The Negative Team argues that African governments should not prioritize large-scale genomic databases at this stage because:
- Many countries lack oncology infrastructure, making genomic databases premature.
- Immediate needs—diagnostics, treatment availability, health workforce shortages—should come first.
- Genomic databases require long-term financial, ethical, legal, and security frameworks that are not yet ready.
- There is risk of widening inequalities if benefits remain limited to a few well-resourced hospitals.
- Funds might be better directed toward strengthening primary cancer care and survival pathways.
Group 2 Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 2, supporting the motion:
“Should African countries create regional genomic databases to advance research in cancers that disproportionately affect their populations?”
The Affirmative Team argues that regional genomic databases are essential because:
- They enable Africa-specific cancer research based on real, local genomic diversity.
- They strengthen collaboration across countries facing similar cancer burdens (e.g., breast, prostate, liver cancers).
- They help reduce global research gaps, where African genomes remain underrepresented.
- They accelerate precision medicine, early detection, and tailored treatment strategies.
- They distribute costs across regions—making genomic infrastructure more feasible and sustainable.
Group 2 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 2, opposing the motion:
“Should African countries create regional genomic databases to advance research in cancers that disproportionately affect their populations?”
The Negative Team argues that African countries should not prioritize regional genomic databases at this time because:
- Many regions still struggle with basic cancer infrastructure—diagnostics, pathology, treatment access.
- Regional coordination poses challenges: legal frameworks, sovereignty concerns, data-sharing risks.
- High costs of data storage, cybersecurity, and long-term governance may not be sustainable.
- Existing inequalities between countries could create uneven benefits and participation.
- Funding may be better directed toward strengthening national cancer control and early detection programs.
Group 3 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 3, supporting the motion:
“Should African nations make genetic counseling services free and accessible to reduce the stigma associated with genetic disorders?”
The team argues that genetic counseling should be free and widely accessible because:
- It helps reduce stigma and misinformation surrounding genetic disorders.
- Enables early detection, informed decisions, and better family support.
- Promotes equity in genetic and genomic healthcare services across Africa.
- Strengthens public understanding, trust, and responsible use of genomic technologies.
- Supports national commitments to inclusive and ethical health systems.
Group 3 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 3, challenging the motion
“Should African nations make genetic counseling services free and accessible to reduce the stigma associated with genetic disorders?”
The team argues that making genetic counseling free and widely accessible may not be feasible because:
- Many countries lack trained genetic counselors and necessary infrastructure.
- Universal free services may strain already limited health budgets.
- Prioritizing genetic counseling could divert resources from more urgent health needs.
- Sustainable access requires long-term investment, regulation, and workforce development.
- Reducing stigma may require broader societal and educational interventions.
Group 4 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 4, supporting the motion:
“Should African nations invest in gene therapy as a long-term solution for chronic and genetic diseases?”
The team argues in favor of investment in gene therapy because:
- Gene therapy offers lasting, curative potential for many chronic and inherited diseases.
- Africa’s high burden of conditions like sickle cell disease makes long-term solutions essential.
- Investing early builds scientific leadership and reduces dependency on external technologies.
- Gene therapy can strengthen national innovation systems, research capacity, and biotechnology industries.
- Equitable access to advanced therapies aligns with global health justice and ethical obligations.
Group 4 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 4, challenging the motion:
“Should African nations invest in gene therapy as a long-term solution for chronic and genetic diseases?”
The team argues against major investment at this stage because:
- Gene therapy remains extremely expensive and may not be cost-effective for low-resource settings.
- Many African health systems lack the infrastructure, regulation, and workforce required.
- Prioritizing gene therapy may divert funds from primary care and essential health services.
- Safety, ethical, and long-term monitoring challenges require strong governance systems that are still developing.
- Strategic focus should remain on prevention, early diagnosis, and strengthening existing health systems before adopting frontier therapies.
Group 5 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 5, supporting the motion:
“Should individuals have full ownership over their genetic data, with the right to monetize it?”
The team argues in favor of individual ownership and monetization because:
- Genetic data is deeply personal — individuals should control how it is used.
- Monetization empowers citizens and ensures fair compensation for contributing to research.
- Data sovereignty strengthens public trust in genomics and encourages participation.
- It promotes ethical, transparent, and consent-based data ecosystems.
- Giving individuals rights over their data aligns with global movements for data justice.
Group 5 – Negative team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 5, challenging the motion:
“Should individuals have full ownership over their genetic data, with the right to monetize it?”
The team argues against individual monetization of genetic data because:
- Monetizing genetic data may commercialize health and promote exploitation.
- It could widen inequalities — with vulnerable populations pressured to sell data.
- Genetic data is shared across families and communities, making full individual ownership ethically complex.
- Commercial incentives may conflict with public health priorities and scientific integrity.
- Africa needs strong governance, not markets, to ensure ethical and equitable data use.
Group 6 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 6, supporting the motion:
“Should newborn genomic screening for conditions like sickle cell anemia be mandatory to improve early intervention efforts?”
The team argues in favor of mandatory genomic screening because:
- Early detection saves lives and prevents severe complications.
- Early intervention reduces long-term healthcare costs for families and health systems.
- Mandatory screening ensures equity — every newborn, regardless of income or location, receives the same life-saving benefit.
- It strengthens public health surveillance for genetic diseases in Africa.
- Sickle cell anemia is highly prevalent — early diagnosis is essential for survival and quality of life.
Group 6 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 6, challenging the motion:
“Should newborn genomic screening for conditions like sickle cell anemia be mandatory to improve early intervention efforts?”
The team argues against mandatory screening because:
- Mandatory testing may violate parental autonomy and informed consent.
- Concerns about data privacy and long-term storage of newborn genomic data remain unresolved.
- Health systems in many African countries may not yet be equipped to handle large-scale genomic programs.
- Mandatory policies risk eroding public trust if not implemented ethically and transparently.
- Voluntary, well-communicated screening programs may achieve similar benefits without coercion.
Group 7 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 7, supporting the motion:
“Should pharmaceutical companies be required to develop antibiotics targeting Africa-specific resistant genes identified via genomic studies?”
The team argues that mandating pharma engagement is essential because:
- Growing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Africa requires region-specific scientific solutions
- Genomic data reveals unique resistance patterns that current antibiotics fail to address.
- Regulatory requirements can drive innovation where market forces alone fall short.
- Targeted antibiotics could save millions of lives and reduce treatment failure.
- Public–private partnerships can ensure equitable access while supporting scientific progress.
- Reflect on whether mandatory pharmaceutical engagement is a necessary public health measure — or an overreach that could threaten innovation and feasibility.
Group 7 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 7, opposing the motion:
“Should pharmaceutical companies be required to develop antibiotics targeting Africa-specific resistant genes identified via genomic studies?”
The team argues that such mandatory requirements may not be the best approach because:
- Regulatory mandates could discourage pharmaceutical investment in Africa.
- The cost and complexity of developing region-specific antibiotics may delay urgent AMR responses.
- Strengthening surveillance, stewardship, and diagnostic capacity may have greater immediate impact.
- Market-based incentives and public funding may be more sustainable than strict requirements.
- Ethical and logistical concerns arise from enforcing obligations on private companies.
Consider whether mandatory pharma involvement is a visionary step toward AMR control — or a policy strategy that may create more challenges than solutions.
Group 8 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 8, supporting the motion:
“Should livestock farming in Africa be genetically monitored for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to prevent zoonotic transmission to humans?”
The team argues that genetic monitoring of livestock is essential because:
- AMR in animals poses a direct threat to human health through zoonotic transmission.
- Genomic surveillance enables early detection of resistant strains before they spread.
- Monitoring supports safer food systems and strengthens One Health frameworks.
- It helps protect farmers, communities, and national health security.
- Data-driven livestock management can prevent outbreaks and reduce treatment failures.
- Reflect on whether genomic monitoring in livestock is a necessary step to protect public health — or an approach that may face feasibility and resource challenges.
Group 8 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 8, opposing the motion:
“Should livestock farming in Africa be genetically monitored for antimicrobial resistance (AMR) to prevent zoonotic transmission to humans?”
The team argues that this policy may not be the most feasible or effective approach because:
- Genomic monitoring is expensive and may not be practical in resource-limited settings.
- Many AMR challenges stem from misuse of antibiotics, not lack of genomic data.
- Smallholder farmers may be unfairly burdened by surveillance requirements.
- Infrastructure gaps could weaken data quality and policy impact.
- Strengthening veterinary regulation, stewardship, and farm management may achieve faster results.
- Consider whether genomic monitoring in livestock is an essential One Health investment — or a policy direction that may strain systems without guaranteeing outcomes.
Group 9 – Affirmative Team
This video features the Affirmative Team from Group 9, supporting the motion:
“Should the use of gene-editing technologies (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9) to develop next-generation antibiotics be a public investment priority in Africa?”
The team argues that Africa should invest in gene-editing for antibiotic innovation because:
- AMR is rising rapidly across the continent, demanding breakthrough solutions.
- CRISPR and gene-editing tools enable precision engineering of powerful new antimicrobial agents.
- Investing now positions Africa as a global leader, not a late adopter.
- Locally driven antibiotic innovation enhances sovereignty and reduces dependency on external markets.
- Public sector investment ensures equity, access, and public-good–oriented development.
Group 9 – Negative Team
This video features the Negative Team from Group 9, opposing the motion:
“Should the use of gene-editing technologies (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9) to develop next-generation antibiotics be a public investment priority in Africa?”
The team argues that gene-editing for antibiotic development should not be the top public investment priority because:
- The technology is expensive and may divert funds from urgent AMR prevention measures.
- Strengthening stewardship, diagnostics, infection control, and vaccination may have greater immediate impact.
- Many African countries lack the regulatory and biosafety systems required for CRISPR-based drug development.
- Public funds risk being misallocated if scientific capacity is not yet ready for industrial-scale innovation.
- Partnerships, not public prioritization, may be a more sustainable path.
Group 10 – Affirmative Team
In this debate, the Affirmative Team of Group 10 argues that:
African universities should prioritize bioinformatics training due to its lower cost, scalability, and flexibility across diverse resource settings.
This presentation explores:
- The financial and logistical barriers to wet-lab genomics capacity
- How bioinformatics offers rapid, scalable training pathways
- The role of computational genomics in unlocking continental research potential
- Opportunities to strengthen Africa’s genomics ecosystem through digital tools.
Group 10 – Negative Team
In this session, the Negative Team of Group 10 argues that African universities should NOT prioritize bioinformatics over wet-lab genomics, emphasizing that both are essential for developing a robust genomics ecosystem.
This presentation highlights:
- The irreplaceable role of wet-lab skills in diagnostics, research, and biotechnology
- Risks of creating an imbalance where Africa produces data analysts but lacks laboratory capacity
- The long-term value of hands-on genomics infrastructure and workforce development
- Why equal or increased investment in wet-lab genomics is critical for self-reliance
Join the Negative Team as they present a strong case for maintaining balanced and comprehensive genomics training pathways in African universities.
Group 11 – Affirmative Team
In this debate, the Affirmative Team of Group 11 argues that governments should prioritize funding genetic research to develop climate-resilient crops, given the increasing threats of drought, heatwaves, pests, and changing rainfall patterns across Africa.
This presentation explores:
- Why climate-resilient crops are essential for long-term food security
- How genomic tools can accelerate crop improvement
- The economic and environmental advantages of investing in genetic research
- Potential for reducing dependency on imported seeds and technologies.
Group 11 – Negative Team
In this session, the Negative Team of Group 11 argues that governments should NOT prioritize genetic research above other agricultural innovations, insisting on a more balanced, context-driven approach.
This presentation highlights:
- The importance of traditional farming practices, agroecology, and soil-health innovations
- Risks of over-reliance on high-tech genomic approaches
- The immediate needs of farmers that may not be addressed by long-term genetic research
- Why diversified investment across multiple agricultural solutions is essential
Join the Negative Team as they present a compelling argument for maintaining a broader agricultural innovation strategy rather than prioritizing genetic research alone.
Group 12 – Affirmative Team
In this debate, the Affirmative Team of Group 12 argues that smallholder farmers must be directly involved in shaping genomics-driven agricultural policy decisions.
This presentation explores:
- Why farmer perspectives are essential for ethical and practical policy design
- How co-creation improves trust and adoption of genomic tools
- The importance of equity, transparency, and inclusion in agricultural governance
- Real examples showing improved outcomes when farmers participate in decision-making.
Group 12 – Negative Team
In this session, the Negative Team of Group 12 argues that smallholder farmers should NOT be directly involved in genomics-driven agricultural policy decisions, emphasizing the need for technical expertise and efficient policy processes.
- This presentation highlights:
- The complexity of genomics and biotechnology policy frameworks
- Risks of misinformation or misalignment when non-experts drive technical decisions
- The need for specialized agencies, scientists, and regulators to lead policy development
- Why farmer input may be better integrated through consultation rather than direct decision roles
Join the Negative Team as they present a well-structured argument for maintaining expert-led decision-making in genomics-driven agricultural policy.”
More posts featuring Wafaa M Rashed on OncoDaily.