Are we making money from Ebola?

Marketing buzz-words are, sadly, a staple of modern life. And it’s a staple that is often served up in the world of scientific equipment.

On a daily basis I get emails inviting me to consider the latest cutting-edge, turnkey solution with an intuitive interface backed by proprietary technology that promises to disrupt the industry. (…Honestly I often wonder just how much ‘disruption’ the ‘industry’ can take before it simply lay in ruins.) But in truth, this trend is nothing more than marketers trying to impress both their clients and cynics like me. They are just doing their job.

However, something potentially more distasteful seems to be emerging. Over the last few months I have received an ever increasing amount of marketing materials which prominently feature the word ‘Ebola’. Hardly surprising of course, and on the one hand this is as exactly as it should be. It is the genuine response of brilliant people developing technological innovations to help combat a horrific event. Purified antibodies to allow the development of ELISA screens, real-time PCR kits and even data storage systems to allow the modelling of likely outbreaks of the disease – all bespoke, focussed and creative approaches to aid those working on the disease.

Yet on the other hand, for many of the products touted as helping the fight against Ebola,this is just one of many applications. As such, it begins to look like ‘Ebola’ is becoming a tool to leverage interest. And Leveraging interest sounds to me exactly the function of a buzz-word. Could it be that Ebola is itself now a buzz-word? And have we really reached a point where that is acceptable?

But when it comes to commercial gain and Ebola, there is currently another development which is worthy of thought. In a reaction to the ‘sluggish’ response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the president of the World Bank recently suggested an epidemic insurance policy. Shortly after this, the African Risk Capacity – an agency set up to allow African nations to respond quickly to natural disasters – announced it will be offering such a product. And I think it is important we remember it is indeed a product.

Not entirely unlike home insurance, nations can purchase the cover by paying premiums; the more prepared they are to reduce the potential impact of a disaster, then the lower their premiums. The idea here is that market forces will push governments to improve their ‘preparedness’. The thing is, in this case we are talking about some of the poorest nations on earth. Using market forces to try and achieve anything, especially the improvement of public health provision, seems at best insulting and at worst totally misguided.

Of course financial tools like this can improve the time lag between event and response. And it’s true that the ARC say they are simply responding to requests from member states, but they have also been open in their encouragement of private sector insurers to follow suit.

And this, surely, needs consideration? When international agencies encourage private profiteering based on the potential suffering of thousands, I think motives need to be carefully examined. Someone somewhere will be hoping to turn a tidy profit from all of this – a profit which ultimately comes from impoverishment.

The economic impact of Ebola now seems to have two faces; the financial disruption of the countries afflicted – and the opportunism of the private insurers and underwriters.

Is there a profit to be made from epidemics like Ebola? Of course. The question now becomes; is this a moral implication we are prepared to stomach?