Covert Operations vs. Public Health: What is the Government Thinking?

My attention having been riveted by Ebola, I missed this startling news last week: U.S. Agency for International Development sent young people undercover to Cuba to incite anti-government activism.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


My attention having been riveted by Ebola, I missed this startling news last week: U.S. Agency for International Development sent young people undercover to Cuba to incite anti-government activism. Their cover was an HIV prevention workshop. This short-sighted idiocy was apparently aimed at making Cuba more “democratic,” by overthrowing Raul Castro, though that small nation is not a risk to us now. Instead, the ploy not only puts healthcare workers at risk, but will have a very harmful global public health impact.

As Congresswoman Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional HIV/AIDS Caucus, noted, “This blatant deception undermines U.S. credibility abroad and endangers U.S. government supported public health programs which have saved millions of lives in recent years around the world.”

In 2011, the CIA used a fake vaccination program in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in their attempt to find Osama Bin Laden. The result? Polio vaccinations were banned by the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. More than 60 health care workers providing polio vaccines have subsequently been murdered, public distrust has surged, and polio cases are up almost two-fold since. Polio had almost been declared eradicated before this. Now WHO is worried that polio will again emerge as a global health concern, despite being tantalizingly close to eradication, after having spent more than $10 billion trying.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Wikileaks reveals that USAID has been involved in attempts to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela in 2002. Bolivia also then expelled USAID.

We’ve seen the same mistrust lead to vaccine refusals in the Muslim regions of Nigeria, fearing the drugs were contaminated with anti-fertility drugs or HIV.

The State Department reportedly supported the USAID ploy, although the Obama administration had banned the use of fake vaccination programs after the fallout from the CIA debacle. That was apparently a question of semantics, rather than a blanket prohibition of using public health programs as a ruse.

And now we are seeing mistrust fueling attacks on healthcare workers fighting Ebola and forcing humanitarian groups like Doctors Without Borders to close operations in some areas.

In contrast, the worldwide epidemic of SARS in 2003 was contained by unprecedented multinational cooperation and careful infection control. This should be the model we aspire to attain for Ebola and future outbreaks.

Did US government leaders not learn anything from the polio outbreaks that followed the CIA’s use of public health workers as government agents in Pakistan? It should have been abundantly clear then, if it wasn’t before, that public health threats endanger us all. Infectious disease epidemics should be a global concern, above politics. These communicable diseases are a far greater threat to the US than many other security issues. That trust in public health is being jeopardized for such paltry gains is absurd. What were these narrow-focused “strategists” thinking?

 

Credits:

USAID poster with graffiti - David Lisbona/Flickr

Polio map - modified from Tobus [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

"Molecules to Medicine" banner © Michele Banks

Judy Stone, MD is an infectious disease specialist, experienced in conducting clinical research. She is the author of Conducting Clinical Research, the essential guide to the topic. She survived 25 years in solo practice in rural Cumberland, Maryland, and is now broadening her horizons. She particularly loves writing about ethical issues, and tilting at windmills in her advocacy for social justice. As part of her overall desire to save the world when she grows up, she has become especially interested in neglected tropical diseases. When not slaving over hot patients, she can be found playing with photography, friends' dogs, or in her garden. Follow on Twitter @drjudystone or on her website.

More by Judy Stone

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe