illustrates the huge variety of people and ideas that need to be drawn together just in the case of human dog bites. We need to draw all One Health stakeholders together for the long haul, with an easily agreed hook. Professor Gibbs said it was fear that provoked the global response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). He referred to the US $4.3 billion pledged internationally for its control between 2005 and 2009. The US Federal Reserve bought US $85 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month during the third round of quantitative easing last year. Given that HPAI threatened the lives of almost 1 per cent of the world population, it seems we are more terrified by the thought of money dying than by that of people dying. Money is a great tool. The money ecosystem crosses all boundariesgeographical, racial, religious, the rural-urban divide, and the boundary between rich and poor. Everyone can understand money in a way that only a tiny proportion of people will ever understand epidemiology. Welfare and health correlate strongly with wealth, and we use money to decide how best to use the latter to optimise the former. But somehow, the way we use money is messed up. From Nordhaus and Tobin (1972) and Fritz Schumacher in 1973 to Pope Francis last year, thinkers have called for economics in which people matter. Yet budgeting and funding is still completely dominated by bottom-line analysis. One Health must include all life, and can draw widespread support through an explicit acknowledgement that for effective international cross-sectoral improvements in human, animal and ecosystem health, a fundamental re-examination of our economic assumptions is urgently required. I would put this at the top of a list of priorities for consideration for the One Health project.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract