We now believe rinderpest has been eradicated from the world. When finally confirmed in 2011, rinderpest eradication will be the only disease conquered after smallpox back in the 1970s.

Rinderpest was one of the most devastating virus diseases of livestock known to man. Closely related to measles in humans, rinderpest (from the German ‘cattle plague’) has probably been around since before the birth of Christ and devastated European powers in the 17th century.

With a mortality rate of up to 90%, major epidemics in the late 1890s killed over 80% of African cattle and other wildlife in southern Africa. Along the Horn of Africa, an estimated one-third of the population of Ethiopia and two-thirds of the Maasai people of Tanzania died of starvation.

In the 1980s the virus struck again, killing an estimated 100M animals from Senegal to Somalia in Africa and from Turkey to Bangladesh in Asia. Economic losses totalled US$2Bn in Nigeria alone.

Coordinating action

Following the development of a live attenuated vaccine by British virologist Walter Plowright in 1962, early eradication efforts in the 1960s and 70s eventually stalled, but showed the war might be winnable.

As the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) mobilised a new eradication campaign, the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme, (GREP) in the 1990s, The Institute for Animal Health (IAH), Pirbright, UK, was designated the FAO World Reference Laboratory for rinderpest in 1994 and thereafter provided a global diagnostic service for all countries involved in the programme. This included rinderpest diagnosis, molecular characterisation, the provision of training and technical backup, and the production and quality control of diagnostic kits and research to further our understanding of rinderpest virus biology.

What lessons have been learned along the way?

The main factors in the success of GREP, from an IAH perspective, were the development of the right technology for field use in Africa and Asia, successful transfer of that technology along with technical backup, and the provision of standardised diagnostic kits that everyone could use.

Appropriate technology

The Plowright vaccine induces life-long immunity after a single vaccination, but only if the vaccine is maintained at the correct temperature before administration. The vaccine virus is rapidly inactivated at temperatures greater than 4C and so involved the strict use of a cold-chain. Seromonitoring was therefore essential to monitor the performance of the vaccination teams and to establish levels of herd immunity.

However, at the start of the Pan African Rinderpest Campaign and subsequently GREP, most laboratories were unable to carry out the virus neutralisation test to see if it had worked and mass testing was impossible.

To tackle this problem, IAH developed an indirect ELISA test (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) and underwent two-year field trials in Tanzania to make sure it worked under tough local conditions.

The test performed well and was later replaced with an improved test (a monoclonal antibody-based competitive ELISA) which gave greater specificity (>99.5%), sensitivity and reproducibility. It also greatly reduced the number of false-positive results which saved unwarranted and expensive field investigations. Furthermore, the use of this single test harmonised results and increased participants’ confidence when communicating during regional workshops.

Rapid diagnosis and detection was essential during the latter stages of the eradication programme. The development of a rapid pen-side test proved invaluable in countries such as Pakistan and Somalia and empowered the field veterinarians to take prompt action to stamp out the last remaining pockets of infection.

Technology transfer

The Rinderpest Laboratory Network established by the Joint Division FAO-International Atomic Energy Authority with the assistance of IAH Pirbright proved the ideal vehicle for technology transfer.

Annual co-ordination meetings were always linked to training courses and updates in diagnostic techniques, software programs or epidemiological strategies.

The success of this process is highlighted by the fact that the project holders are now regarded as experts in their own right and have assisted many other countries in establishing similar technology.

Standardised diagnostics

The provision of standardised quality controlled reagents played a major part in the eradication programme, and large batches of antigen and control sera were produced to minimise test variation between laboratories.

This was further enhanced by the use of a monoclonal antibody-based assay, and a single batch of monoclonal antibody was used for all the competitive ELISA kits produced.

External quality assurance panels showed a 98% agreement between laboratories in Africa; a much higher figure than that reported for HIV testing at that time.

Recommendations for the future

The strategy used for rinderpest eradication, although not applicable to all diseases, could be used as a blueprint for other diseases such as peste des petits ruminants (meaning ‘disease of small ruminants’, known as PPR virus).

Key factors for success include the availability of an excellent vaccine (which we have), secure long-term funding, the establishment of a Secretariat in FAO Rome as a global co-ordination unit, and evolution of the OIE Pathway to Freedom from Rinderpest guidelines which gave clear advice to all countries at each stage of the process.

However, let it not be forgotten that the drive and determination of a few key people was also essential to this remarkable success.

This story highlights the importance of continued support for applied, problem-driven research in agriculture and food security.

Addressing significant animal health problems through appropriate research and development – allied to excellent technology transfer and empowerment of local scientists – has played a key role in this major achievement.

About John Anderson

John Anderson joined the Institute for Animal Health (then the Animal Virus Research Institute) in 1968 as a technician in the World Reference Laboratory (WRL) for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) before being seconded to Nairobi, Kenya, in 1971 to work on FMD carrier status in local cattle and the role of wildlife in FMD epidemiology.

He returned to IAH Pirbright in 1977 and worked on FMD, rinderpest and bluetongue viruses and was designated Head of the WRL for rinderpest in 1994 where he developed the indirect and competitive ELISAs and pen-side test for rinderpest which were used throughout the Global Rinderpest Eradication  Programme.

He was in charge of the serological testing during the 2001 FMD outbreak in the UK and was awarded the MBE for Services to Animal Health in 2003. In 2006, he was appointed Acting Head of IAH’s Pirbright Laboratory until his retirement in 2008.

Publication of the Royal Society report Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture in October 2009 provided the clearest evidence yet of the immense challenge of ensuring global food security over the next 50 years.

Crop yields need to rise significantly, but in a manner that requires much lower energy inputs and less dependency on chemical intervention and fertilisers. The development of high yielding crops, which are durably resistant to pests and diseases and less dependent on nitrogen fertilisers, will require significant scientific advances in our understanding of plant biology, plant pathology and soil science. Breeding new varieties that can withstand environmental extremes such as drought is also a necessity.

Hence, a new BBSRC-funded MSc in Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture has been established at the University of Exeter. The course has been designed to ensure that there is a new generation of highly qualified individuals equipped with skills in agronomy, plant pathology and plant improvement, but coupled with a knowledge of modern agricultural systems and policy.   

As director of the new MSc, I have devised the course programme in collaboration with key stakeholders in the agricultural industry, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Food and Environment Research Agency (Fera), farmers and food manufacturers.

In overseeing construction of the course’s elements, it struck me, as someone who graduated in the 1980s with a degree in Agricultural Plant Sciences, that there has been a dramatic and worrying decline over the past two decades in graduates with knowledge of plant pathology, plant physiology and plant breeding. These subjects were core modules of many biological sciences courses in the 1980s and early 90s, but slowly dwindled in importance as students opted for more animal-based programmes. They now form minor components of more general modules in microbiology, physiology and genetics, with other disciplines such as soil science and pest science now completely absent.

Thankfully, a new generation of biology graduates is emerging that is better informed about food production and safety and the need to feed a growing world population that is less reliant on high input agriculture and environmentally damaging pesticides.

Our challenge at Exeter is to attract high calibre graduates to the MSc programme who aspire to a career in the area of sustainable food production. And, to do that, we need the right mix of teaching of the core sciences and policy issues relating to food security.

As the opening gambit of this blog ‘The human and technological dimension’ by Philip Lowe asserted, ensuring food security is not just about science. Improvements in crop yields and advanced crop-growing technologies will be critical in feeding the world’s poor in the coming decades. But without progress in storage, distribution, and restructuring the subsidies and trade agreements that hinder countries’ agricultural development, then millions of people will continue to starve while others live with plenty – no matter how much food we grow.

But grow more food we must. To this end we have harnessed the expertise of Exeter University Biosciences in molecular plant pathology, plant biology and microbiology, alongside North Wyke Research’s expertise in grassland management, soil science and sustainable farming systems (North Wyke is a part of Rothamsted Research, a BBSRC-funded institute).

Moreover, we have input of leading social scientists, such as Professor Michael Winter, Director of the Centre for Rural Policy Research, who has expertise in rural land use and economy issues.

The combination of expertise in both arable and pastureland systems is a key feature of the programme, which will set it apart from any related training programmes in the country. At North Wyke, establishment of the BBSRC Integrated Farm Platform will, in due course, also provide a unique national training opportunity for MSc students on this programme, which will add significant value to this investment.

The programme will therefore provide a multi-disciplinary training in sustainable agriculture and the challenge of ensuring global food security. We have taken account of where key skills shortages exist in the UK (PDF)  in formulating the curriculum for this MSc and we will, we hope, provide a course which will generate highly skilled individuals that can enter government agencies, agriculture and food industries, and fulfill very valuable roles in scientific research, advice, evaluation, policy development and implementation.

The opportunities for placements in Defra, Fera and at North Wyke or Rothamsted Research is an extremely exciting element of this programme that will provide excellent training for students.

The first intake of students starts in October 2010 and includes applicants from countries including the UK, Brunei, China, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Greece, Kenya, Nigeria, Turkey and Uganda.

To date, four of the 15 BBSRC-funded studentships awarded through BBSRC’s Master’s Training Grant scheme have been allocated to UK applicants who hold First or Upper-Second Class (2:1) Honours degrees. The remaining 11 studentships, which comprise tuition fees and a one-year maintenance allowance, will be allocated over the next two years.

About Chris Thornton

Dr Chris Thornton is a senior lecturer in Biosciences at the University of Exeter, and teaches mycology, plant pathology and immunology in both undergraduate and postgraduate degree programmes. He is Director of the MSc in Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture and his research specialism is hybridoma technology and the use of monoclonal antibodies to track plant and human pathogenic fungi. In addition, his research uses molecular genetics to study the interaction of the beneficial rhizosphere fungus Trichoderma hamatum with crop plants, and the exploitation of Trichoderma species as biofertilisers and as biological control agents of plant diseases.

At the launch of the book Science and Innovation for Development on 19 January, co-author Sir Gordon Conway said: “It doesn’t matter where the technology comes from, it matters that it is appropriate.”

Too often international development researchers, policy makers and practitioners get caught up in the source of a technology, and use this as the metric for whether it will be successful. The way a technology is designed, the country it comes from, the type of institution that produced it – while all important considerations – are not as important as whether the product is appropriate.

An appropriate technology is accessible, affordable, easy-to-use and maintain, effective – and most importantly it serves a real need.

For example, a rice seed that has been bred or engineered to mature faster can be appropriate anywhere the variety thrives. Local farmers have a need for such characteristics, regardless of whether the seed comes from local efforts or from global centres like the International Rice Research Institute.

Many scientists and policy makers in developed countries also often hold on to the idea that you can’t apply different types of technology to the same problem. In fact, this is often exactly what is needed.

For example, for farmers in drought-prone areas to deal with persistent and increasing water shortages they need solutions which draw from the full range of scientific innovation. These can include ‘traditional’ water conservation techniques and planting methods such as the ‘zai’ system in West Africa, where farmers use small holes filled with manure and the extensive underground termite tunnels that result, to both capture water and recycle soil nutrients.

Then there are ‘intermediate’ technologies such as drip irrigation, where plastic tubing is used to apply small amounts of water to each individual plant, and ‘new platform’ technologies such as cereal varieties that are genetically modified to survive, and even prosper, in drought conditions.

Farmers should have access to all types of solutions – so they can pick and choose the best combination for their own field, and adapt and innovate as conditions change.

I came across a telling example of the strong bias which some hold for particular sources of technology at a recent plant biotechnology conference. A number of presenters at the event introduced the methods they had been working on to control weeds, in particular the parasitic weed Striga.

On one side was the biological systems approach: intercropping enemies of the weed with the maize crop with plants that suppress Striga. The other side advocated a technological solution: breeding resistance to the herbicide that kills the weed into the maize seeds themselves, so that the seeds can be dipped into the herbicide. The treated maize seeds kill the parasitic seeds in the ground, allowing the maize to grow and the environmental impact to be minimised.

Both systems have drawbacks – more labour and local knowledge needed for biological control, and higher research costs and risk of resistance developing for the seed modification approach.

So why not use both? Why not work together?

Instead I saw the two sides actively arguing. Then when another presenter introduced the idea of increasing the use of conventional herbicides in Africa it was met with immediate derision, partly due to the source of the herbicides (US manufacturers). Most did not consider the fact that, if applied in an educated and selective manner, conventional herbicides may be a great tool for poor farmers.

But this may be changing. As Science and Innovation for Development’s other co-author Jeff Waage stated in the book: “Between the extremes of a technological ‘silver bullet’ approach to development science, and the belief that local and intermediate technologies are the only legitimate approach, there is emerging today a new community of scientists dedicated to an inclusive view of appropriate science for development”.

About Sara Delaney

Sara Delaney joined Imperial College in July 2009 to work on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funded project ‘Africa and Europe: Partnerships in Food and Farming’. She is assisting Gordon Conway with the writing of a second edition of his 1999 book The Doubly Green Revolution. She recently completed work with the UK Collaborative on Development Sciences (UKCDS) and the London International Development Centre (LIDC), supporting the publication of the book Science and Innovation for Development. Sara studied biological and environmental engineering at Cornell University and ‘Science, Society and Development’ at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS). From 2005-2007 she served as a US Peace Corps volunteer in Mali, working in the water and sanitation sector.

Contact Details

Sara Delaney
Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ
Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 8040