![]() There is power in doing that as a way of life some examples: You have tried to take a fresh look at disease eradication and control. Rafe is right: the organizers need to edit the results, provide their own conclusions and plan the next steps. But struggle we must, because we cannot afford to waste resources, or time, or effort when the problems require the best we have to offer collectively. It is no wonder that we are still struggling to find the best way to organize, to implement, to cooperate. We have only 50 years of experience in global organizations, and only 30 years of experience with successful eradication programmes. Healthy people 2000 will be better than the 1990 objectives and the 2010 objectives will be even better. What we have is a process that, just like science itself, is self correcting and keeps improving on the answers. We don't even have to have all of the definitions right. We don't have to have all of the answers. What we learned from the 1990 objectives is the power of the process. But by setting targets the critics were able to have specific things to attack which gave us a chance to improve the targets and the definitions. This process is very similar to the 1990 objectives: they started in 1978 with a meeting in Atlanta some 220 objectives were selected for 1990, many so bad that they could not even be measured in 1990. But most important, you have catalysed a process for refining, making corrections and promoting these ideas in the future. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |