 I'm ill-rescientist and bioscience communications manager. But before we get started, I'd like to share a couple of things to our panelists. Please ensure that you are able to switch on your video. IT should be able to help us with this in order to have a round table discussion. And I'd also like to encourage all of you online to please insert your questions to the chat functions for our panelists. So can we all confirm with a thumbs up that we're able to switch on our videos? Great, thank you. OK, so earlier this morning, we heard our DG share the definition of one health, which is in line with the tripartite plus. But we've also heard that this space is large. And depending on who you speak to, the perspectives can vary. Today, we aim to speak with experts who can share their insights on this subject. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce our esteemed panelists. And we'll get them pinned so you can all see them. Eleanor Apondo, who's a professor at the Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Welcome, Eleanor. Jeanette Dower, who's a medical epidemiologist at Washington State University. Salome Bucacci, associate professor at the University of Nairobi's Institute of Anthropology. Jason Circelli, ecosystem ecologist here at Ilri Nairobi. And Eric Feve, professor of veterinary infectious disease and global health from the University of Liverpool and jointly appointed scientist at Ilri. Welcome to all of you. In order to kick off this session, I'd like to ask all of you a question. What does one health mean to you in the context of work that you do? We're going to start with Eleanor, Jeanette, Salome, Eric, and Jason. Thank you. All right. So just to give you a bit of background on what I do, my background is medicine, clinical epidemiology, and evidence-based health care. And my work typically revolves around researching evidence-based health care and evidence-based policy. So I'm pretty much into the health sector. I'm not really a one health specialist, but they are very similar principles with the transdisciplinary approach. One health is our transdisciplinary area. The same thing with evidence-based health care. And nowadays, when it comes to making decisions at both the international and national level, it's a request for integrated information to make decisions. Evidence about qualitative research, quantitative research, cost effectiveness from various sectors. So I would say those are the similarities at transdisciplinary approach in my work and similarities with one health. Thank you, Eleanor. Jeanette, over to you. Thanks, Ekta. So in my line of work, which is research on zoonosis, my emphasis would be when we look at a zoonosis, we're looking at the human health aspects as well as the animal health aspect. The question about vector-borne diseases is something we want to look into. When it comes to the environment climate change is something we also want to look into. So when it comes to one health research, I would say in my day to day, it's about humans and animals, but understanding that there's more to it, but the capacity to address all of it is a bit of a challenge. There's something Eleanor mentioned. She mentioned that she's not really a one health person. But if we have a one health outlook, I think all of us are supposed to be one health practitioners. But then understanding what our role is as a one health practitioner, it's something that I agree with Eleanor sometimes. It's not too clear what it should be. Thank you. Salome, over to you. Thank you, Ekta. So I'm a medical anthropologist. And my work involves looking at human behavior and how that impacts on various developmental issues. So I've specialized in medical anthropology in relation to infectious and zoonotic diseases. So my work has involved an interface of the integration between the various disciplines to be able to solve a particular disease, have worked together with veterinarians, medical doctors, entomologists, ecologists to try and find a solution to a specific problem. Initially it started as multidisciplinary, but increasingly it's becoming transdisciplinary where it's not just about each component coming in to do their bit, but all of us weaving whatever we are doing together and coming up with a common holistic solution. Thank you. Thank you, Salome. Jason? Thanks, Ekta. So I'm an ecologist and a conservation biologist. At this time, I mostly work in communal grazing lands, helping to improve management of those lands, mostly through combined institutional strengthening, along with improving the technical capacity of those institutions to manage grazing lands. And so I see one health and specifically the control of especially animal disease and zoonoses, parasites as a way of adding value to the rangeland management approaches that we use. And so I think it's a very significant area and we're still developing approaches where we can improve rangeland health at the same time that we are also improving the health of animals. And so but this is a very new area. But we see quite a few opportunities. And I should also note that in pastoralist rangelands, there is the very significant fact that the health of the ecosystem is linked very directly to the health of livestock and also to food security and nutritional security in these areas where milk is the main source of nutrition and food as well as for livelihoods economically speaking, that's most of the income in these areas. And so it's quite direct linked that you have in pastoral systems, which you might not have otherwise, where environmental health, which is different from ecosystem health, we have to separate those two. Environmental health is a public health concept. Ecosystem health is an ecological concept, the health of the ecosystem itself, whereas environmental health is everything that affects the health of people from the environment. And so, but in the case of pastoralist rangelands, the fact that the health of the ecosystem links to the health of people is quite significant and different from most farming and other ecosystems where human health is tangentially or indirectly related to the health of a forest or a cropping system. There are times when there are direct links, but generally not, it's generally not as direct. So thank you. Thank you, Jason. Eric, over to you. Thank you, Akta. And hello everybody. I guess what I would say is that I'm very much in line with the definition that was presented this morning, which is really that it's about integrating. It's an integrative approach that brings together the humans, animals, and the environment in the context of the health of each of those different components. So it's about the health of humans in the context of the health of animals and of the environment in which they live. It's the health of animals in the context of the humans who keep them or who live, share an environment with them. And it's the health of the environment that those animals and that those people use and how those different components impact and affect each other. And this at multiple spatial scales. So for me, the scale is really important. It can apply within a household. It's an approach that can apply at the scale of a village, of a community, of a county or a whole country, and then, of course, we go to an international scale. It gets much harder to conceptualize the multitude of linkages at that much more international scale. But for me, the key thing is that this approach requires us to think in an integrated and coherent way, which means disciplines need to communicate with each other and really crucially. And we heard this from George in his keynote speech this morning that someone asked him whether, you know, he drifted away from his disciplinary roots. And he said, no, he still has his disciplinary root. And I think that's really important that it's not about becoming a generalist. It's about remaining a specialist but putting your specialism in the context of everybody else's specialism and allowing your specialism to evolve and to be influenced by the specialist thinking and approaches of other people. Thanks. Eric, before we move away from you, but in terms of the specific work that you do, are you able to share where you use one health approaches? So thank you for that. The example I would choose is a series of studies that we've conducted where the unit of interest is, let's say, a household nested within a series of villages. And within those households, we're interested not just in human health or indicators of human wealth or animal health and indicators of animal health, but absolutely the relationship between what's going on in the animals and mechanistically how that impacts on the health and well-being of the people in those households. And though the transmission of the diseases that we were concerned with in that program influenced very heavily by the environment in which those people live. So everything coming together, we have to measure in the science that we do, we're measuring something at a particular unit and in that particular context, we chose the unit of the household. But those households are emblematic of relationships that are within themselves and within broader geographical scales. Yeah. Eric, thank you so much. I think over to Nicholas to get to Menti because we've heard some very broad perspectives and we'd like to hear from you online as well on what you think one health means to you and sort of the context applied. Nick. Thanks, Hector. Let's get the questions up. We are getting the questions up online so that you can engage the audience. So while we're waiting for Menti to pick up anyone in the panelists, please, how do you often apply one health approach in your daily work? Okay, I will answer that. So one health approach is though initially I say that I'm not a one health specialist, I just thought of an example of my recent work that where we attempted to use the one health approach. We were tasked to provide evidence for the ministry to make recommendations. And we had to look at data synthesizing information, look at existing systematic reviews and this was about COVID. So pretty much the studies that we looked at, some of them included human beings, others are animals. But then so synthesizing that was easy on our part but then the challenge that we had was in communicating the evidence the panelists were more interested in the information about the human beings. So I couldn't fault them because I think it was more a comfort zone that is their area of specialty. So that is a classic example of where I was using a one health approach but then it was very challenging to communicate that integrated approach to the decision makers who are to make a decision to inform a policy. Thank you, Eleanor. Nick, are we ready or do you need a few more minutes? Sure. In that case, Eric, we have a question from Martin Buynaina who asks how do universities train one health approaches? And are there some universities with courses in one health? Is this more effective or is it better if we were to have course units in the different disciplines that may be involved? Thank you. Well, there's several people here in the room who've undertaken courses in one healthy and maybe better able to answer that than me. But I think, yes, the courses that teach one health teach people to think integratively while building on their skills. So one health courses, I would say, tend to be at master's level when people already have a basic grounding in a particular discipline. And I think that's very appropriate. As I said before, we can't all be generalists. We have to be specialists but then apply our specialisms in ways that allow us to be more general with them rather than just be generalists in which case we don't have that much to offer. So those courses in one health teach people to take their specialist skills, to learn from a range of other skills. For example, a biologist learning from somebody like Salome about the way people think about their livestock or their own health and use that knowledge to guide the work that they do in their own specialist discipline. Thank you, Eric. Nick, are we ready to go into Menti now? Okay, so if you please answer the question that you have. So the audience, this is the response from the audience. They're saying that some say they're using one health in terms for education, community education, others in research. Some in outbreak investigation or surveillance, especially for zoonotic diseases. There we go. I think everyone can see the screen now. So a lot of people are saying in research. Nick? So most one health we can see mostly has been taken up at the research level. Some at the control still we're seeing that a lot has been coming through, especially for zoonotic diseases. And remember, we are saying that we don't need to narrow one health into only zoonosis. But also let's see what's coming in. Again, community education and disease risk, disease modeling, disease management and control, project appraisal, research, some, one of the veterinarians online is saying that they control disease at the animal level, especially for pets like rabies, anthrax again. So controlling disease spillover. So that's interesting because thank you, Nick. What's interesting is that it's all sort of very much so linked with zoonotic diseases and spillover, which brings me back to our panelists. I'd like to start with Eleanor and then to Jason. Eleanor, starting with you, what are some of the challenges that you're facing on applying one health approaches? All right, so in my work in research and evidence-based healthcare, we typically look at systematic reviews, look at or conduct systematic reviews. One common denominator, at least of all the reviews that are involved in or reviewed or seen other groups conduct is that when it comes to including studies, many authors tend to exclude studies done on animals or other exclude animal studies. So there you can see it's getting a disconnect of the information people are keen on. Even on infectious diseases, some zoonotic diseases, typically most authors will include studies conducted in human beings. And there are also such strategies and filters that can exclude animal studies. So when it comes now to actually not interpreting that data with animal studies excluded, that can be a challenge. So that is one aspect. And then as I mentioned, the reason to work on my team did on COVID-19 to inform policy on COVID-19, we came across studies that reviews that have included animal studies, but then in communicating that evidence to decision because of the panel, the panelists are more keen on studies that involve human beings. So again, there's a challenge in that disconnect in that people have preference for human studies, but I guess it's more about the audience, people who commission their reviews, conduct their reviews. It's more about the area that they are more comfortable in. So perhaps now integrated approach should be more talked about. And I can talk about our current project that I'm involved in, why we are tasked to develop an integrative approach to evidence-based healthcare and evidence-based decision-making, because right now you can't really make decisions on just one aspect of health. There's so many players that you have to consider. So recently again, another project was based on an integrative approach, but that was on other aspects of health, different aspects of health. Animal studies were not included in that integrative approach. So from these discussions, I'm getting to see the importance of also including animal studies in that integrative approach, not just thinking of the integrative approach when it pertains to human studies, but again, methodologies for that are still upcoming. There's some people who have conducted systematic reviews on animal studies, but again, I've been in presentations where when people are trying to present those studies, the audience are more of, okay, what are the methods? How do we synthesize information for human beings and animal studies? What are the implications? So still, yes, some people are appreciating one health, but many people still find that challenge in connecting or understanding this integrative approach, especially when it comes to not crossing the line between animal and human studies. That's really interesting, Eleanor. Jason, over to you for some thoughts. Well, I think the main value of the one health concept and approach is in action, and sure research is needed in order to develop those actions, but I think that's really where its main value is, is where you have actions that are addressing the environment, addressing animal health, addressing human health directly in each case, but in an overall integrated strategy. And that's where I see one health having big impacts in the real world. And so I think the biggest challenge as some of the other panelists have mentioned is moving from being multidisciplinary to being transdisciplinary and really working together in an integrative fashion, which is very, very difficult because all of you are speaking different languages, you all have different knowledge sets. Even the questions that you're interested in are generally different. And so I think it's that challenge means you need to pay more attention in especially project planning, developing the questions. It has to be from the beginning. And if it's not from the outset, then you're kind of piecing it together in a haphazard fashion, a patchwork as you go. And so it's not easy to take that time and develop truly integrative research, but that is where the strongest impact will come from. And I think working in that transdisciplinary space, it means everyone has to take others experience seriously. And so this is especially challenging when the work that I do is not just ecology, is not just rangeland management. I work in pastoralist systems. That means you have to consider the entire social and institutional system and you have to work with partners on the ground who are pastoralists and who represent pastoralists. And so taking that social context seriously is not something that everyone is ready to do. And another good example would be I collaborate a lot with economists and we speak very different languages, although we're all using English, of course. And so it's first of all about all getting on the same page, clear communication, making priorities clear and starting off the research development process or development intervention process on a good foot. Thanks. Thanks, Jason. Eric, if you don't mind from what you've heard from Jason and Eleanor, are you able to share some reflections or even some of your own thoughts? Thanks. One thing that I was thinking as Jason was talking there is that as researchers, but I think actually the research community is maybe not always the one we have to convince the value of this approach. It's as he's saying the implementation community to take the risk of stepping outside of what they're comfortable with and working with people they don't normally work with. Actually, let me take the example in Kenya here of the national strategy for antimicrobial resistance. We often use AMR as an example of this sort of thing but genuinely it's been grabbed by the horns as it were as an area where health, animal health and environment can collaborate and work together and whether the genuine value in doing that is clear not only on paper but in the outcome of that joined up approach. So I think it's about risk taking to some extent for those communities who aren't necessarily comfortable with stepping outside of their disciplinary expertise. Maybe the funding is difficult. Maybe the culture is just not there to do that. To look broadly outside of where the work normally gets done and try and be more inclusive with other disciplines and great things come of that. And I think AMR is a good example here in Kenya but before AMR the establishment of the Zoonotic Disease Unit was a major bold step by government to create those linkages which had very significant outcomes in terms of developing policy for disease control in terms of integrating the way surveillance was being done for a multitude of different issues. It did tend to focus on Zoonoses. It was the Zoonotic Disease Unit after all but I don't think there's any shame in that at all. And they blazed the trail for what's now happening with AMR and which will potentially happen for other issues too. Thanks. Again, sorry, before I move away. So just to ask, do you believe that these establishments that were set up are re-evaluating or have they already started to ensure that there's more of an integrated approach? Well, in the case of those institutional setups in Kenya at least they were established with that integrated approach at the very core of what they do. And they've done that extremely well. Thanks, Eric. Back to Nick for a mentee question, please. What challenges do you face in applying One Health approaches? We'd like to hear from all of you in the virtual space. All right, having listened to all of us and how we are applying One Health in our different spaces it would be nice to hear the challenges that we encounter often in our day-to-day work. So please share your opinions on mentee or are there no challenges that you encounter and how do you handle the challenges if you can? Yeah, so from what you are saying what is coming up is that there is an issue of communication and not only communication but also getting the idea across the board between the different sectors. Silo mentality by the individual partners in the One Health framework. Some challenges are very specific that they can't work with the medical officers, I don't know why. Competing priority is an interest by the different disciplines. Let's see what you're getting on. Ignorance of the wider picture, I don't know from the individual disciplines or ignorance about what you are pushing across. Technical jargon, I think maybe because of the different disciplines involved. Misconception, overstepping. Maybe Hector will ask our panelists how much they can step in when people are collaborating. There is also the issue of fear, overstepping when people are collaborating. Yeah, funny enough, they say the vets and medics are hard to work yet often they've said they are the ones who have been taking the One Health approach. They have been at the forefront. Yeah, so generally I think and we can still get on the comments. We are now at 75 but since communication is the issue here and different disciplines, so keep sending in your inputs and then we can have it to, we can throw it to our panelists. All right, over to you Hector. Thanks, thank you so much for all of your comments. We'd like to go back to the panel session now. And this time we'd like to hear from Jeanette and then Salome. So Jeanette, starting with you, how do you believe we can bridge some of these gaps and improve transdisciplinary activities? So some of these challenges that we've mentioned in One Health research, I think they're a mirror of what we see when it comes to implementation of One Health strategies or projects in the public health sphere. So some of the things that we can do perhaps in research can be a roadmap for when the government wants to implement One Health strategies. What's coming out here from the discussion is that we exist in silos and there doesn't seem to be a platform where we can collaborate. And even when there is, we'd maybe focus on human and animal, then we forget the environment or we do human and the environment and then forget the vectors, forget the animals. But what I see is there is a possibility, especially in research institutes and I think universities, because they have the expertise in all of those areas. And so if they were to have a platform where you have the medical doctors, you have the vets, you have the ecologists, you have the entomologists, you have the parasitologists, some form of forum. And I guess this conference is one of them where people can come together and have a shared vision on research. So it's not that when it comes to RVF, the vets are doing their thing, the medical doctors are doing their thing, the social scientists are doing their thing and it's somehow by luck, we are moving in a certain direction, but it's not that we ever came together to have a shared vision on what we wanted to understand about Rift Valley fever. So therefore, the development of a research platform that allows us to collaborate, I think is an important thing. Also to break these issues of the silos, one of the issues we face is funding. So funding for human health may be quite a lot. Animal health will be slightly less, but if you look at the component that somebody could call One Health, you'll find that funding for that is much lower. But if we think of One Health as an approach, then it wouldn't make sense that our funder would fund One Health research to such a low extent. So it starts from there, I think our advocacy for what is important, us in the field of One Health research, we have to explain to the policymaker, to the funder, what is the relevant, what is the importance of One Health research so that they see its utility. And I think that also speaks to what Dr. Eleanor was talking about. So there are these systematic reviews that are done. There's the animal component, but people don't seem to be interested in it. And perhaps it's in the fault of the researcher in that the research is not geared towards policy question that the policymaker can relate to. So if we have a One Health research that is policy relevant, then perhaps then even when it comes to the review of evidence, people will be calling on One Health research. There's another element that's come out here quite strongly and it's the fact that we need to be collaborative. It seems to be that perhaps in a lot of settings, a One Health research or a leader, there are people with, I believe, a certain type of skill set, somebody who can manage to bring different disciplines together. I don't think that's something we assume, we should assume that everybody has the capacity to do. I think it's something that within pre-service training is something that we can build on so that if you have a One Health outlook, you must know how to engage with people from other disciplines, how to use the information that comes from other disciplines. There's also the question here, or some of the comments here that have been put up is, they feel like sometimes One Health is beyond their expertise, but One Health, you're not required to be an expert in everything. I don't think that's what the approach is about, but the approach is about having an awareness of some of these One Health issues, knowing what your role is, knowing what the role of other people are, and how to refer or to communicate or to call on those additional resources in order to either answer a particular problem or answer a research question. That's it. Thank you so much, Jeanette. Salome, how do you propose we go about bridging some of these gaps? I would like to share an example from a research that we are currently conducting on gender-inclusive vaccine ecosystem. And this brings in different disciplines to try and solve the issue of disease among communities and their livestock. So what has been happening is that each component has been running with their own component on their own. So for example, the veterinary team will go conduct their vet-related activities, come back, the social scientists go, come back, and everyone does that. But one occasion made us stop and think, this is not going to work. So the veterinary team was going to do a vaccination for goats, and when they went, they realized the turnout was very low. And they were wondering, why is the turnout low? And they were noting that they were just women, elderly women, bringing the animals. And before they went out for the field work, I had asked them, can we accompany you? Can we have one of our members from our team to accompany you to just bring out those gender issues and the social cultural issues? And they said, no, we have incorporated some questions in our questionnaire. But when they started the practice, they realized this is much way beyond what they had put on paper and what they were expecting. And so that evening, they called us and said, please come, we need somebody from your team to join us. And so once we started working together, we are already seeing that, and the same has also happened to us before we've been training on gender issues and the social cultural aspects. Then we realized questions come that involve veterinary related issues or other issues, and we can't answer them. So as a team, we've started working together, kind of gelling, such that when we go for an activity, we are all going together and we have kind of the same vision, but each component is contributing something to the whole, but it's a complete system, but each person is contributing something to that. So what I see is that as different disciplines, when we look at one health, we think one health is usually, so long as there's somebody doing a specific thing, the vet, the health, the ecosystem related issues, we are good to go, that's one health. But it's more about the gelling. How do we gel all these things together? How do we fuse the expertise from the vet, the expertise from the ecologist, the ecosystem experts, how do we incorporate all those aspects so that then what we are bringing out is a holistic solution to improve the well-being of not just the humans, but also their animals and the ecosystems. So for me, I see this as the aspect of also looking at best practice. Do we have some of the research where one health has been well-engrained and the outputs are there for us to show that this can be documented to showcase that this can actually work and that it may not have to cost so much, but if some of those teams or this best practice has been achieved with minimal engagement, because we are now, when you go together, you ride on the resources are minimal rather than each team going at different times, but you save on the resources. So that again is minimal, but you achieve great outputs. So having best practice and then also just the key thing is still that coordination, coordinating, collaborating and communicating across each of the disciplines and looking at it within the wider context. And this is the local context in which we're working because if we do not take that into consideration and involve the communities we are working with, then whatever we are doing may not, we may not get uptake and adoption in the community. Yeah, so those are my thoughts. Thank you so much. I like the thinking that it's about a journey and fusing all these various expertise together. Jason, can you share some reflections from what you've heard or even share some of your own ideas on some of the challenges you've faced? You know, one thing that I've been thinking about just now is timelines and you know, medical science, you give a treatment or you stop exposure to a threat and you expect the benefit to be immediate, right? Which it generally is. The same in veterinary science and probably you all could come up with a lot of examples why I'm wrong about that, but it's much more technical, the results are much more immediate. When it comes to land management, there's always a big time lag, you know, and that could be a relatively short time lag. So let's say if we wanna talk about carbon sequestration under improved forages. So to take an example for my work, if this is in a humid highland region in Africa, then you know, within three years, we could measure a significant change in the carbon stock as a result of planting that fodder instead of an annual crop. And whereas if I'm in a dry rangeland, if three years is far too short, you know, you're looking more at 10 to 15 years. And so, especially in the 15 being more on the drier side, you know, deserts like Turkana here in Kenya or the Chalbi Desert, you know, very dry areas, you simply don't have, you know, a desert means you don't have a lot of rain, right? So things grow slowly, which means carbon is added to the ecosystem slowly, especially the soil. And so I think realistic expectations about what results you expect and when is a really key element. So, yeah, I wanted to bring that point up. And it's also, it's not only that the timeline is longer, the gains are perhaps, you know, not as guaranteed. And there's always a risk of backsliding, although there's a risk of backsliding in the case of any action. And it involves a lot more, all of these integrative factors, especially at places as complicated as pastoralist rangelands, of course. But, you know, you could say a lot of the same things about, you know, human grasslands here in the Highlands, for example. And there's still a lot of other factors that come into play there in terms of the actual land management. If you're going to improve the environmental benefits to public health, or reduce the downsides of environmental conditions to public health, that's, it's gonna take longer than administering a vaccine or, you know, something that's faster like that. And I'm not reducing all veterinary science or medical science to vaccines, obviously, but I think everyone can see the value in that example. It's a lot more complicated when it comes to the ecosystems. Thanks. Jyxen, thank you so much and thank you to our panelists for that really comprehensive discussion. What we'd like to do now, because we have a few minutes, is try and take some of the questions that have come through in the chat box and feel free to put your hand up or jump into our panelists who wants to answer that. We have a question that said health veterinary services and environmental health services are devolved functions here in Kenya. So are there any thoughts on how to spur discussions and engagements with county governments while aware cognizant of competing needs? Don't jump at once. So it is Dr. Moturi still in the room. I think you'd be really good to lead on that because my feeling is that if you want something to be done, you have to provide a platform for people to move in that direction. So the same way we thought there should be, when it comes to diseases, we need to have an approach that looks at both human and animal health. And then there was a zoonotic disease unit that was developed. Somebody would argue then, is this reflected all the way to the county level such that when you respond to outbreaks or there's an issue, you have both the medical doctor and the vet responding to it. And then if we want to incorporate the environment, I think the first one, because ZDU was leading the way in this, in ZDU, do they have an environmental health person on board? And if they do, what has the experience been? Because I think that would be interesting to see how it could be replicated in the counties. Thank you, Jeanette. We had a question on mentee that said, is one health sampling each domain or is it more? And if it is more than just ensuring that you've sampled from each of the domain, then what is it? Yes, go ahead. My name is Mark Meninge. I just wanted to jump in on the ZDU's role and the establishment of the county one health unit. So in the recently developed one health strategic plan, what we are proposing is what we call the county one health units. And this initially had been piloted by the CDC about 2015, but then we'd support from other partners. We are having an opportunity to learn from what the Kenya Red Cross has done in about nine counties in the country with their CP3 projects. And then what we have developed, of course, we're supporting the ZDU is a county one health curriculum, which actually trains people at the county level using standard one health approaches, but at the same time actually trying to borrow governance that is at the top level of the ZDU to replicate what is happening at the national level and try to see on how we can integrate this at the county one health steering committee. Some counties have gone further and developed their one health policies, but then we see this sort of an approach that can gain momentum from the county level and coming up so that we might have a one health policy that has a governance framework, which looks at the coordination actually coming all the way from the top to the developed units. So that's what I think I'll be talking in the last day in one of my presentations. Thank you. Mark, thank you so much. We look forward to hearing a little bit more on that, which brings me to the question that we were asking earlier in the mentee, which was, is one health just sampling each of the systems or is it more than that? And if it is, then what does that entail? Yes, I mean, it's not even sampling in each of the domains. I think if we're talking about research, we sometimes sample, sometimes we collect other types of data, metadata about the individuals, about the environment in which we're working. And one health might simply be collecting the right additional data to go with your sample from an animal. It doesn't necessarily mean you have to also sample from the human and also take a soil sample and a leaf sample and an air sample. It means putting what you're doing in the context of everything else, not necessarily trying to collect something from everything else all of the time. If that's what we were doing, it would be an endless circle and it would never end and we would end up with so much data, it would be very hard also to understand how those different data are linked to each other. But it's about context. If I'm collecting this, how do these other things that exist in the universe where this thing that I'm collecting comes from, how do those things influence the result that I find? And that's why it's an approach rather than a discipline because we have to conceptualize what we're doing in a broader context without trying to do everything all at once because if we do that, we'll be nowhere. Thank you, Eric. We have another question saying collaborative approaches need time, energy and long-term commitment. How can institutions and funders better support one health approaches? Eleanor, would you like to take that? That's a challenging question, Hector. Quite challenging. So collaboration, it has even been put a lot on the mentee that collaboration is a challenge. The silo culture is a challenge in many institutions. And I know I've been in many forums in evidence-based decision making where again the same issue of silo mentality is constantly raised, constantly raised. So I think it's just making small steps, such as a collaborative research. And for example, I just am biased towards the work I do when it comes to decision making, making sure that those other panel cut across different sectors and areas. So that really helps. For example, I've been involved in other projects. We have panelists who are very diverse. So that really helped in just contextualizing the work and the collaborative effort was really amazing. And it was very interesting how the views of these group are so different, yet everything was extremely important. So institutions and groups have to be intentional. They should not sit back and wait for it to happen organically. Many people talk about it and hope that it'll happen organically. So people have to be intentional from researchers, even from funders and funding calls, being intentional on that type of research. And not to say that nothing is being done. I know I've come across some funding calls where the funders have stressed for this particular call, we expect a transdisciplinary approach. So the teams that were successful are those that were successful at presenting that transdisciplinary team and approach. So not just about the team, but the approach and the skill set that the team was bringing to the table. So that's all I can say about that, but it's a very difficult question to answer. Eleanor, thank you so much for trying to appreciate that. So we'd like to close by just sort of saying that yes, it's a challenge. We've heard about the challenge. You have shared all the challenges as well. But if we continue to keep going at it as Salome pointed out, this is about the journey. And hopefully through training and effective communication we'll all be able to be better one health advocates. On that note, I'd like to thank the panelists for participating, thank you very much. And over to Nick for another mentee, thank you. Thank you very much, Hector, the panelists and also our attendees for that. So we love our final question, our final mentee discussion where we'd want to hear how the one thing that you do differently after listening to all the talks, the panel discussions and all the emerging thoughts from this in collaboration, funding, communication and from all the insights that we've had today. How the one thing, only one thing that you do differently in while conducting your one health research. Yes, somebody says they'll approach it differently. They'll promote more teamwork, avoid the silo thinking, they'll consult with other disciplines, communicate effectively. Somebody says they'll speak more about the environment. Jason, are they resonating with your thoughts? They'll speak more about while doing one health, they'll speak more about the environment sector. They'll involve the community, very important like we saw for the NAROC study, to collaborate and collaborate more and they take joint interventions. Yes, that's very good, not just do an intervention and walk away. Some will champion for one health. Yeah, so generally we are getting, we're getting a feel that people will now communicate more, collaborate more, engage with each other and communicate better. And I think to our session leads, I think this was one of the outcome that they were looking for. So I'd welcome Dr. Leigh Ann and Dr. Thumbi to close. Karibu. Great, so I think we've come to the end of a really exciting day and there's certainly been a lot of things for us to take away and think about. One is that we're on a journey, that we can do things better and we need to communicate and collaborate. And I hope that this conference and this forum has been one of the ways in which we start to do that. Thumbi, is there any reflection from you? I think the first one is just to appreciate that we have had more than 300 at any single time people attending these sessions, which I think is fantastic given the current status. So I think you're really taking advantage of the online opportunity. The talks have been fantastic and I really enjoyed the discussions coming from the panelists this afternoon. And I think one nice thing I noted is I don't think any of the panelists is a bit, which is finally people who are not necessarily vets, you know, so impressive, which is great. Excellent, yes. I think despite the times of pandemics and COVID, we've certainly shown today that we can have an interesting and stimulating discussion with a lot of participants online. And we really thank everybody who's been able to join, give their valuable time to being here in person or being online and to all our esteemed panelists, speakers, those who provided these really wonderful flash talks. Anyone who wants to catch up, go back over presentations, please keep an eye on our website. The recordings will be made available there towards the end of the week. Keep engaged with the conversation through Twitter and we very much look forward to seeing you all again tomorrow for our next discussions where we're going to deep dive on mainstreaming gender in one health and looking at our capacity strengthening requirements.