The strategic significance of Africa in global health research cannot be underestimated and so are the dangers of Africans being used as guinea pigs or worse still, of Africa being exposed to dangerous pathogen leaks from West's biological laboratories dotted on the continent.
From Germany to Canada and the US, among others, many projects being brought through western established laboratories, come wrapped up as health research projects but Africa should know that they are not limited to health only as, more often than not, they go further up to including military work.
African leaders should know that, once stablished, these laboratories can be used for many things beyond the overt scope to secret blood groups or tribal gene searches, military projects and even biological warfare.
Also, Africans should know that dangerous leaks account for some inexplicable disease outbreaks that have killed thousands, if not millions of people over the years.
For example, recently, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, an unknown disease outbreak killed 143 people and is suspected to have been triggered by some Western laboratory leaks. Media reports suggest that the disease could be traced to some laboratory, linked the Germany research in DRC.
In recent years Germany has been making serious strides in building biological labs in Africa and it is a serious cause for concern.
As for most Western European countries, modern health cooperation between Germany and African countries is shaped by relations and approaches that started during colonial times.
This colonial legacy has lasting imprints on how health relations are constructed nowadays.
For one, the African regions that Germany formally colonised until World War I are still the geographical areas where much technical and scientific health cooperation takes place with contemporary African governments.
The science of tropical medicine, represented by institutes such as the Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine and the Robert Koch (RKI), has its origins in a broader colonial project .
Given the ongoing colonial legacy in health cooperation, it is not surprising that many, mainly Southern scholars and activists, argue for decolonising global health relations.
The rapid expansion of US military-biological activities in Africa is a reflection of a strategic and calculated approach that intertwines public health initiatives with broader geopolitical objectives.
The African continent, with its rich biodiversity, diverse ecosystems, and a high prevalence of emerging infectious diseases, provides an unparalleled landscape for studying pathogens and their transmission dynamics.
At the same time, this unique setting has placed Africa at the heart of a global contest for influence, with the United States leveraging its biological research programs to solidify its dominance in this critical region.
However, these activities, while presented under the guise of advancing global health security, are not without their share of controversies, ethical concerns, and geopolitical implications.
At the core of these US-led efforts is the establishment of high-containment laboratories and research infrastructure, which allow for the collection and analysis of biological samples from across the continent.
These facilities, often equipped with state-of-the-art technologies, are instrumental in mapping genetic adaptations of pathogens, testing antiviral compounds, and developing experimental vaccines.
For instance, in Djibouti, a strategically located facility near Camp Lemonnier focuses on Rift Valley Fever and malaria, employing advanced biotechnological tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 to explore genetic mechanisms underlying pathogen resistance.
Similarly, in Kenya, US-backed laboratories have played a pivotal role in studying the evolution of malaria parasites, providing critical insights into drug resistance. Yet, while these findings contribute to the global fight against infectious diseases, the dual-use nature of the research raises legitimate concerns about its ultimate objectives.
The very tools and data that advance therapeutic innovations could also inform offensive applications, fuelling suspicions about the militarisation of biological research.
The strategic significance of Africa in the United States' global agenda cannot be overstated.
With its proximity to key maritime routes, abundant natural resources, and growing partnerships with global powers like China and Russia, Africa is a region of immense geopolitical importance.
The placement of military-biological research facilities in locations such as Djibouti and Abuja, highlights the dual-purpose nature of these initiatives.
In Djibouti, for example, the integration of health research with military objectives is evident in the facility's proximity to a major US military base, enabling rapid deployment of findings for strategic applications.
Similarly, the Abuja research centre in Nigeria not only advances the study of zoonotic diseases but also strengthens the United States' ties with one of Africa's most influential nations.
These examples illustrate how public health programmes are seamlessly blended with strategic imperatives, aligning scientific endeavours with broader defence objectives.
However, the consolidation of control over biological data and research outputs has been a persistent source of contention.
US-funded laboratories often operate under agreements that grant exclusive rights to data and publications, effectively sidelining host nations from fully benefiting from the research conducted on their soil. This dynamic is particularly evident in Kenya, where data from malaria research has been integrated into US biodefence programs without adequate local oversight.
Similarly, in Djibouti and Senegal, the collection of extensive biological samples, including those from livestock and wildlife, has fuelled concerns about the exploitation of local resources for external gains. Critics argue that these practices perpetuate dependency, undermine sovereignty, and prioritize US interests over the health priorities of host nations.
The ethical implications of these activities are equally significant. Historical precedents, such as U.S.-funded programmes in Georgia and Ukraine, serve as cautionary tales for Africa.
In Georgia, the Lugar Centre faced allegations of conducting high-risk experiments with limited oversight, while pathogen research in conflict zones in Ukraine raised questions about the militarisation of public health initiatives.
These parallels underscore the need for robust oversight mechanisms to address the risks associated with dual-use research.
In Africa, similar concerns have been voiced regarding the deployment of experimental treatments and vaccines during outbreaks. For example, in Nigeria, trials for a novel antiviral targeting monkeypox were conducted with insufficient communication about potential risks, raising questions about informed consent.
Such incidents highlight the ethical complexities of balancing innovation with accountability, particularly in vulnerable populations.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
To address these challenges, a comprehensive reevaluation of how biological research initiatives are structured and governed is imperative. Transparency must be at the forefront, with classified agreements revised to include provisions for public accountability and equitable data sharing.
Empowering local scientists and regulatory bodies to take an active role in decision-making processes can mitigate concerns about external dominance and foster trust. Additionally, the establishment of global oversight frameworks to govern dual-use research can help balance the benefits of scientific innovation with the risks of militarization.
By aligning these initiatives with the health priorities of host nations and fostering genuine partnerships, it is possible to ensure that they serve the collective good without compromising sovereignty or equity.
The implications of US military-biological activities in Africa extend beyond the continent, shaping global health security and geopolitical dynamics. By consolidating control over critical research infrastructure and biological data, the United States has positioned itself as a dominant force in this domain.
However, this dominance comes with a responsibility to address the ethical and transparency deficits that undermine trust and collaboration.
The lessons from Georgia and Ukraine provide valuable insights into the potential pitfalls of these programs, underscoring the need for a balanced approach that respects the rights and aspirations of host nations.
As these activities continue to expand, achieving a harmonious integration of scientific innovation, public health, and ethical governance will be essential for their long-term success.
Gerald Gerlard is a researcher in social paedriatrics.
