Foreign Affairs magazine is running an interesting web-only round-table discussion about global health policy questions.

This web feature, with staged replies from a handpicked set of experts, is a valuable extension to its bi-monthly magazine - with the commenters politely, but pointedly, sharing some different opinions. I love a dialogue (better yet a debate!) that draws out individual perspectives and differences in a more conversational pattern. It's a good example of an online extension to a marquee print product.

But it could be a lot more than a nice extension to the magazine - it could be a real destination for a global dialogue about these issues. The feature would be more engaging if they opened it up to a wider audience of people working on health issues, inviting questions and commentary from a global audience. They could allow people to add their own comments and questions (and handpick a few for the panel to respond) and greatly enhance the relevance of and interest in the discussion. I also think they'd raise the visibility and prominence of the discussion by being more open (and end up nabbing more new subscribers!) Yes - this would require more time/effort than the semi-static version they are posting online now - but nothing that a few interns could not help them with.

In brief, in the web feature, "Paul Farmer, Jeffrey Sachs, Alex de Waal, Roger Bate & Kathryn Boateng, and Laurie Garrett discuss Garrett's essay 'The Challenge of Global Health' and debate how best to help the world's poor and sick."

Garrett writes in her essay:

Today, thanks to a recent extraordinary and unprecedented rise in public and private giving, more money is being directed toward pressing heath challenges than ever before. But because the efforts this money is paying for are largely uncoordinated and directed mostly at specific high-profile diseases -- rather than at public health in general -- there is a grave danger that the current age of generosity could not only fall short of expectations but actually make things worse on the ground.

An example of the responses, from Jeff Sacks:

Garrett's article highlights a serious problem — the continuing health crisis in Africa — but responds with a number of false dilemmas and false choices.

And from Paul Farmer:

Garrett's critique is welcome as a part of that analysis, but it should be directed primarily at the badly designed programs — lest casual observers incorrectly conclude that good results cannot be achieved, when in fact they can.

Technorati tags:
Laurie Garrett
Council on Foreign Relations
Foreign Affairs
Global Health