What’s lacking in the One Health approach at present? Integrated data systems and multidisciplinary approaches, say experts

When addressing zoonotic diseases, the focus should be on the interactions between systems rather than isolating diseases within specific groups, whether human or animal, say experts. Photograph used for representational purposes only
| Photo Credit: LAKSHMI NARAYANAN E

One of the biggest threats in the world today from zoonotic diseases — diseases that jump from animals to humans. With the rise of new and re-emerging diseases, it’s clear that addressing these risks requires a coordinated, cross-sectoral approach. It is here that the One Health approach, focussing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health is gaining traction.

But despite growing interest in and significance given to this by both Central and State governments, a true multidisciplinary approach and integrated data systems are still missing — and these are vital to the success of the One Health approach, say experts.

Take the case of the existing One Health panels—such as those set up by State governments in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu—these are often dominated by public health and veterinary professionals, with ecologists and social scientists notably absent, points out Abi T. Vanak, senior fellow and director at the Centre for Policy Design, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. Understanding the dynamics of zoonotic diseases, he underscores, requires a multidisciplinary approach. To truly address the complexity of One Health, experts in systems thinking and ecological linkages must be included to provide a comprehensive, 360-degree perspective.

When addressing zoonotic diseases, he says, the focus should be on the interactions between systems rather than isolating diseases within specific groups, whether human or animal. Understanding how pathogens flow through these systems and identifying the environmental conditions that enable their emergence is essential.

Soumya Swaminathan, chairperson of the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation and former Chief Scientist at the World Health Organization, also emphasises that a multisectoral action plan is essential to promote collaboration between sectors such as health, agriculture, and the environment. This approach is crucial to mitigating shared threats — in particular zoonotic diseases. Dr. Swaminathan also stresses that the One Health framework demands a coordinated effort to tackle the complex challenges arising from the interactions between humans, animals, and the environment.

And so, rebranding existing veterinary, human, or public health practices as ‘One Health’ without integrating broader ecological and social factors misses the point, says Mr. Vanak. For example, while genetic surveillance or wastewater analysis for zoonotic diseases may be valuable, viewing these from a purely public health lens doesn’t reflect the full One Health approach. A true One Health perspective requires examining the origins, transmission pathways, and environmental factors facilitating the spread of pathogens.

The need for surveillance and data sharing

Effective surveillance is key in this regard. Mr. Vanak notes that surveillance within One Health should function on multiple levels. Reactive surveillance responds to known outbreaks, while baseline surveillance monitors the prevalence of key zoonotic diseases in both wild and domestic animals. Horizon scanning, identifying emerging pathogens before they spill over into humans, is also crucial. This surveillance needs to extend beyond forested areas and into urban environments, where humans and animals interact regularly.

Currently, data-sharing mechanisms between the veterinary and human health sectors are weak. For instance, diseases like leptospirosis are commonly reported in livestock, yet there is little communication between animal health departments and public health agencies, leaving human health professionals unaware of potential outbreaks. Experts argue that strengthening national reporting databases—such as the Integrated Disease Surveillance Programme (IDSP)—by integrating animal health data and overlaying it with environmental and meteorological information would create a more robust, predictive system.

The Indian government is exploring ways to build structures that can enable integrated surveillance of both human and animal diseases and enhance outbreak investigations. While progress has been piecemeal, experts see it as a positive starting point. A national network of laboratories is also being planned to research vaccines and other medical solutions, though these initiatives are still in development. Dr. Swaminathan says that deliberations are ongoing regarding the creation of an integrated data bank, stressing that while too much information can be overwhelming, efforts are being made to organise and streamline the data effectively.

Looking beyond zoonotic diseases

Jaya Shreedhar, Senior Health Media Advisor, Internews, raises a concern that there is currently too much focus on zoonotic diseases and not enough attention on climate science. She calls for strengthened intersectoral collaboration, particularly between the environment, forestry, and climate science sectors, to address the broader ecological factors influencing disease emergence.

Mr. Vanak adds that other countries are already investing heavily in surveillance and analytics. India needs to build its capacity for spatially explicit disease monitoring, potentially using platforms like the Health Heat Map as a model. A centralised system for visualising and analysing disease patterns would enhance early detection and response, bridging the gaps between human, animal, and environmental health.