Communicating the non-communicable: MSc students debate public health topics

As students in global heath, we all agree that our research has an intrinsic value, as it helps the advancement of science. Nonetheless, we are convinced that our contributions to the scientific field also generate an external, more tangible value, as they push forward the betterment of individual and social health. We have heard from seasoned academics and experts that for research to have an impact on society, not only must it survive the rigidity of scientific standards but it should also be transformed into policy or innovation. This transitional process carries the researcher into a complex setting where negotiating and communicating with non-academic stakeholders is paramount to integrate science into day-to-day life and generate the desired effect on the population. Given their utility, this set of skills has a growing preponderance in global and public health training programmes.

Conjoining the importance of communication skills in science and the uniqueness of Oxford tradition, the MSc programme in Global Health Science organises every year a set of debates in the British parliamentary format. The main purpose of this activity is to let us engage each other by debating global health topics of current scientific and social interest and controversy. A series of workshops led by members of the Oxford Union Debating Society precede the main event. For those unfamiliar with this debate format, the dynamic consists in two sides –Government and Opposition— debating a specific motion. There are a total of four factions: Opening Government, Opening Opposition, Closing Government, and Closing Opposition. Each participant gives a 5-minute-speech, during which the other factions may offer Points of Information –an argument or question—which may be accepted or dismissed by the speaker. By considering content, style, and strategy, the judges evaluate the persuasiveness shown by the debaters and rank the teams first to fourth. For global health students, the debates are quite a challenging and enriching activity that brings about a vibrant arena for impassioned discussion, which captures the essence of the programme itself.

As straightforward as it seemed, this activity helped me reinforce two specific characteristics. First is the ability of articulating an argument in a coherent, succinct, and persuasive manner; a competence which I was introduced early on my professional training, but found myself not to be as skilled as I thought I was. It is not enough to simply have the evidence supporting your argument; the architecture of the arguments—and counterarguments— has a direct impact on the audience’s comprehension of the underlying message. It is imperative that clarity prevails so that the core idea resonates despite the opposition’s counterarguments; agility, flexibility, and briefness complement the set. Secondly, is the ability of analysing and representing an idea that is contrary to personal opinions. This poses an unparalleled opportunity of understanding and empathising with such idea in a depth that otherwise would not be routinely performed.

To illustrate this point, I will use one of the debates that discussed the following motion: “This house believes that communicable diseases require more funding than non-communicable diseases.” Having a research background in diabetes and chronic kidney disease epidemiology in Mexico, my role as a Closing Government seemed to me at the least biased and, to be honest, daunting. If I consider myself informed about anything, it would be on the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). I’ve spent countless hours preparing slides, writing grant applications and lecturing medical students on the topic; my main argument would invariably be how disproportionate the increase of mortality and morbidity of NCDs in Mexico is and the paramount necessity of funding research and interventions to control the epidemic. The team with which I worked in Mexico strived every day to secure research funding and I had reluctantly accepted the fact that there would never be enough money for NCDs. The reader now can figure how hard the exercise of debating in favour of a motion that proposes cutting funding to NCDs was. Fortunately, it turned out to be easier than expected and extremely insightful. The position forced me to appraise the weaknesses in the argument that I had championed for so long whilst understanding how exaggerated was my perception of the importance of NCDs in the global context of burden of disease. Based on those weaknesses, I articulated arguments in favour of the motion I was supporting during the debate and constructed rebuttals or counterarguments for the NCDs case. This experiment made me aware of perspectives I had not considered before, like the caveats of how certain NCDs, such as cervical cancer, are, in fact, predominantly caused by a communicable disease, in this case, Human Papilloma Virus infection. This example illustrates how overlap across categories is understated, and perhaps pushing forward an agenda that only considers NCDs is not only ineffective but counterproductive. Sounder and more eloquent arguments were presented by my fellow peers, and, happily, I am sure that from now on I will certainly be more able to strategically underpin my arguments, either during informal conversations with friends and family, or during formal academic and professional presentations.

The debate was challenging and cheerful, and I feel sure to say that all of us performed better that we expected and enjoyed the event. As I talked with fellow students about our experiences with the debate, I realised that I was not alone in finding this activity useful and inspiring. For me, the most outstanding discovery relates to the experience of representing a perspective with which I was not familiar. To understand and strengthen an opinion, perhaps it is necessary to acquire perspective, and place distance from oneself, even if it requires to literally take the opposite stand.

Diego Aguilar is an MSc student at NDPH and has been involved in kidney disease research since 2012. After finishing medical school in his hometown Mexico City in 2015, Diego tracked into public health and epidemiology of NCDs, with a special interest in diabetes and diabetic nephropathy. He is a member of Kellogg College.