I’m Dr. Nnaemeka Nnadi, a medical microbiologist developing scalable phage therapeutics and vaccine platforms to combat antimicrobial resistance and emerging diseases through a One Health approach.
Nnaemeka Emmanuel Nnadi
Karma: 886
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for this perspective. I’m very interested in collaborating. Please send the IRB documentation and any sample protocol or consent forms to eennadi@plasu.edu.ng.
I’ll review them and adapt what’s needed for local ethics submission here, and I can share practical notes on community engagement and sampling logistics for busy public venues in Jos. I also have prior field experience, I participated in house-to-house nasal sampling during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, so I’m familiar with operational realities.
If that sounds good, I’d welcome a short (20–30 minute) call to align on aims, data-sharing, and next steps. I’m keen to explore a pilot we could co-design and co-author.
Best regards,
Nnaemeka
Thanks, Jeff. Interestingly, I already have access to both a qPCR system and a Nanopore sequencer. I’d be very interested in exploring this idea further. I can also envision expanding the work to include sampling from poultry farmers, abattoir workers, and even members of the general public for broader epidemiological insights
An interesting piece. I would like to share a perspective as a scientist working in a resource-constrained setting. Pathogen-agnostic approaches are indeed critical for pandemic preparedness. But how can these strategies be realistically implemented in regions that lack centralized wastewater systems? Another pressing challenge is the cost of sequencing technologies: metagenomic studies remain largely inaccessible in low-resource contexts because sequencing platforms are still prohibitively expensive. What we urgently need are affordable, scalable systems that make pathogen-agnostic surveillance feasible beyond high-income settings.
After attending the Biosecurity Fundamentals course by BlueDot, two key themes stood out to me: the central role of pathogen detection and the importance of vaccines as preventive measures. However, translating these insights into practice has not been straightforward. Building collaborations and partnerships remains a challenge, particularly in regions like Nigeria where little is being done on pathogen-agnostic approaches.
After the course, I sought funding to conduct metagenomic studies in military settings in Nigeria, recognizing that most barracks have centralized wastewater systems. Soldiers, given their mobility and exposure to diverse environments, could serve as important sentinels for pathogen surveillance. I also proposed to study rivers, since much of the population disposes waste into them; however, concentrating pathogens from such diffuse sources poses significant technical challenges. Despite several efforts, I was unable to secure funding for these projects.
In my laboratory, we have access to a nanopore sequencer, which I believe is an excellent tool for real-time pathogen detection. Unfortunately, the high cost of consumables continues to limit its use, underscoring once again the urgent need for affordable solutions and locally adaptable innovations tailored to resource-constrained environments.
Given these realities, I would greatly value candid advice on how to frame biosecurity work in resource-limited settings in a way that not only addresses local needs but also makes it attractive to potential collaborators and partners.
In ecosystems without strong accelerators, it’s hard to find mentors who understand both ambition and local constraints. At the same time, many of the brightest minds in Nigeria leave academia or the nonprofit space due to survival pressures. From your experience, what mentorship structures and co-founder matching practices are most critical to replicate in regions like Nigeria to help leaders retain talent and build resilient organizations?
In places like Nigeria, systemic barriers (weak infrastructure, scarce funding, policy gaps) often mean impact takes much longer to show. From your own leadership journey, what practices or mindsets have helped you sustain vision and motivation over the long term—and how might these lessons translate for founders working in Global South contexts where “quick wins” are rare?
Looking back at your journey from Charity Science to Ambitious Impact, what’s one major strategic assumption you made early on that turned out to be completely wrong? How did that realization change your approach to launching new charities?
Your observation about the correlation between the modern animal welfare movement and secular or skeptical worldviews is astute and widely recognized. It’s a valid point that for many, a non-religious framing of our relationship with animals feels more intuitive and less burdened by historical baggage.
However, the effectiveness of any approach depends heavily on the cultural and social context. In many parts of the world, including in some communities within historically Christian nations, a significant portion of the population is deeply religious. For these individuals, a purely secular argument for animal welfare may not resonate as deeply as one rooted in their faith tradition.
For someone whose worldview is shaped by their faith, demonstrating that compassion for animals is not only compatible with their beliefs, but is a core expression of them, can be a powerful motivator. This is where reinterpreting concepts like “dominion” comes in. It’s not about ignoring the problematic history of the term, but about offering an alternative, faith-affirming understanding that emphasizes stewardship, care, and love for all of creation.
Ultimately, a multi-pronged approach is likely the most successful. Secular arguments can be very effective for one audience, while faith-based arguments can open doors and change hearts in another. The goal is to reduce animal suffering, and to achieve that, we should use every tool at our disposal, in a way that is most effective for the specific audience we are trying to reach.
Thank you so much for this kind and insightful message. I really resonate with what you’ve said. Like you, I see academia not just as a career but as a platform to shape future leaders. Many of our students come in with raw passion but little direction, and I believe one of the most meaningful things we can do is help channel that energy into impactful work. Your point that teaching can sometimes rival or even surpass direct EA roles in terms of influence is encouraging. It reframes the classroom as a multiplier of impact, which I find deeply motivating.
That said, one of the challenges in my context is that education in Nigeria is often weighed down by inadequate infrastructure and limited access to modern research tools. This makes it harder to fully unlock the potential of bright students who could otherwise thrive in global science and problem-solving spaces. Still, I believe even within these constraints, there is room to inspire, mentor, and connect students to broader opportunities. This is where I hope to make my strongest contribution within EA and beyond
It breaks my heart to see how often our brightest minds are stifled by circumstance rather than potential. With the right resources and support, these students could be leaders in science and innovation globally. The challenge before us is to ensure they are not left behind simply because they were born on the wrong side of opportunity
I have an idea that appears harmless but will help us see how normal phages will interact with mirror bacteria. I however do not know how to approach any of these funders.
Thank you for sharing this—it’s a fascinating idea. I haven’t read the detailed report you mentioned, but I’ve followed some of the broader discussions around mirror life. You’re right that conventional phages wouldn’t work against mirror bacteria because of the chirality mismatch. In theory, only “mirror phages” built from mirror-biological components could infect them.
The idea of mirror phages is interesting because, if mirror organisms were ever discovered or engineered, they might be immune to all our natural defenses and medical tools. In that context, mirror phages could represent one of the very few biological defenses available. Exploring that possibility would also stretch our understanding of what life could look like beyond Earth, which is scientifically exciting.My concern, however, is twofold. First, the technical barrier is enormous—we don’t currently have the capacity to build entire mirror-biological systems. Second, and more importantly, creating self-replicating mirror entities—whether bacteria or phages—would carry profound risks. Once released, they would operate on completely different biochemistry, outside the checks and balances of our ecosystems. We could neither predict nor easily contain their behavior, because no existing biological process in our world could break them down. That means even if they posed no direct harm to us, they could persist indefinitely, occupying niches, competing for resources, or interacting with the environment in ways we cannot anticipate.
Another layer of complexity is that phages are natural genetic transducers—they move genes between organisms. If mirror phages were ever created, we cannot be certain how they might interact with ordinary bacteria. While direct gene transfer across chiral systems seems unlikely, biology has a way of surprising us, and even small, indirect interactions could have unforeseen consequences. This uncertainty makes their study both intriguing and potentially risky.
So while the concept of mirror phages is highly speculative, it is also deeply double-edged: they could be our only defense against mirror pathogens, but they also raise the possibility of introducing a form of life that sits entirely beyond our current safety frame
Thank you for this kind and encouraging message. You’re right—it’s not always easy to share openly. To be honest, I don’t know how a lot of people will perceive me after now. But I felt it was important to speak from where I stand. Sometimes it seems that EA defines “doing good” in a particular way, and that can make it hard to see where other forms of impact fit in.
I’ve participated in some EA mentoring programs, and I found them valuable. At the same time, they often feel like they are preparing people for a job. But what happens in the event that you already have a form of impactful job, yet your impact is limited due to some structural or resource constraints? I wonder what mentorship would look like if it focused more on helping people overcome those constraints that limit their impact, especially in contexts like mine.
On the funding side, I agree with you—smaller funders are very difficult to find. That said, the Centre for Phage Biology and Therapeutics was able to get started with initial support from Emergent Ventures and ACX grants, and that gave us some momentum. Still, building biomedical research capacity here is extremely difficult—both in terms of infrastructure and sustainable funding. Sometimes the issue isn’t the strength of the idea, but rather finding people who really understand the Nigerian and West African context and are willing to invest in it.
Even with the hurdles, I remain committed to pushing forward, and conversations like this give me hope that there’s value in sharing the journey openly.
Thank you so much for taking the time to share this thoughtful comment. I really appreciate the encouragement and the reminder that the EA community values a diversity of perspectives and experiences. It means a lot to know that even if my path doesn’t perfectly align with the main cause areas, there is still space to contribute meaningfully.
Your words have given me a fresh sense of reassurance and motivation to keep exploring and engaging. I know there’s still so much for me to learn, and I look forward to growing through these conversations and from the experiences of others in the community.
Thanks for this thoughtful response.
Your framing of the “pitch” really resonates with me. I’ve also come to see that EA funders are usually looking for two things: either a very clear expected-value calculation (large-scale upside even if low probability), or a hits-based angle that justifies the risk. In my own applications, I have tried to emphasize both the problem framing (AMR, vaccine access, neglected pathogens) and the counterfactuals (what happens if no one funds work like this in West Africa).
Where I sometimes struggle is that the models of impact that are easiest to pitch are not always the ones that are easiest to pursue from here. For example, data generation without lab infrastructure is a huge bottleneck, and “outsourcing” samples to labs abroad doesn’t build the kind of capacity that would make Africa a real hub for cost-effective interventions in the future. So my pitch often ends up highlighting not just the potential impact of the science, but also the long-term community and capacity-building effects.
I agree with you that EA orgs may undervalue this community dimension. A grant that enables African researchers to stay in Africa and work on global health challenges doesn’t just have immediate outputs—it creates future multipliers by training students, sustaining institutions, and making EA more global in practice rather than just in aspiration.
And your point about cost-effectiveness is key. The “multiplier effect” of lower cost of living and local economic benefit is rarely factored into evaluations, yet it can make projects here 2–3x more efficient than equivalents in high-income countries.
I’d be curious—when you’ve pitched community-building or capacity-building angles, have you found particular ways of framing them that land better with funders?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree that pivoting can be useful, but I also believe that what we’re building at the Center for Phage Biology and Therapeutics has a unique and powerful kind of impact.
I often imagine the scenario of a patient who has run out of antibiotic options and is at the brink of death. In that moment, the clinician, or even the patient’s family, reaches out to us, sends us the bacterial isolate, and within days we are able to identify a matching phage, purify it, and return it for therapeutic use. That is not theoretical impact, it is direct, life-saving intervention.
Beyond that, we are currently working on evaluating our phage-based vaccines. If we succeed, we will have built the capacity to rapidly design vaccines against a wide range of infections. This could mean moving from treating individual patients to preventing outbreaks entirely. To me, that is another dimension of impact that one can achieve within a career.
So while I understand the argument that funding availability can influence career trajectories, I think the deeper question is: should external funding constraints dictate what problems we dedicate our lives to solving? For me, the vision of saving lives through phage therapy and building a platform for rapid vaccine development is too important to abandon, even if it doesn’t fit neatly into current funding prioritie
Thanks, Swan. My collaborator at the University of Waterloo, is workinging on AAV vaccine platform design. Our model of collaboration is this, his lab is strong in design, he does all the engineering in Canada and sends to me here in Nigeria for testing. Funding has been a huge challenge. At the moment We are evaluating Phage vaccine platforms too. Not many people fund this as well
Thank you for this excellent point. You’re right that scaling phage therapy faces several intertwined bottlenecks. From my perspective, the most pressing constraints can be grouped into three areas:
Manufacturing & Infrastructure
GMP-grade production is fundamental for moving from research to clinical trials or therapeutic deployment. For any phage to be used in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), it must meet basic characteristics such as identity, purity, stability, and full genomic sequencing to exclude toxin or resistance genes. These requirements can only be assured under GMP standards. Without such a facility, even well-tailored phages cannot legally or safely progress into clinical testing. At present, GMP phage facilities are very few and concentrated in Europe and North America. For Africa, this gap is particularly severe, as it prevents us from even generating the material basis for rigorous clinical work.Tailoring & Clinical Validation
You’re also absolutely right that robust pipelines for rapidly identifying, screening, and matching phages to infections are essential. Here at the Centre, we already have the technical ability and skilled personnel to isolate, characterize, and test phages against resistant pathogens, both for human and aquaculture use. Advances in genomics and automation are helping globally, but these technologies still need scaling. A further barrier is the very high cost of conducting proper randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are essential for regulatory acceptance but well beyond our current resources. We also lack connections to funders who are willing to support such large-scale trials in Africa, which is why we are actively seeking partnerships of any kind, from technical collaborations to funding and network-building.Ecosystem & Accessibility
Even if manufacturing and clinical validation hurdles are solved, many regions, including much of Africa- lack reliable electricity, cold-chain logistics, and policy frameworks to support routine phage therapy. These systemic barriers mean that innovation doesn’t always translate into patient benefit.
So in short, manufacturing capacity is not the only bottleneck, but in regions like ours, it is the first missing link. We have the scientific skills and technical know-how in place, but without a GMP-grade facility, including sequencing capabilities and reliable supporting infrastructure, those capacities cannot be translated into safe, scalable therapies. And even when such a facility exists, RCTs remain prohibitively expensive without external support. That is why we are actively looking for partnerships to help bridge these gaps and move phage therapy forward where it is needed most.
Thank you for this thoughtful question.
Phages themselves are relatively stable compared to many biologics, but transporting them internationally for clinical or aquaculture use raises serious hurdles:
Regulatory and safety barriers: Importing GMP phages from Europe or North America into Africa is a lengthy, uncertain process, and in many cases, they may not be permitted for direct therapeutic use. These have not been explored, but I can imagine how difficult it will be to get phage therapy across borders.
Customization to local pathogens: Phages are highly strain-specific. Local production allows us to isolate, adapt, and manufacture phages that actually match the pathogens circulating in our hospitals and farms.
Cost and logistics: Even if imports were possible, shipping live phage preparations under controlled conditions is expensive and delays treatment. In aquaculture, farmers need solutions within days, not months.
Sustainability and equity: Relying entirely on foreign production deepens Africa’s dependency on external suppliers. A local GMP facility builds capacity, jobs, and resilience within the region most affected by AMR.
So while global transport of phages is feasible, without local GMP capacity, Africa will remain locked out of real-world therapeutic use, which is why this facility is the critical missing link.
I’d like to learn more about what Charity Entrepreneurship considers a strong or ideal candidate. What traits, experiences, or motivations make someone a good fit for your programs?
I agree, Lauren. Beyond attending conferences, I believe researchers in Africa should be given the freedom to pursue high-risk, high-reward science, and be allowed to fail in the process. There should be a dedicated funding system that supports this kind of exploration.
The current mindset among many African scientists is shaped by the need to think in ways that appeal to external funders, who often begin from the assumption that certain ideas are unlikely to succeed. This stifles originality and undermines confidence.
Let me share an example. During my time at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) for a mycology course, I reflected on a major global gap: there is still no approved vaccine for any fungal pathogen and only a few immunotherapies exist. When I returned to Nigeria, I started exploring how available platforms—like phage display or mRNA—could be used to develop antifungal vaccines. Phages, in particular, seemed promising because they require relatively little infrastructure.
However, the challenge quickly became evident—finding anyone willing to support the idea. The absence of local funding and infrastructure meant I had to reshape my proposal to fit the expectations of external funders, rather than pursue the science as I envisioned it. Over time, this kind of adjustment constrains creativity and discourages risk-taking.
If we had funding structures and mentorship programs that allowed African researchers to think freely, take risks, and even fail without penalty, it would create an environment where truly innovative science could flourish. That freedom to think boldly is what is most lacking across the continent.