It is entirely natural that molecular biologists should enthuse about the prospects that their science proffers 8xHurrah for genome projects. Ivens, A. Parasitol. Today. 2000; 16: 317–320Abstract | Full Text | Full Text PDF | PubMed | Scopus (6)See all References8. Economists have, however, indicated that, with the cold war at an end, it is technology not ideology that now divides the world. Tropical diseases are among the greatest problems of technologically excluded regions but, because of the overall poverty of these regions, technological solutions are beyond their means. Sometimes, the technologies required are available abroad, but the countries are too poor to buy or license them on the necessary scale. Often, the technologies do not exist in appropriate forms, and poor-country markets offer scant incentives for research and development 9xSee all References9. These economic arguments are particularly relevant to the control of African trypanosomiasis, which affects only the rural poor.We can see this technology trap in action in the case of sleeping sickness treatment in Africa. The sleeping sickness drug Suramin is now also used for the treatment of HIV in the developed world, and its price has correspondingly increased. Cost might not be the only problem – persuading pharmaceutical companies to continue to produce drugs for the limited market that African trypanosomiasis represents is also difficult. Eflornithine is such a drug, developed originally as an anti-cancer therapeutic, but found to be effective treatment for T. b. gambiense sleeping sickness, particularly in those patients who failed to respond to Melarsoprol. In the West Nile sleeping sickness focus in northern Uganda, over 30% of T. b. gambiense cases now fail to respond to the Melarsoprol and, in these circumstances, despite its cost, Eflornithine would be the drug of choice. Sadly, Eflornithine is no longer deemed sufficiently commercially viable to merit its continued production.Africa has been subject to a difficult period of structural adjustment forced on its governments by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) 10xSahn, D.E. et al. See all References10. Africa now faces the problems of globalization, which include technological exclusion – genomics is a technology from which Africa could easily be excluded. What impact, in the present economic climate, can we expect genomics research to have on the lives and health of rural Africans in the foreseeable future? Suppose, for example that, as a result of the T. brucei Genome Project, a drug target is identified and this is developed commercially by the pharmaceutical industry. The likelihood is that such a drug will also be effective for other conditions, such as cancer, and, therefore, will be marketed in the developed world – the chances of it being made available to sleeping sickness patients (or more likely, to WHO acting on their behalf) at a price they can afford are minimal.How can poor people in technologically excluded countries benefit from globalization? Sachs 9xSee all References9 has suggested that the developed world should respond in the following ways: (1) recognise the technologically driven character of the global economy; (2) broaden international assistance; (3) engage multinational firms, first-world universities and scientific establishments; and (4) reform global development agencies (IMF, the World Bank and the various United Nations agencies).A new strategy is needed for technological promotion involving scientists, government and industry, with participation from rich and poor countries. The international community should make a firm commitment to promote scientific and technological capacity in poor countries, and rich countries should exercise restraint in the use of property rights. A better balance needs to be struck between incentives for innovation on one hand, and the interests of the poorest on the other.These points are particularly relevant to genomics initiatives. Rich countries are claiming rights of private ownership over genetic sequences. Genomics is so seductive a subject scientifically and, when we are dealing with diseases affecting the very poorest in the world, can surround itself with an altruistic halo that almost guarantees research funding. Parasitologists, in particular, might be expected to have a deeper understanding of the problems of controlling diseases in developing countries and it is perhaps within the power of the parasitological community not only to ensure free access, but also true benefit for the developing world from such parasite genome initiatives.