Connect with us

Features

Sarath Silva googly gives CBK year less than expected, Helping Hambantota

Published

on

Trips to Washington for IMF and World Bank meetings, bargain book sales

We were in the beginning of the year 2005 and the next Presidential election was coming ever closer. CBK had taken Chief Justice Sarath Silva’s advice and had taken oaths as President for the second time soon after the assassination attempt in 2001 in the belief that the balance period of her first term would be added to the tail end of her current tenure. Imagine her consternation when it was held that her second term ended exactly five years after her second oath taking.

It was a double blow in that her faith in Sarath Silva was shattered and her plans to undertake a year of reforms and groom a successor were now stymied. Sarath’s decision was tailor-made for his friend Mahinda Rajapaksa for if CBK had another year she may not have selected him to be the standard bearer of the PA in the forthcoming Presidential election. At this stage with Lakshman Kadirgamar’s demise, the odds on favourite was Anura Bandaranaike. But he was getting deeper into the cups and was not as proactive as his erstwhile protege MR.

The MR camp was busy demoralizing Anura. At the SLFP convention held in Kurunegala there was a well orchestrated hooting when Anura arrived on stage. Day by day pressure was brought on CBK to turn to MR and she was not helped by Anura’s reputation for drinking and indolence. No one knew that he had developed a cancer in his liver which Tissa Vitarana – a superb doctor, told me was caused by excessive drinking. The UNP which worked hand in glove with Mahinda to embarrass CBK now discovered that their favourite SLFPer (MR) whom they had nurtured could become a formidable candidate.

They filed a case through Kabir Hashim challenging Mahinda’s conduct in setting up “Helping Hambantota”, as a fund to collect money for the rehabilitation, presumably, as its name indicates, of Hambantota District. If found guilty he could have been imprisoned for four years as Sarath Silva proclaimed in retirement many years later. The “Helping Hambantota” fund created a dilemma for the Finance Ministry. Only the Treasury is entitled to set up special funds and when I was questioned about it in Parliament I had to frankly admit that “Helping Hambantota” was not properly constituted.

However MR’s Secretary Lalith Weeratunga had managed to get a letter from the Treasury stating that they were aware of this fund which proved to be a sufficient handle to save Mahinda. Kabir Hashim not only lost his case but was reprimanded by the CJ. He narrowly escaped being thrown in jail instead of MR.

Alternate Governor

As a prelude to a budgetary exercise the Ministry of Finance undertakes many discussions about foreign financial contributions which help in formulating our “foreign exchange budget”. All such inflows are depicted in the national budget under the relevant subheads. These discussions are held with both multilateral and bilateral donors. Among multilateral donors we transact business mainly with the IMF, the World Bank group and the ADB. In all these cases the Minister of Finance is an Alternate Governor who attends the annual sessions of these institutions.

The IMF-World Bank meetings are held twice a year as spring and autumn sessions and ADB meetings are held once a year. All these institutions have a practice of having their meetings in Washington and Manila as the case may be. However on every third year meetings are held in a member state. I was the Alternate Governor of these institutions from 2004 to 2015 which adds up to a considerable amount of travelling to all parts of the world. While innumerable ‘pilgrimages’ were made to Washington and Manila during this time, I also travelled to Ankara, Nagoya, Tokyo, Astana, Hyderabad, Singapore, Bali, Shanghai, and Bangkok for these multilateral sessions. Since most Finance Ministers of the world tend to attend these meetings, we also had fruitful meetings with many of them on bilateral issues. It was a good opportunity to review existing projects as well as discuss new requests. Many Ministers were accompanied by heads of their organizations that funded development efforts in the Third World. For instance the heads of the Saudi Fund, Norad, CIDA, UNDP, the Gulf Fund and many others who were funding Sri Lankan projects were present for a review of our joint efforts.

The agenda for IMF meetings was not too complicated. It began with the address of the heads of the IMF and World Bank followed by an overview of the global/regional economy and projections for the future by its Chief Economist. During my time, the post of Chief Economist was held by Raghuram Rajan, the distinguished scholar of Indian origin from the Economics Department of the University of Chicago. He was the first economist to predict the impending economic crisis of the late 20th century beginning with the failing housing market in the US.

He later became the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India at the invitation of Finance Minister Chidambaram. However having fallen out with the Modi government he went back to Chicago. We then had a meeting of the G40 which was a grouping of the developing countries. Here the concerns of the “receivers of aid” were articulated in the presence of the MD of the IMF and the President of the WB. At these meetings I was invariably asked to intervene by our group. Accordingly I characterized our plight as those of “innocent bystanders” whose economies were hit by the financial crisis which enveloped the developed world.

It must be remembered that this was the time when the global financial architecture was shaken to its roots following the American financial debacle. It was aptly described as a system “too big to fail”. The G40 meeting was followed by a luncheon hosted by the Indian Finance Minister for the South Asia group. Our geographical group comprised India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. In my time our hosts were P. Chidambaram and Pranab Mukherjee who were the relevant Finance Ministers of India.

Afterwards many bilateral meetings were held on the sidelines of the main meetings. We invariably had meetings with India, the Gulf States, US, Japan, China and the Nordic countries where we could discuss progress in the projects underway funded by those countries as well as future funding for projects which had been submitted by the External Resources Division of the Finance Ministry. The grand finale was the plenary session where member states could make their interventions. Usually only eight minutes were allocated for each country.

The meeting ended with the formal responses of the heads of the IMF and WB to the concerns raised by delegates and a “family photograph”. I also had short “one to one” meetings with the MD of the IMF and the head of the World Bank. When De Rato the MD of IMF retired I called on him and presented him with a few packages of Ceylon tea and thanked him for his support extended to us particularly during the Tsunami. He remarked ruefully that I was the only representative of the developing countries who came to bid him farewell.

Country meetings

Perhaps the most important of our meetings were the “country meetings” when the senior officials of the IMF and WB reviewed the status of our economy as well as country projects spanning all aspects of the aid programme. I began the meeting with an introduction which reviewed the economy of Sri Lanka since our previous meeting. This was followed by a statement by the Governor of our Central Bank Nivard Cabral or his representative. One of the senior most officials of the IMF – Dr Kato a Japanese national, would then respond and turn over the discussion to the divisional leaders who would take up specific issues in project implementation. For example the Director overlooking education projects would review their activities in Sri Lanka while the Director in charge of budgetary reform would present his divisions analysis of our current budget and their recommendations for the forthcoming one.

It was an interesting high level discussion since we had come to know each other over a period of time and could speak frankly about our concerns. At the end of these discussions I would host the participants for a lunch usually at a top class Chinese restaurant close to the IMF building. Since we had an officer of the Central Bank attached to the IMF in Washington he took care of all these arrangements. He took care to invite a few other senior officials attached to the Maaging Director’s secretariat for that meal.

These and other public relations operations, including arranging a tour of our tourist hotspots when they were on mission in Sri Lanka, helped in smoothing our conversations and we were able to create a sense of goodwill which was very useful when it came to gaining the assent of the governing board which depended heavily on staff recommendations.

IMF ideology

A constant refrain about the IMF is that it follows a neo-liberal economic agenda. Since the West led by the US are the main shareholders of the IMF its Board usually toes a line which is favourable to Western interests. These interests include the regulation of the banking system and careful management of the global currency and exchange system which depended on US money supply and interest rates. Since the US dollar was the reserve currency of the world it held all the cards in the global financial game.

Part of our discussions were with the US Secretary to the Treasury and the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. When I first participated in IMF meetings the head of the Fed was Alan Greenspan [1987-2006] the legendary economist who dominated US economic policy for decades. He was followed by Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen. They all participated in IMF meetings and Yellen in particular had special meetings with Finance Ministers to warn them of the possible consequences for their economies due to changes in the monetary policies of the US. For instance when the US raises interest rates money invested in developing countries tend to flow back to the US. When the US Fed reduces its interest rates there is a reverse flow to the poorer economies which offer higher rates.

Discussion with IMF officials in Colombo

When it comes to developing countries facing economic crises the IMF helps “by offering loans, technical assistance and surveillance of economic policies”. Loans are conditional on the following of a mutually agreed recovery programme for which funds are released in tranches after staff reviews which are endorsed by the Governing Board of the IMF. Sri Lanka has had 16 such programmes but none of them have been completed because the Sri Lankan side has aborted them mid stream due to political considerations.

In countries which go to varying types of polls almost every year, leaders find it difficult to accept the bitter economic recommendations of the IMF and the Central Bank. This is particularly true of Rajapaksa regimes because an electoral loss meant that “their occupation is gone” to use Shakespearean language. Subsidies however deleterious to growth is sacrosanct in this country and governments of the day prefer to pass on the hard decisions to future generations even if it means the breaking of its understandings with the IMF.

However there are some critics who challenge the model of growth adopted by the IMF. ‘Ihey find an alternative in closed economies where consumption is curtailed through a regime of restrictions and production is more for a domestic market. The economic models of such closed economies (also called “fortress economies”) have failed in the last 50 years and with the fall of the Communist blocs and the new trade policies of China, such an alternative is now hardly credible as a viable economic solution. Russia, China and Vietnam are keen members of the IMF and they jealously guard their interests in a globalized economy.

Donor meetings

In 1978 Ronnie de Mel established the practice of holding an annual meeting with our donor community as a prelude to preparing the budget. Since the new administration under JRJ was popular with western countries there was no dearth of supporters from among non-Communist countries. This was best seen in the foreign financing of the giant Mahaweli scheme. A large amount of money was provided as grants while many of the loans were given on concessionary terms.

The funding of this “Jumbo”project – both bilateral and multilateral – was so extensive that it is unlikely that such funding would be repeated in the future. Germany, Canada, Sweden and the UK financed the building of dams in Randenigala, Rantembe, Kotmale and Victoria. Japan which wanted to join the bandwagon but could not be accommodated under Mahaweli, opted to donate a whole new TV system and a 1001 bed hospital in Jayawardenepura as outright grants. When Scandinavian countries and Canada drew up “short lists”of developing countries earmarked for foreign funding Sri Lanka ranked among the top three.

Donor meetings were held because it was difficult to manage foreign funding on a one to one basis. It was more feasible to bring our donors together with the External Resources Division of the Treasury for a three-day long meeting when project performance could be reviewed and new funds pledged for the coming year and sometimes even beyond on a three year cycle. The World Bank agreed to host such a meeting and its European office in Paris was selected as the venue.

Thus from 1978 Treasury officials and the Minister of Finance wended their way to Paris for this much anticipated donor conference. Pledges were wrapped up and the meeting concluded with a grand dinner at the Ritz hosted by Ronnie in which all heads of relevant financial institutions participated. This model was so successful that the World Bank prescribed such meetings for many countries which were on the “beggars list” for extensive foreign support. This procedure worked well under the JR regime but was reduced to a shambles by Premadasa who preferred private foreign investment particularly for his garment manufacturing enterprises.

Discussion with IMF officials in Colombo

It must be stated here that this strategy did not entail obtaining a range of loans which would come home to roost later. Funding was provided by private investors. Premadasa’s favourite official in the Treasury – the super efficient Civil Servant Paskaralingam and his handpicked Treasury officials managed to steer the foreign exchange budget to success as well as start many urban infrastructure projects which began to alter the Colombo skyline. But the raging war – LTTE in the North and East and the JVP in the South – put paid to Premadasa’s dream of making Sri Lanka economically resurgent like Singapore, South Korea and Germany – countries that he admired. He was no great fan, unlike JRJ, of the USA and UK.

When CBK took over the reins in 1994 she had to confront an ongoing northern war. Premadasa had by then physically eliminated the JVP and its top leadership. All CBK’s efforts to quickly solve the “national question” became a tragic failure which blighted her regime. It particularly affected her management of the economy which declined over time to zero growth. As Minister of Finance I managed to reverse this trend and achieve a five percent plus growth and a significant increase in per capita income.

Her presence at the Paris donor meetings enabled western countries and Japan to complain to her about the escalating war in the North and East. To add to the countries security concerns several senior ministers Kadirgamar, CV Goonaratne and Jeyaraj Fernandopulle were assassinated and she herself had a narrow shave – all highlighting the stresses in a war torn country which were noted by the donors. Her strategy of taking her deputies GL Peiris and SB Dissanayake to Paris backfired in that they were exposed to the details of our economic debacle and the persisting concerns of western donors.

As SB told the media later he and GL realized at these meetings that CBK could not meet the challenge of managing the economy and therefore decided to cross over to Ranil and the UNP. To add to the misery the Tsunami of 2004 derailed all her plans and called for a concerted effort to put our foreign funding on a sounder footing.

We in the Finance Ministry decided to take the bold step of holding the Development Forum in Kandy. Earlier an attempt was made by Japan to host the Forum in Tokyo. It was decided then to move the venue from Paris to Tokyo largely due to the initiative of Japan’s roving ambassador Akashi who was well known for formulating his “Akashi Doctrine”. According to this policy Japan pledged substantial funds for development if the countries’ domestic conflicts were ended. It had been tested and tried successfully in Cambodia. This approach had been welcomed by Ranil’s regime.

But the LTTE had pulled out at the last minute and the Tokyo meeting had to be canceled. Our decision to shift to Kandy was welcomed by the donor community. We invited Bill Clinton for this meeting and he responded positively by sending a recorded message through his “alter ego” Erskine Bowles, the son of Chester Bowles – the former US ambassador to India, who attended on his behalf. The Deputy Managing Director of the IMF Praful Patel and deputy MD of the ADB Li Jin (who later headed the China backed Asian Infrastructure Development Bank) also attended together with senior officials of the World Bank.

The Ceylon Observer newspaper reported “More than 150 representatives from over 50 countries and international donor agencies will participate at this meeting. According to sources, the Government aims to cut down the budget deficit for 2005 with the assistance from donor countries and agencies. Sri Lanka maintains a 5.6 percent economic growth rate even in the midst of its largest ever disaster”.

After the ensuing discussions in which attention was drawn to the need to increase funding for Tsunami relief and strengthening the peace process, more specifically P-TOMS (Post-Tsunami Opertionl Mnsgement Structure), the international community pledged three billion US dollars for reconciliation and reconstruction activity in Sri Lanka. The holding of the development Forum in Sri Lanka was welcomed by the donors and it was continued the next year in Galle. However with the change of management a few years later it was abandoned by MR and successive administrations. Those Finance Ministers preferred to have bilateral discussions by themselves with donors and their contractors which led to many accusations of corruption which became more strident by the day. Instead of donor meetings emphasis was placed by MR and Basil Rajapaksa on “unsolicited proposals”.

Sunday off

Sunday in Washington was a free day which we used to visit the bookshops in Washington and go to the theatre. There was a bargain bookshop near Dupont Circle close to our hotel which was patronized by our delegation. It had many rare books donated to it by publishers since the sales collection went to charities. It was manned by students from top universities who were only too happy to engage in discussions about new books. Another memorable event was the closing down sale of the famous Borders bookshop since the company had gone bankrupt.

All books in the shop were sold at one dollar apiece. Borders bookshops in downtown Washington and Georgetown were stormed by “egg heads” who bought up not only books at a dollar each but even the shelves and safes which were on offer in the fire sale. I also visited my Peradeniya friend and colleague Professor HL Seneviratne and his family in Charlottesville, Virginia. Once I visited Stanley Tambiah my old teacher at Peradeniya. He had retired from teaching at Harvard and was installed in an old folks home by his ungrateful family. That was my last encounter with our much loved teacher from the fifties since Tambiah died a few months later.

The practice then was to attach a senior Central Bank officer to the IMF for a two year stint. It began with AS Jayawardene who later became Governor of our Central Bank. He was followed by Karunaratne, Jayatissa, Herath, Nandalal Weerasinghe, Dheerasinghe and Ranasinghe (the last three of whom we referred to as the “The three Sinhas”- lions). They all entertained us to dinner in their homes in Maryland. There were a large number of IMF and World Bank professionals who lived close to each other in the district.

It was no surprise therefore to learn that the Democratic Senator representing Maryland was Christopher Van Hollen Jr., the son of Chris Van Hollen, a long serving US Ambassador in Colombo who was a good friend of mine. Senator Van Hollen had his early schooling in Colombo. He was a Sri Lanka supporter who was always available for meetings with us. I was happy to present a book edited by his father to mark the historic relations between Sri Lanka and the USA to mark the bicentennial.

Our Ambassadors in Washington also assisted us. They participated in our IMF-WB meetings and arranged receptions so that we could meet IMF-WB staffers socially and also meet important US politicians and officials. As they say, Washington “inside the beltway” is the happy hunting grounds of politicians and bureaucrats. I particularly remember an Ambassador joining me for a memorable concert by Ravi Shankar and his daughter Anoushka held at the Kennedy Centre. Though our work in Washington was arduous and we had to burn midnight oil, we also had a lot of fun during our visits to the US capitol.

(Excerpted from vol. 3 of the Sarath Amunugama autobiography) ✍️



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

El Niño under way and threatens weather extremes, scientists say

Published

on

By

El Niño – the natural Pacific weather pattern that pushes up global temperatures – has officially begun, US scientists say.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has declared that El Niño conditions are now under way in the tropical Pacific, with sea surface temperatures having risen sharply in recent months.

Many forecasts suggest this could end up as a so-called “super” El Niño, and even be among the strongest ever recorded.

Coming on top of decades of human-caused warming, it could bring another record-hot year – most likely in 2027 – with disruption to weather, food supplies and economies running well into that year.

This announcement by NOAA is not a surprise as forecasters have expected this warming phase, after the cooler “sister” pattern, La Niña, ended earlier this year.

Sea surface temperatures in the central and tropical Pacific have now passed the 0.5C-above-average threshold that US scientists use to define an El Niño event.

El Niño conditions developed over the past month, as shown by above-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the central to eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean,” the agency said.

NOAA has also seen the winds above the equatorial Pacific begin to shift – a sign that the atmosphere is now responding to the warmer ocean, not just the ocean warming on its own.

A graphic of two global maps with one showing in blue, cooler conditions in a key section of the Pacific in December last year, with a second one showing conditions in May this year, with red indicating a far greater amount of heat coming to the surface of sea.

What has surprised the researchers is how confident the computer models already are about its strength.

El Niño‘s intensity is measured by how far sea surface temperatures rise above average in a key zone of the Pacific.

A strong event is defined as more than 1.5C above average; a very strong one above 2C.

According to NOAA’s June outlook, “there is a 63% chance of a very strong El Niño during November-January, that would rank among the largest El Niño events in the historical record going back to 1950,” the agency said.

The three strongest events since then have been in 1982/83, 1997/98 and 2015/16.

Some of the latest US and European (ECMWF) models go further, showing temperatures in the tropical Pacific potentially climbing more than 3C above average by the end of the year.

But the US agency urged some caution on what their strength prediction implies.

“Even very strong El Niño events do not lead to the expected impact everywhere, but stronger events can more significantly tilt the odds in favour of expected outcomes.”

The bigger concern is that all this is happening on an already much hotter planet.

“We do need to worry about the impacts,” said Prof Adam Scaife, head of monthly to decadal prediction at the UK Met Office.

“The current El Niño is… riding on top of a substantial amount of global warming.

“This means that the actual temperatures in affected regions could well be unprecedented, as the warming from El Niño is being topped up by climate change.”

A very strong El Niño typically lifts global air temperatures by around 0.2C, releasing heat stored in the ocean into the atmosphere. That extra blast now lands on a world that is already setting records.

The year 2024 – the warmest on record – was boosted by an El Niño that was not even especially strong.

And despite the cooling drag of a La Niña event, 2025 still came in as the third warmest year on record, hotter even than the super El Niño year of 2016.

Line graph showing monthly global temperatures since 1975 compared with pre-industrial levels of the late 19th Century. Temperatures show a long-term rising trend - the result of climate change. But temperatures tend to spike in El Niño periods, shown in red, and fall in La Niña periods, shown in blue.

“At the end of this year and into 2027, we’re likely to see very high temperatures globally,” Prof Scaife said.

“In 2027, we’re likely to see excess heat on top of the global warming we’ve already got, and that could easily lead to another year above 1.5 degrees [of warming above late-19th-Century levels].”

EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock A farmer holds a small pale ear of corn, grown on his farm in Zambia, that was affected by drought, driven in part by a previous El Niño event.
A farmer in Zambia shows a small ear of corn grown in a field impacted by drought during a previous El Niño event.[BBC]

No two El Niños are alike, but the disruption is felt most sharply in the tropics.

Flooding is common in northern Peru and southern Ecuador, and can reach parts of East Africa, Central Asia and the southern United States.

At the same time, the risk of drought and wildfire rises across much of Australia, Indonesia and northern South America – hitting agriculture and global food stocks.

El Niño also tends to suppress Atlantic hurricanes, and forecasters already expect a quieter-than-average season.

“While that sounds like a good thing, for Central America that leads to a lot less rainfall and potentially drought conditions,” said Liz Stephens, professor of climate risk and resilience at the University of Reading.

Even the UK feels it, if faintly: El Niño can tilt the odds towards a mild start and cold end to winter, though the links are loose.

For many, the forecast is far from abstract.

“An El Niño declaration is not just another weather forecast – for millions of people it is a deadly siren to be feared,” said Mohamed Adow, director of campaign group Power Shift Africa.

“It means failed rains, dying crops, rising food prices, and families pushed to the edge yet again. In East Africa especially, this will land on communities already battered by droughts and floods in recent years.”

Japan’s Meteorological Agency (JMA) takes a similar view to NOAA, judging that El Niño conditions are present. It adds it is all but certain to last into the autumn.

Not every agency is ready to call it, though. Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) uses a stricter criterion, requiring sea surface temperatures to exceed 0.8C above average.

This week it said the tropical Pacific was “approaching El Niño conditions”, with central Pacific temperatures already crossing its thresholds, but it stopped short of formally declaring the event had begun.

It expects El Niño to develop later this year, and says it could be strong.

El Niño occurs every two to seven years and usually lasts about a year.

There is still no conclusive proof that climate change is making these events stronger or more frequent – but a warming world can supercharge their effects.

[BBC]

Continue Reading

Features

The Sniper Approach: Precision Medicines to Fight Cancer

Published

on

For a considerable length of time in the past, the global war on cancer relied on a strategy similar to carpet-bombing or shooting from the hip in a wider circle. Traditional chemotherapy, while lifesaving for millions, has always been a blunt and aimless instrument. It floods the body with medications that attack any cell that divides rapidly, and because cancer cells divide ever so speedily, they too are destroyed. However, those chemotherapy drugs also attack the healthy multiplying cells all over the body, including those in the hair follicles, stomach, intestinal lining, and bone marrow. It was a kind of an all-encompassing blunderbuss approach. The end result is the all-too-familiar gauntlet of severe nausea, loss of appetite, hair loss, bone marrow depression, as well as profound exhaustion.

But a quiet and profound revolution has been unfolding in the corridors of oncology. Western medicine is rapidly shifting away from this one-size-fits-all assault. Instead, we are entering the era of precision oncology: a paradigm shift where treatments are tailor-made to target the specific genetic and molecular aberrations lurking inside a tumour. In a telling analogy, modern cancer therapy is deploying snipers instead of grenades or carpet bombs. Nowhere is this revolution more visible or more successful than in the fight against blood cancers and lymphomas.

Decoding the Enemy: What are Antigens and Tumour Markers?

To understand how this new generation of medicine works, we have to look at the microscopic histological landscape of a cancer cell. Every cell in the body is covered in unique surface proteins, which act like microscopic identification badges. The immune system scans these badges to differentiate between one’s own healthy tissue and foreign invaders like bacteria or viruses. When any such protein triggers an immune response, it is called an antigen.

When a normal cell transforms or mutates into a cancerous one, its identification badges change. It begins to overexpress certain proteins, display mutated or altered versions of them, or throw out chemical distress signals. Scientists refer to these telltale chemical signatures as tumour markers.

In the past, two patients with the same type of lymphoma would receive exactly the same chemotherapy regimen because their tumour cells looked identical under a standard microscope. Today, molecular testing can reveal that Patient X’s tumour cells are covered in a specific antigen, while Patient Y’s tumour even lacks it entirely. Though the cancer has the same name, the underlying biology is completely different. By identifying these distinct tumour markers, doctors can now select a drug designed specifically to latch onto that exact marker, leaving the neighbouring healthy cells virtually untouched. It is akin even to modern drone technology.

The Breakthrough in Blood Cancers and Lymphomas

While precision medicine is making waves across all of oncology, its most dramatic victories have been won in haematological malignancies; the cancers of the blood, bone marrow, and lymph nodes. Blood cancers are uniquely suited for targeted therapies. Unlike a solid tumour in the lung or colon, which can be a chaotic, structurally complex mass of many different cell types, blood cancers often stem from a single, rogue line of immune cells circulating through the body. This makes it easier for scientists to isolate the specific “glitch” or antigen common to the entire cancerous population and then attack it specifically.

The Story of Rituximab: The First Smart Bomb

Consider the case of a Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, a cancer of the lymphatic system. A vast majority of these lymphomas arise from cancerous B-cells (a type of lymphocytic white blood cell). Scientists discovered that these malignant cells almost universally carry a specific surface antigen called Cluster of Differentiation or Cluster of Designation, universally known by the abbreviation CD20.

This discovery led to the creation of the medication Rituximab, one of the earliest and most successful monoclonal antibodies. Monoclonal antibodies are laboratory-produced molecules engineered to mimic the body’s natural immune system. They act like guided missiles, designed to seek out and bind to specific proteins or foreign invaders to block disease processes, stop inflammation, or flag infected cells for natural destruction. Engineered in a lab, Rituximab behaves like a heat-seeking missile or a drone, designed to seek out and bind exclusively to the CD20 antigen.

Once it locks onto the cancer cell, it does two things: It delivers a direct blow to the cell’s internal machinery and simultaneously acts as a neon sign, screaming to the patient’s own immune system: “Come and destroy this specific cell.” The introduction of targeted therapies like Rituximab radically transformed the prognosis for lymphoma patients, turning what was once a highly fatal diagnosis into a highly manageable, often curable condition.

Turning the Patient’s Body into the Medicine: CAR-T Cell Therapy

If monoclonal antibodies are smart bombs, the latest frontier in tailored treatment is akin to training an elite, personalised army. CAR-T Cell Therapy (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell therapy) is a highly specialised form of immunotherapy that genetically modifies a patient’s own white blood cells (T-cells) to seek out and destroy cancer cells. The use of the term Chimeric ” indicates a tissue with two or more genetically distinct populations of cells. This is the essence of CAR-T cell therapy, a living drug tailored not just to a type of cancer, but to the individual patient.

The process sounds like science fiction, but it is saving lives today. A patient’s white blood cells (T-cells, the foot soldiers of the immune system) are harvested from their blood. These cells are then genetically re-engineered in a specialised laboratory by using a harmless virus to insert a new gene into these T-cells. This gene instructs the cells to grow a specialised receptor on their surface called a Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR). This receptor is custom-built to recognise the exact antigen on the patient’s cancer cells (such as CD19 in acute leukaemia). Then these newly armed “super-cells” are grown by the millions in a laboratory and infused back into the patient.

Once back inside the body, these living weapons hunt down the cancer cells with astonishingly targeted precision. As they are the patient’s own cells, they can persist in the body for years, acting as a vigilant, microscopic security guard against any relapse.

The Benefits: Better Results, Kinder Side-Effects

The most immediate benefit of tailored therapy for the average patient is the reduction in collateral damage. Because these drugs are engineered to ignore cells that do not bear the target antigen, the devastating side effects of traditional chemotherapy are heavily mitigated. Patients generally do not lose their hair, and the severe, debilitating nausea that once defined the cancer experience is significantly lessened.

Furthermore, these treatments work where chemotherapy fails. Cancer cells are notoriously cunning; they often evolve mechanisms to pump chemotherapy drugs out of their system or repair the DNA damage caused by standard drugs. Targeted therapies bypass these defence mechanisms by attacking the cell’s unique structural vulnerabilities or cutting off the specific growth signals the tumour needs to survive.

Challenges on the New Frontier

Despite the immense promise, the transition to fully tailored cancer care is not without its hurdles. At these initial times, these therapies are not panaceas for all ills.

Cancer cells are highly unstable and prone to frequent mutations. A drug may successfully eliminate 99% of tumour cells bearing a specific antigen, but the remaining 1% might mutate, stop producing that antigen, and begin to multiply. This is known as “antigen escape,” leading to drug resistance. To counter this, researchers are now developing therapies that target multiple different markers simultaneously, trapping the cancer in a molecular crossfire.

Tailored treatments are marvels of modern biotechnology, but they are incredibly complex and expensive to manufacture. Designing a unique cellular therapy for a single individual requires highly sophisticated infrastructure, specialised laboratories, and pristine quality control. Lowering the cost of production so these life-saving treatments are accessible to patients worldwide remains one of the greatest challenges of 21st-century medicine.

A targeted drug is only useful if you know exactly what you are targeting. This requires patients to undergo advanced genetic sequencing and biomarker testing at the time of diagnosis. Integrating these sophisticated diagnostic tools into routine medical care globally is essential if we are to realise the full potential of precision oncology.

The Road Ahead: A Future Without “Cancer” perhaps!!!

It is not wishful thinking. We are rapidly approaching a future where the word “cancer” will no longer be treated as a single, terrifying megalith. Instead, a patient’s diagnosis will be defined by its specific molecular profile: a unique combination of antigens, genetic mutations, and tumour markers. The swing towards tailored treatments in Western medicine represents more than just a technological advancement. It perhaps represents a philosophical shift. We are no longer treating the disease in isolation; we are treating the specific, unique manifestation of that disease within an individual person.

While there is still a long winding road ahead to conquer drug resistance and ensure equitable access to these therapies, the future trajectory is quite clear. The era of carpet-bombing is drawing to a close. The age of precision medicine has arrived, bringing with it unprecedented hope, gentler recoveries, and a brighter dawn, especially for cancer patients around the world. Hail Personalised Medicine; Vivat Medicina Ad Personam.

by Dr B. J. C. Perera
MBBS(Cey), DCH(Cey), DCH(Eng), MD(Paediatrics),
MRCP(UK), FRCP(Edin), FRCP(Lond), FRCPCH(UK), FSLCPaed, FCCP, Hony. FRCPCH(UK), Hony. FCGP(SL)
Specialist Consultant Paediatrician and Honorary Senior Fellow,
Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.
An independent freelance correspondent.

Continue Reading

Features

Lest We Forget – V

Published

on

The Pilot

Francis Gary Powers was born in Jenkins, Kentucky on August 17, 1929, the only son in a family of six children. His father, Oliver Powers, was a coal miner struggling through the Depression years. At the age of 14, Francis took a joy ride in a light aircraft at a country fair in exchange for $2.50. Immediately bitten by the ‘flying bug’, he decided that he wanted to be a pilot someday, although his father wanted him to be a doctor. By then World War II was on, and Francis planned to join the US Navy after completing high school graduation. But when the time came, the war had ended and Francis missed that opportunity.

However, at his father’s suggestion he enrolled at the Milligan College in Tennessee. In his senior year there he applied to become a US Air Force cadet, and was selected, with the stipulation that only after graduating from Milligan would he be allowed to sign his papers for entry as a cadet. As the Korean war had begun, Powers’ father preferred him to return home after graduation and wait for his draft notice for war service. Powers complied, but after two months he applied again to the US Air Force, was selected and enlisted.

His initial training was in skills other than flying, mainly photography. Eventually, in November 1951 he joined the flight school and commenced training on a North American T-6 Texan. Six months later, he began learning to fly jet aircraft, with Powers desperately wanting to participate in combat over Korea. But he was stricken with appendicitis and missed out on the action.

Subsequently, in October 1953 he was sent to New Mexico to train on aerial nuclear bombardment missions at the Watertown airbase, believed to be the birthplace of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and later dubbed ‘Area 51’. Meanwhile, Powers was planning to enter ‘civvy street’ as an airline pilot after completing his period of military service. However, he discovered that by the time of his release from the USAF he would be overage for selection by the airlines, so now with a wife to support, Powers decided to renew his tour of duty with the USAF.

In late 1955 Francis was approached by the CIA to fly a specialised type of intelligence-gathering airplane. Manufactured by Lockheed and developed in Area 51, the aircraft was dubbed the ‘Utilities 2’ (‘U-2’ for short). However, he would work ostensibly as a civilian pilot for the CIA. While regular pilots in the USAF were earning $400 per month, this job came with a monthly salary of somewhere between $1,500 and $2,000, with the pilot based overseas basing. For Powers it was an attractive proposition, not least because it was an opportunity to do something patriotic in a new type of aircraft.

As for operations in the U-2, because flights were conducted close to outer space, pilots could see the curvature of the earth, and had to wear a proper space suit, like astronauts. As sunlight was reflected from below, at those altitudes when pilots looked up all they saw was darkness. Once a pilot was cocooned inside his partial-pressure space suit, like an astronaut’s, his full-pressurized helmet was ‘hermetically sealed’ to the extent that he couldn’t even scratch his nose! And if the suit failed or was damaged, the pilot’s blood would literally boil.

The Aircraft

After WWII, with the advent of the ‘Cold War’, the USSR put up their ‘Iron Curtain’. US President Dwight Eisenhower realised it was imperative for the US to look over the other side of that invisible wall to see what was happening there. By then the Soviets had also acquired nuclear capability. While the USAF had aircraft such as the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress with sufficient range and capability for intelligence-gathering, unfortunately the bombers could operate only at lower altitudes, within easy reach of Soviet missiles and fighter jet aircraft. What the USAF needed was an aircraft which could fly above 70,000 ft for at least ten hours at a time.

After evaluating many options, Lockheed applied the resources of its legendary top-secret ‘Skunk Works’ development programme to design and produce a single-engine aircraft with a 105 ft wingspan (measured from wing tip to wing tip) capable of meeting the USAF’s latest requirements. Working under the direction of Lockheed’s equally renowned designer, Kelly Johnson, the team built a prototype in only eight months by combining the fuselage of a Lockheed F-104 Starfighter (a type labelled by pilots as the ‘widow maker’) with newly-designed ultra-long wings. As much weight as possible was saved by providing the barest minimum of equipment, without any armaments, except for the high-resolution camera. Even the canopy enclosing the pressurised cockpit wasn’t fitted with an electric motor to open and shut it, as that would have added to the airplane’s weight. With the ‘empty’ aircraft weighing much less than it otherwise would have, a spin-off benefit was greater fuel efficiency by carrying the maximum amount of fuel, in integral tanks in the wings and nose, for the long surveillance flights for which the U-2 was primarily designed.

The U-2’s landing gear (undercarriage) comprised two main wheels mounted in tandem at the nose and tail along the longitudinal axis, not unlike wheels on a bicycle. For stability during taxiing and takeoff, two smaller wheels were attached to outriggers at each wingtip. These wheels were designed to fall away as the aircraft lifted off, then retrieved for reuse by a ground crew. However, the absence of the outrigger, or ‘pogo’, wheels made the U-2 difficult to land and roll along the runway at the end of a mission.

The spy-plane’s long wings were so efficient that they produced lift even with the General Electric turbofan engine on idle power close to the ground (with the aircraft flying in what is called ‘ground effect’), while the landing gear, flaps and spoilers helped to create drag to slow the aircraft down. During the landing process another U-2 pilot in a chase car (called the ‘mobile’) followed the aircraft when it was directly above the runway, giving the pilot of the landing U-2 guidance in flying parallel close to the ground, before he induced an aerodynamic stall to touchdown by raising the nose. Performance-wise the aircraft could take off within less than 1,000 ft of runway and climb quickly to the planned very high altitude.

Pilots called the U-2 the ‘Dragon Lady’. It was relatively slow with a cruise speed of Mach 0.7, i.e. 70% the prevalent speed of sound. (Today’s big commercial jets fly at speeds between Mach 0.80 and 0.85.) For the more technically minded, the difference between the low-speed stall and high-speed stall was only eight knots. (‘Stall’ in this instance refers to an aerodynamic stall, whereby the lift-generating airflow over the wings deteriorates causing the airplane to descend. It is distinct from an engine stopping, or ‘stalling’.) Consequently, U-2 pilots had to be very gentle with the controls.

Another characteristic of the U-2 is that it flew very close to what is known as ‘Coffin Corner’ at high altitude. To explain that term and phenomenon, an aircraft remains airborne as the force of lift, produced by airflow over its wings, is equal to the airplane’s weight, while the thrust generated by its engines is equal to aerodynamic drag, or resistance. Lift is also proportional to the density of the air through which the aircraft flies. As an aircraft reaches higher altitudes, air density reduces, and consequently the ‘lifting power’ deteriorates too. If nothing is done to stabilize the aircraft it will begin descending or literally fall out of the sky from lack of lift. Therefore, to maintain the value of the lift component and keep the airplane aloft at those ultra-high altitudes, the aircraft must fly faster with the engine(s) at full throttle.

Additionally, as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound, the air flowing over the top of the wing, which is usually curved to generate lift, tends to move faster than the speed of sound and creates a shock wave. However, the speed of sound reduces with Absolute Temperature, therefore the aircraft reaches the sound barrier earlier at a lower speed at high altitude. Again, the aircraft could fall out of the sky by going too fast. Those are the problems that must be reckoned with when flying at high altitudes, hence the expression ‘Coffin Corner’.

The Mission

On May 1, 1960 Francis Gary Powers was assigned to a mission code-named ‘Operation Grand Slam’, to fly from Peshawar, Pakistan to Bodø in Norway, taking photos along the way. As the USSR was busy celebrating May Day in its usual grandiose manner, CIA planners thought it would be a good opportunity to launch the covert photo reconnaissance flight on that day. Ater lining up for takeoff, Powers had to await authorisation from Washington. The ‘Go Signal’ would be received on High Frequency (HF) Radio relayed via Turkey by Morse code.

Departing Peshawar at 0626 hours, Powers climbed quickly through 66,000 ft, then clicked his microphone twice to indicate that he was well and operations were normal. That was the last anyone monitoring the flight heard from him. Reaching 70,000 ft, the U-2 entered USSR airspace from over Lake Van in Northeastern Turkey. But the Soviets were monitoring his flight almost from departure point and waiting for him.

As it happened, there had been a similar U-2 flight the day before. But as none of the Russian fighter jets or missiles could reach 70,000 ft, complacency had set in among the Americans. This morning however, when Powers was passing Lake Van, an explosion occurred behind his U2. Three missiles had been launched by the USSR, one of which struck one of their own fighter aircraft in error, with another going astray. But the missile that detonated in close proximity to Powers’ U-2 was more successful. As the spy-plane was relatively ‘flimsy’ for the purpose of saving weight, the explosion’s shock wave was strong enough to tip the aircraft over in a nose-down attitude. The resulting g-forces pushed Gary Powers up in his seat toward the cockpit canopy and out of reach of the self-destructive switch designed to destroy the on-board camera and film. Still in control of the airplane, Powers descended to 30,000 ft but found that he was now too low to eject. Then a second missile struck the aircraft, throwing him out of the cockpit. His parachute deployed automatically and he landed on a Soviet community farm where he was soon apprehended and handed over to the authorities (KGB). Powers did not, however, use the lethal poison-laced pin, hidden in a coin he carried, to kill himself.

Meanwhile, the CIA realised that one of its U-2 spy-planes had gone missing, so they put out a standard cover story from their files saying that it was an unarmed NASA weather observation aircraft that had been shot down. They claimed that the airplane had suffered an oxygen system problem, with the resulting hypoxia possibly disorientating the pilot. The CIA added that almost certainly the pilot would not have survived, and that was the version announced to the world by President Eisenhower.

However, it wasn’t until May 7 when Soviet Prime Minister Nikita Khruschev announced that an American U-2 had been shot down and its pilot captured. Finally, Eisenhower was forced to admit on May 11 that he had lied, and that he had authorised the spy flights over the USSR.

With the Cold War showing signs of thawing slightly (although the Cuban missile crisis was still two years in the future), a high-level summit meeting had already been planned for May 16 between the US, USSR, Great Britain, and France in Paris. The other Communist nations were not pleased with Khrushchev for agreeing to participate. But the U-2 ‘incident’ on May Day now provided him with a convenient excuse not to attend that highly anticipated meeting. Eventually though, he only met French President Charles de Gaulle and British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan individually, then withdrew from the summit in a huff.

Later, on August 31, 1960 – Francis Gary Powers’ 31st birthday – a ‘show trial’ began at the Hall of Columns (Dom Soyuzov) in Moscow. The pilot’s family was present too. But the verdict was preconceived. Although Powers was expected to be executed, as a spy, he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, with a 100 rubles per month of pocket money and permitted to send one letter home each month. But after serving 21 months, on February 10, 1962 Powers was exchanged for a Soviet intelligence officer named Rudolf Abel (born Vilyam Fisher), who had been convicted on espionage charges and incarcerated on a 30-year sentence at the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary in Georgia, USA.

The much-publicised, almost stage-managed exchange took place at the Glienicke Bridge linking West Berlin to East Germany, and later formed the subject of the Steven Spielberg movie ‘Bridge of Spies’ starring Tom Hanks. Significantly, by the time of the prisoner exchange, CIA chief Allen W. Dulles (brother of John Foster Dulles, the former US Secretary of State under President Eisenhower) had been forced to resign over the Bay of Pigs debacle in Cuba and other perceived strategic failures.

Although, after extensive series debriefings the CIA remained ostensibly pleased with Powers’ actions while in captivity in the USSR, President John F. Kennedy cancelled a formal reception to celebrate his return to the USA. Even Powers’ private writings, in the form of a diary he kept during captivity in the USSR, were suppressed by the CIA. However, they were released many years later in the book titled ‘Letters from a Soviet Prison’.

On March 6, 1962, Powers, who had been awarded the CIA Intelligence Star on his return from captivity, fronted an Armed Services Senate Committee who wanted to ensure that he hadn’t divulged state secrets to the Soviet Union. At the end of the sessions the Senate Committee members were so pleased with his conduct whilst in Soviet captivity, they gave him a standing ovation.

Although the media at that time was making things uncomfortable for Powers, he received the back pay that had accrued while he was out of the country, and he resumed flying but as a civilian U-2 test pilot for Lockheed. Over-flights of the USSR were suspended, but surveillance missions continued over countries such as Vietnam, Cuba and Indonesia. Today the U-2 still flies, mainly on weather and communications missions.

Much later, Francis Gary Powers joined Los Angeles TV station KNBC as a helicopter pilot on traffic-reporting duties. But on August 1, 1977, the Bell JetRanger Powers was flying whilst filming brush fires in Santa Barbara County, ran out of fuel and crashed over the San Fernando Valley, killing him and cameraman George Spears.

Frances Gary Powers was only 47 years old at the time of his death. Dick Spangler, President of the Radio and Television News Association of Southern California, lobbied to have Powers buried at Arlington National Cemetery. The request was duly granted by President Jimmy Carter on the basis of Powers having been awarded the CIA Intelligence Star (equivalent to a military Silver Star) for his service as a CIA spy-plane pilot.

Posthumous Awards received by Capt. Francis Gary Powers (in 2000 & 2012):

· Silver Star: Awarded by the US Air Force in 2012 for valor and exceptional loyalty while being held captive.

· Distinguished Flying Cross:

Awarded for actions during his flights.

· Prisoner of War Medal:

Awarded in 2000 for his time imprisoned in the Soviet Union.

· CIA Director’s Award:

Given for extreme fidelity and courage.

· National Defense Service Medal:

Awarded by the Department of Defense.

God Bless America and no one else!

BY GUWAN SEEYA

Continue Reading

Trending