Alberto Prieto: «Unfortunately, we still have quite a few fronts open in the field of animal health»
Animal health is, without doubt, a fundamental link in a food chain that aims to be efficient, healthy and safe. It is an indispensable part of a global community with the capacity to respond to the most pressing challenges of our century, such as overpopulation and climate change.
For this reason, defending its great strategic importance at a social, economic and environmental level should be an inalienable task for society as a whole, which is achieved by highlighting the valuable work carried out by thousands of people around the world, including Alberto Prieto Lago.
Professor and researcher in the Animal Pathology department at Campus Terra, technical manager of the diagnostic service of the INVESAGA Research Group... Alberto Prieto has spent more than a decade building a solid career focused on the diagnosis of infectious diseases in animals, with special attention to the use of molecular biology techniques and the development of novel detection methodologies.
Today, we draw on his experience and valuable perspective to clarify the current situation of animal health worldwide, the future challenges we will face in this respect and the scientific advances being made in this highly relevant field.
-What led you to specialize in animal health and focus on the study of infectious and parasitic diseases?
-I think it was the enthusiasm of some of the professors I had during my degree. Mainly Professor Enrique González in microbiology, and later Professor Gonzalo Fernández, current dean of Veterinary Medicine and one of my thesis supervisors and also a great mentor in this field. Specifically, it was he who passed on to me his passion for laboratory work and, more especially, for the diagnosis of diseases.
-The INVESAGA group has been conducting research on diseases in game species and species of food interest for years. From your perspective, what are the main current challenges in animal health?
-Unfortunately, we still have quite a few fronts open. Although animal health has improved enormously in recent decades, mainly due to the work of veterinarians, new challenges and threats are always emerging.
One of the main concerns is emerging diseases transmitted by vectors, especially arthropods, such as mosquitoes and ticks. Currently, climate change is causing many of these vectors to expand their habitats and even remain active in periods when they were not active before, which favors a greater spread of these diseases.
I am talking about examples that we know about from the press, such as Bluetongue or Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease, which, in recent years, have been a headache for the cattle and small ruminant sector.
Others, however, seem very exotic, such as Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever or West Nile Fever. Still, every year, more cases are detected in our country in both animals and people, as the latter two are potentially serious zoonoses.
Then, at the level of diseases that we have known about for many years, Avian Influenza H5N1 is worrying, as it is currently circulating all over the world and has already shown some signs of jumping from species to mammals, which indicates that it may have some pandemic potential.
Finally, and more at an economic than a health level, we should also highlight the African Swine Fever that we have in Europe, the new variants of the PRRS virus in pigs and the risk of diseases such as Foot-and-Mouth Disease entering the country, an outbreak of which was recently declared in Germany.
-In 2012, you started a line of research into the environmental detection of viral pathogens. What impact did this approach have on disease surveillance and control?
-It is a novel line that originated in veterinary science at around that time, since in the field of human medicine, it had already been used for some time, for example, in health centres such as hospitals.
The truth is that we saw great potential in this type of tool and we began to develop different methodologies that would allow us to detect these types of pathogens in the environment of farms of different animal species.
In short, environmental detection techniques have a number of advantages over conventional sampling: for example, we avoid having to handle the animals since, instead of taking a blood sample, stool or whatever, we take samples either from surfaces that may be in contact with the pathogen we are studying or even samples of ambient air.
This facilitates the collection of samples, can reduce costs (since you process fewer samples because the environmental sample is already representative of a group of animals), and on the other hand we avoid the unnecessary handling of the animal, its manipulation or the need to subject it to a procedure such as a blood extraction, something that is also highly valued, especially if we pay attention to animal welfare, a requirement that is increasingly demanded by society.
-You recently received funding to study the detection of the Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome virus on intensive farms. What are the objectives of this project, and what practical applications can it have?
-The PRRS virus is currently one of the main health and economic problems for pig farms in our country, even more so if we take into account that Spain is one of the main producers worldwide, representing a large percentage of our final livestock production. It is a virus with a great capacity to mutate and generate variants, which prevents the available vaccines from being 100% effective in controlling it.
In this proposal, our team aims to evaluate different methods of collecting and analyzing air samples for the early detection and surveillance of the presence of PRRSV, with the aim of distinguishing those that may be more efficient for future implementation on farms.
The ultimate aim of this project is to develop a simple tool that is practical and economical for surveillance, monitoring and early detection with respect to other conventionally used protocols, such as the detection of viremia in piglets.
-You have participated in numerous research projects with companies. How do you rate the relationship between the university and the private sector in the field of animal health?
-In my experience, very good. Normally, in our case, it is more companies that contact us to design some kind of specific work, typically to assess the situation of a disease before launching a product on the market, or to control the effectiveness of that product with field tests.
Other times it is us who contact them with a specific idea that may be of interest to them depending on their activity. Most collaborations arise from the first case, as we are normally open to any type of work as long as it is related to our expertise.
-You have also published dozens of articles for professionals and the general public. Do you think that society is increasingly aware of the importance of animal health?
-Yes, I think so. Nowadays, we all carry a computer in our pocket, and information is available to anyone. However, what I think is most difficult for the general public is knowing how to filter content or information from reliable sources from unreliable ones.
Nowadays, it is very easy to spread a hoax about any product and cause alarm through any social network, and once the hoax has spread, it is sometimes difficult to stop it. We have to be aware that this kind of situation can cause serious losses for a particular sector, so the responsible handling of information and how we communicate it must be a priority both for disseminators and for the media.
-The researcher-publication symbiosis has generated some controversy in recent years, especially in some fields. You have experience as a reviewer for several international journals. What is your view on the subject?
-The publication of results is indeed necessary for the improvement of the working/economic conditions of researchers, but that should not imply that it is a career where the only thing that matters is to publish. We, researchers, have to be aware and responsible for the scientific-technical quality that a piece of work should have.
Related to this, we also have another problem at the moment, which is finding reviewers trained in a specific field who are willing to invest their time free of charge in reviewing a publication. As an example, it takes me, on average, two or three days to properly review a publication and send my corrections and suggestions to the editors. And it is a job that I do altruistically and that hardly has any repercussions for me in terms of professional merit (in fact, I often do it in my free time at the weekends).
Sometimes one might think that the time spent reviewing other people's publications would be better spent publishing your work, but of course, if those who are supposed to review your work think the same, then no one publishes results... In the end, it's like a vicious circle, and in the future, this will probably force us to question whether this is the most appropriate way to do and communicate science.
-With regard to your teaching work... What skills do you consider fundamental for the new generation of scientists in veterinary medicine and in other fields?
-I am careful about what are technical skills, that is to say, the skills the new generations bring much more polished during the degrees than we did, as we possibly had more theoretical and much less practical work.
Nowadays, I think they need other types of skills that are more social/emotional, such as resilience, a term that is so fashionable lately. A research career is a wearing job, where, if you want to end up dedicating yourself to it, you have to devote many hours and a lot of sacrifices, in addition to the fact that, in general terms, it is not the most economically attractive sector; it is a very vocational job.
On the other hand, I also consider it essential to know how to work in a team and value the opinions of others. You have to be aware that nobody can do everything or know everything.