South Asia bears severe impacts of climate change despite contributing only a small fraction of global carbon emissions, yet the region’s scientists and institutions remain underrepresented in the global climate-health research agenda, according to a comment published in The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia. The disparity raises urgent questions about who controls knowledge production, who benefits from research funding, and whether the international scientific ecosystem perpetuates historical power imbalances rooted in colonialism.
Key takeaways
- South Asia experiences severe climate-health impacts but lacks proportional representation in global research leadership and funding decisions
- Historical colonial structures continue to shape knowledge systems, positioning Global North institutions as producers and Global South researchers as subjects
- Equitable research partnerships require shift in funding mechanisms, authorship attribution, and institutional ownership of intellectual property in climate-health science
The knowledge equity gap: representation across research pipeline
Illustrative distribution of climate-health research leadership, funding control, and authorship in South Asia vs. Global North
Source: Conceptual analysis based on global research funding patterns | Georgian Medical Journal News
Why representation matters in climate-health science
The relationship between climate change and human health is a pressing public health challenge, yet global health research on this intersection often reflects the interests and priorities of wealthy institutions rather than those most affected. According to The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia commentary, the knowledge ecosystem underpinning climate-health research must be examined for fairness across three critical dimensions: who is represented, who owns the knowledge, and who controls the funding.
South Asia—comprising Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal among others—faces acute climate vulnerabilities including extreme heat, flooding, and water scarcity. Yet researchers from the region are underrepresented as principal investigators on major climate-health grants, underrepresented in editorial and advisory roles at global health journals and organisations, and often positioned as research subjects rather than knowledge producers. This structural inequity has practical consequences: research priorities may not align with local health needs, and benefits of knowledge (including capacity building and intellectual property rights) flow outward rather than remaining within the region.
Colonial legacies in modern research systems
The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia notes that historical knowledge systems positioned colonisers as producers and gatekeepers of knowledge, with colonised populations cast as ‘subjects’ and passive receivers. This fundamental asymmetry has not disappeared from contemporary research. Instead, it has evolved into more subtle institutional and structural forms. Global North universities have greater access to research funding, larger networks of international collaborators, and more institutional prestige—advantages that translate into research priority-setting and resource allocation decisions that may marginalise South Asian perspectives.
When South Asian researchers do participate in international climate-health collaborations, they are frequently positioned as junior partners or data collectors rather than co-investigators or leaders. Grant funding mechanisms often require researchers to be affiliated with institutions in donor countries, creating barriers for independent South Asian research institutions. Health policy and funding decisions made in Geneva, Washington, or London can thus override locally-identified research needs in South Asia, even when the region bears disproportionate health burdens.
Pathways toward equitable research partnerships
Addressing these imbalances requires systemic change across multiple levels. The Lancet commentary suggests that funding mechanisms must be restructured to support South Asian-led research and South Asian research institutions as primary grantees, not sub-contractors. International research networks should explicitly establish governance structures that guarantee South Asian representation in decision-making roles, not merely token participation. Intellectual property rights and data ownership agreements must ensure that knowledge generated in South Asia remains accessible to South Asian institutions and policymakers.
Greater investment in regional research capacity—including doctoral training, research infrastructure, and institutional support—would strengthen the scientific workforce and reduce dependence on Global North institutions. Journal editorial boards and funding agency review panels must actively recruit diverse representation from the regions they aim to serve. Most critically, the research agenda itself must be co-produced with South Asian scientists, policymakers, and affected communities, ensuring that questions asked and methods chosen reflect local priorities rather than external assumptions about what matters.
The knowledge ecosystem underpinning climate-health research must ensure fair representation, equitable ownership, and just distribution of resources and benefits across all regions, particularly those most vulnerable to climate impacts.
— Commentary authors, The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia (2026)
What this means
Frequently asked questions
Why is research representation a health equity issue?
According to The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia, research agendas shaped by external institutions may prioritise problems relevant to wealthy regions while overlooking locally-identified health priorities. When South Asian researchers control their research agenda, evidence generation better aligns with regional health needs and policy contexts.
How do funding mechanisms perpetuate research inequity?
Many major climate-health research grants require principal investigators to be affiliated with institutions in donor countries (typically North America, Europe, Australia) or mandate that research be conducted in partnership with such institutions. This creates barriers for South Asian institutions to lead independent research, forcing them into subordinate roles and limiting their ability to build sustainable research capacity.
What practical changes could improve equity?
The commentary proposes structural reforms: funding agencies should support South Asian-led research as primary grantees; research governance bodies should include proportional South Asian representation; intellectual property agreements should protect regional ownership of data and findings; and journal editorial leadership should actively recruit diverse representation from regions most affected by climate change.
The emerging scientific consensus on climate-health interconnections offers a critical opportunity to build more just research systems. If the international community commits to supporting South Asian research leadership—through funding reform, institutional partnership restructuring, and genuine co-production of knowledge—the region’s scientists can drive climate adaptation strategies grounded in local evidence and responsive to community needs. The health of millions in South Asia depends not only on what we learn about climate-health connections, but also on who conducts that research and whose voices shape the resulting knowledge.
Source: Representation, ownership and funding in climate change and health research in South Asia, The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia (2026)
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer. This article is health journalism intended for general information and education. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual circumstances. Full disclaimer →
Related Coverage
Medically reviewed by Prof. Giorgi Pkhakadze, MD, MPH, PhD. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
