Cannot stop thinking about a document emanating from a @WHO group that I was asked to comment on yesterday. On the issue of face coverings, as a form of #Covid_19 control. Assessment done, but the whole experience has left me extremely uneasy about procedural opacity.

Having discussed the matter with colleagues in South Asian governance, whose work traverses several WHO regions, matters are no clearer & raise issues that require public discussion, ultimately involving @WHO member states about assumptions being made in their name.

The document appears to be the handiwork of a 'COVID-19 Research Roadmap social science working group'. I understand this was established after a so-called WHO Global Research and Innovation meeting (Geneva, 11-12 February 2020).

It's stated role is to provide 'expert technical and evidence-informed guidance regarding social, behavioural, cultural, economic and political aspects of COVID-19 policy and response.' So far so, good. But, look carefully, & there are worrying trends in terms of composition.

The review, which seeks to propose research directions to, I assume, entire @WHO membership, appears to involve 27 external actors (apart from 4 WHO HQ officials). Impressive. BUT the breakdown of institutions/regions they represent makes for uncomfortable reading.

The 2 lead authors are from UK, in this way representing perspectives from within @WHO_Europe. They acknowledge collaboration of 4 people: one based in the UK & there in the USA (so, again representing views from within WHO EURO & @pahowho).

As one starts breaking down the membership, the national/regional/racial imbalances become very stark. 9 members are from High Income Countries that fall within @WHO_Europe. A further 5 are based currently within @pahowho region, & only one of these is from a LMIC member state.

So, out of 20 people thus far, 19 from HICs in Western Europe & North America. @WHO_Europe includes coverage of Eastern Europe & Central Asia as well, from which there is no participation. No participation from Spanish-lingua Latin America or the Caribbean either, from @pahowho.

But, things get even more disappointing after this. There are 4 members from @WHOWPRO: 3 from Hong Kong & 1 from China. That is, from a region with multiple public health & social science strengths, cutting across academic-national & regional policy activity.

Then, the elitism becomes really hits home. One African academic from @WHOAFRO on the group. And, NONE from @WHOEMRO, an important regional office that serves both West Asia & North Africa effectively. And, this is a region with good universities, social science capability etc.

This gap can also be seen from another worrying standpoint. As far as I can see, there are no Muslim group members, who can advise & inform about cultural, social, economic & political factors in their own terms. Not important @DrTedros, considering all FBOs/faiths play a role?

We then have 2 members from @WHOSEARO region, one from India & the other from Thailand. A populous & religiously diverse region, with great strengths in social science research, involved in pandemic research & proven health promotion activities (which do not get a look in).

Important question here is how such a nationally- and racially-skewed body was set up by @WHO? On what basis will assumptions be made about 'social', 'behavioural', 'cultural', 'economic' and 'political' attributes, which would then be 'improved' through such 'social science'?

So, for example, who in this group is able - & empowered - to speak about 'Islam' & how its various iterations & practices engage, either positively or negatively, with current, disparate #Covid_19 measures. Similarly, with Hinduism, & its variable understandings & practices?

How is it that there is no effort on part of the @WHO to get a balance of views in relation to social scientists from each Region, when proven talent & capacity exists? Equal nos. from each region? What are the terms of reference & source of funding of the current group?

In relation to HICs, why is there no conscious effort to draw in ethnic minority/native perspectives? Again, work & expertise is not lacking. What languages can the working group, currently constituted, command to ensure respectful research & evidence-based action in all regions?

The need for transparency is immediate, in relation to terms of reference, funding & why @WHO thinks such a racially non-diverse group can serve member states? It is very important that socio-economic needs & cultural expectations are studied & engaged compassionately.

Ultimately culturally- and socially-disconnected research is harmful, especially to vulnerable sections of society in country contexts.

Islamophobia is an evil; denying agency in research & policy engagement to Muslim scholars from within @WHOEMRO membership/countries is worse.

On what basis is @WHO ignoring complex cultural identity issues in creating such an expert group dealing with important #Covid_19-related issues, where its TOR seems to be to provide advice/'technical' knowledge about matters social in health?

Where is the necessary regional, racial, religious, institutional, social & cultural balance to make this @WHO-endorsed work truly informed & inclusive?

@BARAKAT_Sultan @seyeabimbola @surangad2001 @drharshvardhan @zfrmrza @onisillos @GlobalHealthBMJ @ShamikaRavi @EmergingRoy