He is a principal investigator at the iMM, where he directs the Physical Biochemistry Laboratory of Drugs and leads a team whose job is to understand the biophysical principles that govern the molecular interactions of various compounds of clinical relevance, with a view to the development of new drugs. Due to the knowledge and experience acquired over several years dedicated to science and research, important lessons that he also shares with the students of our Faculty, Miguel Castanho has been a constant presence in the news panorama of Covid-19.
On several occasions, the Professor stated to the press that there was a lack of a logical guideline, in line with scientific rigor, for the reasoning of political decisions that have been made over the past few months, calling for prudence regarding extrapolations.
To news@FMUL, Miguel Castanho takes stock of what has been the pandemic management policy in Portugal, commenting on the relationship between Man and Nature and the new perspective that Covid-19 has given us about us and the World around us, analysing the state of science in the country and the repercussions of investment strategies on a scientific progress that is intended to be "serious and real".
He believes that, at this moment, “it is already difficult to believe that the coronavirus will be eradicated in natural conditions”, explaining that in the case of the 1918 flu, recalling the Spanish Flu pandemic, “there was a virus with a very large infectious capacity, which spread very quickly and ended up declining, because it had nowhere else to infect and expand, and at that time medical technology was very weak”. The opposite is true today with SARS-Cov-2, which has already spread across the globe, but “there are still many people who are not infected and who have not developed immunity, and what we can foresee for the future is the continuation of several outbreaks here and there”. This is a situation we are currently dealing with, anticipating the existence of more favourable natural conditions for the virus with the arrival of autumn and winter, so we will continue to be in contact with the virus, “between advances and retreats until a certain balance evolves, which may still take some time”.
Miguel Castanho argues that the most plausible situation right now "is that we can control the number of infections with a large and very well directed intervention", where outbreaks "always appear" while, "slowly, we are creating a balance with the virus".
In the absence of “very reliable and informative data”, it is difficult to approach the current epidemiological situation in the country, so Miguel Castanho's analysis reflects only his personal vision, as he insisted, with the view that “in a well-designed strategy, a plan should have been initiated, identifying the reliable indicators for decision-making”, as well as “the weak points that enhance the contagion chains”, stressing that “it is not the Tagus Valley that is in a more critical and fragile situation, but the Lisbon Metropolitan Area”. He also referred to the various sectors of activity that did not comply with the quarantine and in which “confinement did not have the desired effect”, namely the cleaning and construction sectors, which “largely depend on immigration”, constituting a target audience that did not receive or interpret the prevention message in the context of the current pandemic in the most effective way. "To make matters worse, it is also these populations that have the most fragile socio-economic conditions and live in large agglomerations, in smaller houses". “But all of this is nothing more than guesswork”, underlines Miguel Castanho, lamenting the absence of a plan “within a more scientific strategy” and the gap in studies that “should have started on day zero” (instead of being carried out in the post lockdown period) to end transmission chains
He also explains that “there is a difference between information and message, and there must be a reasoning link between information and decision”, denoting that the word “stable”, frequently present in the media and official speeches, deserves a more careful use, since the stability in the progression of the disease differs from the idea or concept of stagnation of contagion. “In reality, what is stable is the number of new cases per day. The way you look at the indicators, the interpretation of them and the way we decide through these indicators is what really counts”.
In addition, Miguel Castanho recognizes that “it is extremely important to have transparency in the communication of numbers”, but it is even more important “to understand how official entities interpret those numbers”, reiterating that “all the measures that were taken to contain the propagation of the virus and transmission of the disease must have a reasoning”, intrinsic to the interpretation of the numbers. A logical reasoning that “was never done”, opening space for confusion in a society confronted with the incongruity between the numbers of the pandemic and the resolutions of the political power.
First of all, logic. Then, the communication of this same logic. Thus, priorities in the fight against the pandemic should be defined. “A well-established communication strategy is an absolutely essential condition for achieving a well-implemented and effective plan, because if the populations do not adhere, the plans are compromised".
As for the future, Miguel Castanho points out the possible scenarios in the near future, considering that "we must be realistic in planning and configuring the various realities to be able to be one step ahead of the virus and know what to do". A range of probable realities in which “we will reach a point of control of the disease and of the transmission more quickly, in other scenarios this will be more distant, but in any one of them we will take advantage of the scientific and technological evolution, being able to always use previous pandemic strategies”.
Miguel Castanho finds greater predictability in the world of drugs rather than in the world of vaccines, where he guarantees that there are fewer options and consolidated strategies. And with the conviction that “many drugs for SARS-Cov-2 will emerge”, the Professor reveals that “there is still nothing radically new or disruptive” in the research on the new coronavirus which, “from the point of view of the organization”, is very similar to other viruses he is familiar with. "So far it is just another and quite devastating virus, especially for the ageing population", adding that the new quality of SARS Cov-2 is not substantiated "from a scientific, medical or pharmacological point of view", at least for now. The novelty is that “this virus has brought us a new look about Nature, the world and the way we live”.
Exploring the field of antivirals, which are the subject of research by Miguel Castanho and his team, which seeks to develop molecules, drugs capable of penetrating and acting on the brain, “we are mainly concerned with the effects that viruses have on the brain and the central nervous system”, he clarifies, revealing that“ we have received more and more information that SARS Cov-2 may, in fact, have neurological effects, including for people who have had relatively moderate manifestations of the disease”.
The Professor, who researched the first coronavirus in collaboration with a team from China, has no doubt that if the research then started had not been interrupted, “we would now be better prepared”, with more robust scientific knowledge bases, acquired within the scope of first SARS and later MERS, both respiratory syndromes caused by a coronavirus. “It is curious and significant that we are, at this point, recovering molecules that at that time were left behind”, he says, mentioning that “one of the lessons of this pandemic is that we must rethink the way we allocate resources to scientific research and what we want from scientific research itself, and whether we want serious and real progress or if we are investing in Science just to make folklore”.
In the opinion of Miguel Castanho, the Covid-19 pandemic imposed a “generational refocusing”, as the attention of Man turned to the generation at the forefront. "We diverted our attention from our children to focus on our parents and we are discovering that we have, in fact, a very ageing population". Furthermore, “we must ask ourselves why 100 years after the great pandemic of 1918, and faced with another pandemic of a respiratory virus, the most we could do was something as primitive as the 1918 solution, that is, stay at home and wear masks”. “What happened to scientific, medical and technological evolution that it had passed over antiviral, pandemic strategies and infectious diseases?”, he asks, stressing that “in contrast, in the middle of that last century, Man set foot in moon". The explanation lies “in the fact that resources are allocated to what is most popular or conceptualized at the time”, argues Miguel Castanho, with the guarantee that “going along the moment creates imbalances” that are evident in moments like the one we are currently experiencing, "when there is no longer practically any investment [in the second half of the 20th century] in antibacterial and antiviral drugs".
The warning signs were issued and the evidence was always at everyone’s reach: "multidrug-resistant bacteria are evolving and pharmaceutical innovation is not keeping up with this evolution, but no one has ever cared much, because no one has faced reality". So far, “there has been a generalized shock of society with a virus” and it has been realized that the investment that has been made in recent years in infectious diseases has fallen far short of what was desired. “We must not go after trends in the distribution of resources for scientific development”, he warns.
Recently, Público published a news story highlighting the publication of Science, in which some experts point to the implementation of a global surveillance system for wild animals (and screening for viruses that can infect humans) as a strategy to prevent a future pandemic.
For Miguel Castanho, the solution is to find, through Science that helps us “to understand what is around us”, the “point of understanding with Nature”, which is the “house” where we live, like others microorganisms such as microbes, bacteria, viruses and fungi, with which we must learn to relate in order to establish a vital harmony for the balance of the ecosystem. "We must not underestimate ourselves and our capacity for evolution, but we must also not underestimate Nature", he says, recalling that "the idea has become widespread that we would never again have problems with infectious diseases". Nevertheless, many alerts sounded. "It just didn't fall into the usual suspect, the flu virus", but rather a new coronavirus.
“A pandemic can always arise when you least expect it, and it can be caused by a virus, a bacterium, a fungus… We just don't know exactly when or where, but the risk exists, so we must be prepared, we must have emergency plans so that at the beginning of a pandemic we can take action at once. The evolution of medical technology, drugs, the way vaccines are made will later be crucial in the response”, he stresses, reiterating that “the idea that everything comes from China ”is wrong, pointing to the example of HIV, which originated in Africa.
Planning, logic and enhancement of Science are, therefore, important learning points to retain for the future, a future that has as its only certainty that this pandemic will not be the last in the history of Humanity.
Sofia Tavares
Editorial Team