End Interview: Social Science Meets Biology
It has been a year since Professor Svenn-Erik Mamelund and his team embarked on their CAS project on Indigenous people and severe influenza outcomes. We sat down with him to discuss the progress made and what the future holds.
Why is it that Indigenous communities across the world have so often borne the brunt of influenza pandemics? And what happens when researchers from the social sciences and the biological sciences genuinely try to answer that question together? Over the past year, Professor Svenn-Erik Mamelund and his team have used their time at the Centre for Advanced Study (CAS) to delve into these issues, looking closely at the social, cultural and biological forces behind severe influenza outcomes—and at what this means for future pandemic preparedness.
A project shaped by global concerns
The project, Social Science Meets Biology: Indigenous People and Severe Influenza Outcomes, brought together researchers from several disciplines to tackle a problem that simply cannot be understood through a single lens. Their aim was ambitious: to understand why Indigenous communities in Northern Europe, North America and Oceania have historically suffered higher mortality in pandemics, and why this persists today.
One of the first things the group did was take stock of the evidence. They quickly discovered that the data landscape is patchy. As Mamelund notes, “Our first paper found major gaps in reporting data on COVID-19 disease outcomes for Indigenous populations.” Without basic socio-demographic information, comparing outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups becomes nearly impossible. “We concluded that there is a dire need to conduct studies that evaluate COVID-19 outcomes among Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations.”
Findings from Mexico and Northern Norway
To help fill that gap, the team carried out one of the few empirical studies on COVID-19 outcomes among Indigenous groups—this time focusing on Mexico. With its rich linguistic diversity and large Indigenous population, Mexico offered a crucial test case. The results were stark: Indigenous communities experienced a 68 per cent higher mortality rate than non-Indigenous groups. According to the team’s analysis, delays in seeking care and potentially lower uptake of public-health measures and vaccines contributed to this disparity.
The researchers also turned to the past, investigating excess mortality during the 1918–20 influenza pandemic in two isolated Finnmark communities. The pattern they identified differed from the global narrative. Instead of young adults being hardest hit, excess mortality appeared across every age group, including older people. This unusual age profile, the team suggests, is linked to isolation and limited previous exposure to influenza viruses—factors that may have left these communities particularly vulnerable. Mamelund believes these insights help explain broader patterns of high Indigenous mortality, both historically and today.
Looking at pandemics through more than one lens
A key theme running through the project is that pandemics are never purely biological events. “The contact process is most heavily influenced by social factors; the transmission process is directly affected by biological factors… but is also indirectly influenced by social factors,” Mamelund says. Everything from cultural practices to food traditions to access to healthcare shapes both the risk of infection and the likelihood of survival. For the team, working across disciplines was essential. “These are very complex questions… so our research has mostly helped to bring these kinds of questions to the forefront of discussions about the impact of pandemics.”
Implications for preparedness
One of the clearest takeaways is that pandemic preparedness needs to look beyond medical risk categories. Social vulnerability matters too. As Mamelund puts it, “Our research has highlighted the need for more research on social and ethnic risk groups… To reduce the pandemic burden, Indigenous communities should be prioritised for scarce vaccines.” But he stresses that prevention begins long before a crisis hits: reducing inequalities in exposure, susceptibility and access to care is vital.
The impact of the CAS environment
The team’s progress was helped considerably by the CAS setting. Having time and space to work together—away from everyday academic pressures—allowed the group to build momentum. “The research we have published, and the ongoing collaborations would not have seen the light of day without CAS,” Mamelund says. During the year, the team not only produced publications but also fostered new collaborations and mentored early-career scholars. One research assistant found his master’s thesis topic, and another fellow credits the experience with helping her secure a permanent university post.
Obstacles—and how they navigated them
Ensuring that Indigenous perspectives shaped the work was a major priority. The team put together an advisory board, launched a visiting scholar programme and organised a dedicated pre-conference workshop for Indigenous researchers. Their international conference, Indigenous Peoples & Pandemics, became a hub for meaningful exchange across continents and communities.
Another challenge was fostering collaboration between social scientists and laboratory-based researchers. This kind of interdisciplinary work is not always straightforward, but the team managed to create productive links with immunologists and virologists from the US and Australia. They are now developing a joint proposal to investigate the long-term health consequences of the 1918–20 pandemic—what they refer to as “long-flu”.
What comes next
Although the formal CAS year has ended, the collaboration continues. The core group will gather again for a writing retreat in Auckland, New Zealand—chosen not just for practical reasons, but as a way of acknowledging the project’s truly global background and its commitment to equity among partners.