Manifold health: the need to specify One Health and the importance of cooperation in (bio)ethics

It looks like One Health (OH) is here to stay, given its endorsement at the level of policy and the way it shapes curricula of relevant scientific disciplines. This has not gone unnoticed by philosophers who critically appraise the concept and its normative assumptions (cf. Capps and Lederman, 2015; Thompson and List, 2015; Verweij and Bovenkerk, 2016). Though applauded for bringing together a diversity of disciplines to deliver solution to multifarious problems, the concept involves ambiguity. On the one hand, its added value sometimes remains unclear when narrowly understood as cooperation between veterinary professionals and their human health counterparts, on topics such as zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance. On the other hand, more broadly interpreted, One Health encompasses everything related to health, which may lead some to question its relevance and applicability. To address these vulnerabilities of the One Health concept we suggest a four-way distinction of functions. This avoids a narrow understanding by pointing out the relevance of health promotion, while at the same time putting flesh on the bones of OH as a full-fledged perspective on interspecies health policy. We believe these functions provide a compelling specification of One Health, enriching practical application as well as ethical reflection. We complement this proposal with an outline for an ethical framework to support decision-making at different levels within a One Health perspective.