On December 17, 2014, US President Barack Obama announced historic actions toward normalizing United States relations with Cuba, and instructed Secretary of State John Kerry to re-establish diplomatic interactions between the two countries, so as “to reach for a better future for the Cuban people, for the American people, for our entire hemisphere, and for the world.”* On April 11, Obama and Raul Castro held an historic meeting.
Much of the current discussion concerning the new relationship between the two countries is centered on resolving five decades of political and diplomatic differences, and we strongly encourage this political rethink. However, there is more to this new openness than simply enabling American-owned businesses to establish themselves along Havana’s seaside Malécon esplanade, or allowing United States tourists to once again enjoy the beautiful Playa Paraíso and Playa Sirena. Establishing a new basis for United States scientific relations with Cuba is of utmost importance as relations warm. Forging more frequent and in-depth scientific dialogue would help to accelerate the process of normalization beyond political differences. Our trip to Cuba in October of last year, as part of an invited science delegation, points to a multitude of ways that open scientific exchange could benefit the science communities, particularly the neuroscience communities, in both nations.
The US government’s apparent rethink of diplomatic relations with Cuba should have big implications for science, not just politics, argue the authors. Photo courtesy of Caroline O’Driscoll (University of Southern California Laboratory of Neuro Imaging, Los Angeles).

The Cuban Neuroscience Center in Havana, Cuba. Photo courtesy of Mark Cohen.
Building on sentiments expressed even before Obama’s recent announcement (1), we feel strongly that the United States should normalize scientific relationships with Cuba. Our Cuban colleagues have been leading contributors to the international scientific community, yet we as US scientists, in many cases, have not been able collaborate with them effectively; we cannot, for example, obtain joint research grants. And Cubans cannot attend most US conferences, nor can they teach in our university courses. Scientists in the two countries cannot exchange research materials, such as software or computational resources. These political barriers to science are artificial, arbitrary, even demeaning to both Cuban and US scientists, and are a source of awkwardness in the greater worldwide community of scientists. With a new era of diplomacy taking shape, now is the opportune time to take steps toward enhancing scientific openness.
Despite its diminutive size, Cuba has plenty to offer in the way of science research, insights, and advances. Even with the economic challenges of the long-standing embargo and chilled cultural relations, the island nation of Cuba has persevered in its pursuit of biotechnology (2) and the biomedical sciences (3). Others have noted the unique opportunities available for US–Cuban partnerships in atmospheric sciences (4), geology (5), computational biology (6), and oncology nursing (7). In addition, Cuba has a very strong medical care system (8, 9), and—according to the World Bank (data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.ADT.1524.LT.ZS)—a high literacy rate among young people, which includes knowledge about science, technology, and engineering (10).
These factors no doubt contribute to a strong two-way communication between the lay public and research scientists in the cause of public health (9, 11). As a consequence, the general population has been eager to participate in scientific research (12). For example, Cuba’s twin registry, consisting of more the 55,000 identified pairs, has reached an astounding 96% of the total population of Cuban twins (13). And Cuban scientists have embarked on large-scale population studies, such as work on the ontogeny of the electroencephalogram (14), which routinely achieve more than 95% enrollment success. Researchers have also been at the forefront of infectious disease interventions (15), provided access to low-cost pharmaceuticals (16), and developed innovative family medicine programs, which would be otherwise unavailable in developing countries (17).
Moreover, medical services are Cuba’s third most valuable export, and the nation has demonstrated leadership in sending physicians to the frontlines of the Ebola outbreak in West Africa (18). The top-tier biomedical research performed in Cuba has the potential to have an impact on world health, and research in wealthier nations will aid the Cuban population. Their efforts have particularly been evident across a quarter century of Cuban contributions to neuroscience research and its applications (19). However, US scientists’ observation of, participation in, and collaboration with such activities was mostly impossible under the embargo.
During our October visit, we witnessed the Cuban enthusiasm for biomedical science first hand, specifically their recent efforts in neuroscience. For three days we had the opportunity to participate in the anniversary of the Cuban Neuroscience Center (CNEURO) and to join in the inauguration of their new research facility. The relatively small core of CNEURO scientists has had a disproportionate impact on basic methods in neuroscience, particularly in electrophysiology (20), neuroimaging (21), and neuroinformatics (22). For example, few research centers have been as influential in the quantitative analysis of brain electrical activity as have scientists at the CNEURO (23). Each of us has also benefited personally from the leadership of these researchers through international activities, as well as the broad impact of the CNEURO group on our research.
The primary reason for the celebration was CNEURO’s acceptance of the incredible gift of a modern high-field MRI scanner (a Siemens 3 Tesla Allegra system) from the University of Maastricht in The Netherlands, now Cuba’s third MRI instrument. Once this MRI scanner is commissioned fully, with help from the Siemens Corporation, we anticipate a major increase in the creative output of the CNEURO scientists accompanied by new opportunities for enhanced collaboration with them. We note with interest that a previous attempt to make a similar gift of MRI neuroimaging instrumentation from a United States-based institution proved impossible under the prior conditions of the economic embargo. It is unclear if such an exchange of scientific technology would be possible even under any new economic arrangements between the two nations. We worry, however, that without the appreciation of US and Cuban policy-makers, the scientific potential
Beyond general diplomatic relations, we believe that unique opportunities exist for US scientists to visit Cuba, exchange scientific ideas, share technologies, and undertake collaborative projects.
of such “low-hanging” opportunities for sharing expertise, technology, and avenues for research collaboration might be overlooked as the new economic and diplomatic relationship takes shape. Input from Cuban and US scientists in these discussions would help to ensure that new policy agreements take such opportunities for scientific benefit into account.
A further important emphasis of the CNEURO inaugural program involved the planning of an international training program consisting of Latin American student and faculty exchanges among developed, as well as economically disadvantaged, countries. These discussions seek to set the stage for providing state-of-the-art knowledge to a population of early-stage investigators who would otherwise lack such access. Through normalized relations, the United States could play an important role in such programs for science education and training. Indeed, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (24) has suggested that now is the time to accelerate academic and science-based exchanges between the United States and Cuba. Many students from US universities already visit Cuba annually to take part in overseas educational programs (25). It is still unclear how educational exchanges for those Cuban science students wishing to visit US colleges will operate under the new US policies.
Although a US scientist can, in principle, travel today to Cuba for scientific or educational purposes under the Office of Foreign Asset Control’s General License, one limitation is the uncertainty over paying for such travel from one’s NIH, National Science Foundation, or other federal research grants. Prior rules involved having an organization in a third-party country reimburse one’s costs related to visiting Cuba. For the US Government to provide needed clarification or simply make such travel feasible as a grant-related expense—in concert with the soon-to-be amended General License—would greatly facilitate scientific visits to Cuba, as well as joint research activities, and even attendance at international conferences held there.
The US–Cuban economic and political relationship is famously complex, with many dimensions that we, as biological scientists, are unqualified to solve. Nevertheless, on the cusp of historic change in US–Cuban international policy, now clearly is the time to further strengthen the mutual scientific interactions that have developed over the past decade (26). It is urgent that we, the scientific community, ask our government and representatives to explore immediately available and longer-term steps to support the health of scientific interactions between the United States and Cuba. These steps include, but should not be limited to, addressing the sharing of scientific data, tools, and technological resources, professional development opportunities, and an explicit policy statement that US scientists are permitted to be reimbursed from their federal grants for scientific travel to Cuba.
Indeed, we hope that new dialogue with Cuba spearheaded by the White House will be followed closely by meaningful moves to promote truly complete scientific cooperation and exchange. Beyond general diplomatic relations, we believe that unique opportunities exist for US scientists to visit Cuba, exchange scientific ideas, share technologies, and undertake collaborative projects. CNEURO’s achievements have already demonstrated to the world the unique contributions that Cuban neuroscientists can make to the international community. We see even greater potential to advance not only diplomatic but scientific relations between our countries.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Pedro Valdes-Sosa, Dr. Mitchel Valdes-Sosa, and the staff of the Cuban Neuroscience Center in Havana for hosting our visit to Cuba; Dr. Edson Amaro and the Latin American Brain Mapping Network, based in São Paulo, Brazil; and the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility in Stockholm, Sweden, for their ongoing support and their efforts toward fostering global brain science interactivity above and beyond political boundaries.
Footnotes
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences.
References
- 1.Fink GR, Leshner AI, Turekian VC. Science diplomacy with Cuba. Science. 2014;344(6188):1065. doi: 10.1126/science.1256312. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Randal J. Despite embargo, biotechnology in Cuba thrives. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1034–1037. doi: 10.1093/jnci/92.13.1034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Giles J. Cuban science: Vive la revolución? Nature. 2005;436(7049):322–324. doi: 10.1038/436322a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Marrero JC, et al. Partnering with Cuba: Weather extremes. Science. 2014;345(6194):278. doi: 10.1126/science.345.6194.278-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Yeats RS. Partnering with Cuba: Earthquake hazards. Science. 2014;345(6194):278. doi: 10.1126/science.345.6194.278-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pons T, Montero LA, Febles JP. Computational biology in Cuba: An opportunity to promote science in a developing country. PLOS Comput Biol. 2007;3(11):e227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sheldon LK, et al. Oncology nursing in Cuba: Report of the delegation. Clin J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(4):421–424. doi: 10.1188/12.CJON.421-424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Campion EW, Morrissey S. A different model—Medical care in Cuba. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(4):297–299. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1215226. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Keck CW, Reed GA. The curious case of Cuba. Am J Public Health. 2012;102(8):e13–e22. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Núñez Jover J, López Cerezo JA. Technological innovation as social innovation: Science, technology, and the rise of STS studies in Cuba. Sci Technol Human Values. 2008;33(6):707–729. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Toledo ME, et al. Towards active community participation in dengue vector control: Results from action research in Santiago de Cuba, Cuba. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2007;101(1):56–63. doi: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2006.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Luis IP, Martínez S, Alvarez A. Community engagement, personal responsibility and self help in Cuba’s health system reform. MEDICC Rev. 2012;14(4):44–47. doi: 10.37757/MR2012V14.N4.11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hur Y-M, Craig JM. Twin registries worldwide: An important resource for scientific research. Twin Res Hum Genet. 2013;16(Special Issue 1):1–12. doi: 10.1017/thg.2012.147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Valdés P, et al. QEEG in a public health system. Brain Topogr. 1992;4(4):259–266. doi: 10.1007/BF01135563. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Guzman MG, Harris E. Dengue. Lancet. 2014;385(9966):453–465. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60572-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lage A. Global pharmaceutical development and access: Critical issues of ethics and equity. MEDICC Rev. 2011;13(3):16–22. doi: 10.37757/MR2011V13.N3.5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dresang LT, Brebrick L, Murray D, Shallue A, Sullivan-Vedder L. Family medicine in Cuba: Community-oriented primary care and complementary and alternative medicine. J Am Board Fam Prac. 2005;18(4):297–303. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.18.4.297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Anderson JL. Cuba’s Ebola diplomacy. The New Yorker. 2014 Available at www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/cubas-ebola-diplomacy. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Rasenick MM. U.S. and Cuban scientific exchange. Science. 1999;286(5449):2449–2450. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5449.2449c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Alvarez A, Valdes P, Pascual R. EEG developmental equations confirmed for Cuban schoolchildren. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1987;67(4):330–332. doi: 10.1016/0013-4694(87)90119-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Sanabria-Diaz G, et al. Surface area and cortical thickness descriptors reveal different attributes of the structural human brain networks. Neuroimage. 2010;50(4):1497–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Uludağ K, et al. Latin American Brain Mapping Network (LABMAN) Neuroimage. 2009;47(1):312–313. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.03.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Hernandez-Gonzalez G, et al. Cuban Human Brain Mapping Project (CHBMP) Multimodal quantitative neuroimaging databases and methods: The Cuban Human Brain Mapping Project. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2011;42(3):149–159. doi: 10.1177/155005941104200303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Johnson S, Lombardo NR, Davis SM. U.S.-Cuba Academic and Science-Based Exchanges: Prospects for a Two-Way Street. Center for Strategic and International Studies; Washington, DC: 2012. [Google Scholar]
- 25.France H, Rogers L. Cuba study abroad: A pedagogical tool for reconstructing American national identity. Int Stud Perspect. 2012;13(4):390–407. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Demain AL. Scientific links with Cuba flourished despite US embargo. Nature. 2009;457(7233):1079. doi: 10.1038/4571079c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

