Accelerating Bioinformatics in Global South: A Preliminary Perspective-Driven Empirical Study

Accelerating Bioinformatics in Global South: A Preliminary Perspective-Driven Empirical Study | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Accelerating Bioinformatics in Global South: A Preliminary Perspective-Driven Empirical Study Peter Chinedu Agu, Hemani Sharma, Anil Kumar S, Asif M Khan, Ramesh Katam, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8549203/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background In contemporary science, bioinformatics is an essential field. However, there are notable differences between the Global North and South. This study examined trends in the bioinformatics community's environment, major obstacles, and growth objectives to identify the particular strengths and systemic issues in the Global South to promote fair scientific progress and community-driven initiatives. Methods This study used a descriptive, cross-sectional survey design. A structured online survey was disseminated to professionals and bioinformatics stakeholders across the Global South from August 19, 2025, to September 20, 2025. The questionnaire collected quantitative and qualitative data across eight domains: demographics, training, infrastructure, research outputs, collaboration, funding, ethics, and future directions. Data analyses applied a descriptive and thematic approach to identify trends. Results A total of 142 people from various Global South areas took part. The following key findings revealed significant obstacles: restricted access to high-performance computers (75%), unstable internet connectivity (62%), a lack of practical training (68% claimed inadequate skills), and severely limited funding (85%). Research was in line with local objectives, such as agriculture and infectious disease, according to the trend. Contextual ethical frameworks for data sharing and equitable collaborations were strongly supported by the majority (72%) of respondents. The prioritisation of investment in regional computational infrastructure (82%), capacity building (88%), and supporting national policies (78%), notwithstanding the obstacles, was evidently optimistic. Conclusion The findings from this paper offer evidence-based insights showing that fair international cooperation, long-term investments in infrastructure and training, and a move towards locally managed initiatives are all necessary for sustainable bioinformatics growth in the Global South. For these areas to transition from information consumers to bioinformatics innovators and leaders, community-defined goals are essential. Bioinformatics Global South Capacity Building Digital Divide Equitable Collaboration Health Innovation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 7 Figure 8 1. Introduction Bioinformatics has become a foundational pillar of contemporary life sciences. According to recent reports, it is fundamentally transforming the understanding of biological systems at molecular, organismal, and population levels (Puniya et al., 2024 ; Akintola et al., 2024 ). For instance, the integration of high-throughput sequencing, computational modelling, and large-scale data analytics has significantly expedited scientific discovery. These are propelling the advancements in precision medicine, pathogen surveillance, agriculture, and biotechnology (Satam et al., 2023 ; Thami et al., 2023 ; Bifulco et al., 2025 ). Consequently, bioinformatics is now widely regarded as essential infrastructure underpinning modern scientific innovation (Shaffer et al., 2019 ). Despite this global expansion, growth remains profoundly uneven. It has been identified that there is a large structural disparity that is increasing the distance between regions with robust computational infrastructure and those building the foundational capacity to grow (Aron et al., 2021 ). Typically, high-income demographics and a large portion of Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and Southeast Asia (often referred to as the Global South) exemplify this disparity the most (Hayah et al., 2025 ). The Global South represents a crucial frontier in the global bioinformatics landscape. In this region, there is immense biodiversity, distinct disease burdens, and pressing agricultural challenges that demand regionally customized genomic and bioinformatics solutions (Rohr et al., 2020 ; Thami et al., 2024). Yet, their scientific contributions remain underrepresented in international discourse. This reflects deep-seated inequities in research leadership, authorship, recognition, and epistemic authority. Obviously, lack of funding, fragmented policy support, infrastructure deficiencies, and a shortage of skilled workers are ongoing obstacles that risk excluding the Global South from scientific discoveries with immediate influence on their society and ecosystems (Tractenberg et al., 2019 ; Laumann et al., 2025 ). According to recent research, capacity gaps comprised structural obstacles in training development, global knowledge hierarchies, and sustained research leadership in addition to technical constraints. Invariably, critical analyses are urging a move away from simplistic deficit narratives and "North–South" dichotomies in the ongoing global discussion reflecting on scholarly reports to critically examine leadership localisation, authorship equity, and governance frameworks (Abouzeid et al., 2022 ; Attwood et al., 2019 ; Castro Torres & Alburez-Gutierrez, 2022 ; Nakamura et al., 2023 ; Hornidge et al., 2023 ). Consequently, moving beyond conceptual discourse to ground this debate in empirical evidence is essential at this moment. Systematic surveys and other empirical methods can provide a potent means to document the prevailing realities, motivations, and insights of researchers within the Global South. Similarly, such data can offer crucial, practitioner-informed evidence on research productivity, training quality, resource availability, and strategic priorities to capture trends that anecdotal reporting may miss (Reed et al., 2021 ; Bradke et al., 2023 ). Additionally, this evidence base is vital as it can ensure that the people most affected by these disparities inform future dialogues and intervention strategies. Concurrently, grassroots initiatives are actively strengthening local capacity. These point to a growing momentum toward more inclusive ecosystem development. In light of these, the current study undertakes a structured empirical assessment to provide a comprehensive perspective on bioinformatics in the Global South. The objective was to integrate survey data to identify trends in: (1) the demographic, institutional, and professional landscape of practitioners; (2) key barriers in training, infrastructure, funding, collaboration, and policy; and (3) community-defined priorities for sustainable and equitable growth. Methodologically, it employed a cross-sectional online survey targeting bioinformaticians, life scientists, educators, and stakeholders across Global South regions, with quantitative descriptive and qualitative thematic analyses. Thoughtfully, this approach can advance a more inclusive and evidence-based global narrative by elevating the voices of scholars in these areas remotely. Therefore, data from this study have the potential to guide practical strategies, institutional policy change, and forms of cooperation that encourage fair involvement, bolster local leadership, and facilitate the crucial shift from applying knowledge globally to co-creating knowledge. 2. Methodology 2.1 Study rationale "Bioinformatics in the Global South: Where are we heading?" was the sub-theme panel discussion that took place at the SANBIX2025 conference, and this study was conceived as a direct empirical follow-up to that topic. In addition to highlighting important shortages in infrastructure, training, and policy frameworks, the panel, which included experts from a variety of geographic areas, brought up pressing issues about sustainable capacity building in low- and middle-income areas (Kruk et al., 2018). A structured survey instrument was created to methodically gather the experiences and viewpoints of the bioinformatics community throughout the Global South to go beyond anecdotal reflections and produce solid empirical evidence (Mulder et al., 2016; Hirani et al., 2024). 2.2 Survey design and structure Based on earlier research on scientific capability evaluations, a standardised digital questionnaire was created using Google Forms (see Appendix I) (Berger et al., 2014; Dehghani et al., 2024). Eight theme parts of the test were intended to collect both quantitative and qualitative data: Demographics: Recording the background of the responder, including their academic or professional status, institutional affiliation, and geographic location. Training and Skills: Assessing educational exposure, skill acquisition, and perceived adequacy of bioinformatics training. Infrastructure and Resources: Evaluating access to computational tools, databases, and laboratory-computational integration. Research Activities and Outputs: Mapping research themes, publication trends, and translational relevance. Collaboration and Mobility: Exploring institutional and cross-border collaboration, mentorship, and academic exchange. Funding and Policy: Gauging the availability of national or institutional support, funding accessibility, and policy awareness. Ethics and Data Sharing: Understanding perspectives on data governance, open science, and ethical frameworks. Future Directions: Collecting opinions on strategic priorities and envisioned trajectories for bioinformatics in the region. 2.3 Target respondents Targeting a wide range of stakeholders directly involved in or impacting the growth of bioinformatics, the survey included practicing bioinformaticians, graduate and postgraduate students, researchers in the life sciences and related fields, educators and trainers in bioinformatics-related fields, policy makers, and stakeholders in science, technology, and innovation (Akintola et al., 2024). The purpose of this multi-tiered sample technique was to guarantee that viewpoints from various sectors, career phases, and institutional responsibilities were fairly represented (Berger et al., 2014). 2.4 Data collection procedure For extensive and effective data collection, digital channels were used, a strategy that has been successfully used in other international surveys (Dehghani et al., 2024). Between August 19, 2025, and September 20, 2025, the URL to the questionnaire was shared via direct email correspondence, regional academic mailing lists, professional networks, and specialised WhatsApp groups. Participants from a variety of nations and institutional contexts were able to contribute, and the multi-platform strategy allowed for quick distribution in low-connectivity environments. To minimise social desirability bias and promote honest replies, data were gathered anonymously. 2.5 Data Analysis Google Forms automatically compiled the responses, which were then exported for examination. Consistent with methodological techniques in comparable landscape studies, the principal analytical strategy was descriptive, emphasising the summarization of views and impressions rather than inferential hypothesis testing (Casula et al., 2021). In the quantitative analysis, categorical responses were summarised by frequency and percentage, and tables, pie charts, and bar charts were used to display the data. Open-ended replies were thematically grouped as part of qualitative analysis in order to find recurrent issues, recommendations, and emerging themes (Naeem et al., 2023). In this study, the overarching framework sought to provide insights into the state of bioinformatics today, with a focus on issues that the community saw and locally suggested remedies. 2.6 Ethical considerations Informed permission was electronically sought at the start of the questionnaire, and participation was entirely optional. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality; no personal information was gathered. According to standard international criteria, the study was free from formal institutional ethical assessment since it contained non-sensitive professional opinions and did not contain biological or personal data (Schroter et al., 2006; Capili and Anastasi, 2024). 2.7 Methodological Limitations This study is a descriptive, cross-sectional survey design; therefore, it has limitations. As outlined in the methodology, data were collected through an anonymous, structured online questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic grouping rather than inferential or causal modeling. Accordingly, the results should be viewed as preliminary-level insights rather than objective assessments of infrastructure capacity or policy efficacy. This is because they are based on self-reported impressions and experiences at the time of responding to the questionnaire. Additionally, reliance on digital dissemination channels (email lists, professional networks, and messaging platforms) may have introduced sampling bias, potentially favoring respondents who are already connected to academic or bioinformatics communities and underrepresenting more isolated or infrastructure-constrained stakeholders. Furthermore, while the survey captured broad trends across multiple Global South regions, it was not designed to perform country-level comparisons or stratified analyses; therefore, important contextual differences between middle-income countries and fragile or conflict-affected settings may not be fully resolved by this report. Consistent with the study’s descriptive framework, the analysis inventories perceived barriers and priorities but does not establish causal explanations for observed disparities, which is an objective that would require complementary qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or institutional case studies. In general, because the study did not incorporate formal benchmarking against parallel large-scale assessments, the authors maintained that these reported findings are positioned as an empirical baseline rather than a comparative evaluation within a global metrics framework. 3. Results A total of 142 participants filled out the form across the Global South. The results are organized thematically to align with the survey's structure. This was to provide a quantitative and qualitative overview of the current state of bioinformatics in the Global South region. 3.1 Demographics Respondents represented diverse nationalities/residences from Nigeria, India, Uganda, Pakistan, Tanzania, Rwanda, Egypt, Cameroon, Sri Lanka, Malawi, Kenya, Benin, Bangladesh, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Russia, United Kingdom, Zambia, Iran, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Republic of Congo within regions of the Global South, with notable participation from Africa (66.2%) and South Asia (19%), followed by others like North America and Southeast Asia (Fig. 1 ). The majority of respondents identified as early-career researchers (48.9%) or postgraduate students (43%), with the remainder comprising senior researchers (22.3%), faculty (25%), and policymakers (4%). We identify that this distribution reflects a community that is rapidly growing but still maturing, with a strong foundation in academic institutions. 3.2 Training and Skills A significant skills gap was identified as a primary constraint. Respondents reported some formal bioinformatics training topped by online self-study (27%), short course or workshop (24%), and formal university degree (23%). A greater number of the participants identified the adequacy of their training as "basic" or "inadequate" to meet their research needs, as in Fig. 2 . The most commonly cited skill deficiencies were in high-performance computing (HPC) management, advanced statistical analysis, and reproducible workflow development (e.g., Nextflow, Snakemake). The qualitative responses in this study emphasized a heavy reliance on online, self-directed learning (e.g., MOOCs, YouTube tutorials) to supplement often theoretical and outdated university curricula. 3.3 Infrastructure and Resources As shown in Fig. 3 , there is limited availability of bioinformatics resources overall. Over 60% of respondents cited inconsistent internet connectivity as a "significant" or "severe" obstacle to their work. Access to high-performance computing clusters was limited, with only 13% having regular, unimpeded access. A critical infrastructure gap was identified in the integration between wet labs and computational resources; 23.9% reported that data generation and analysis are siloed, leading to inefficiencies. The majority of respondents (54.9%) selected financing, indicating that open-source tools were the most popular substitute and that the expense of commercial software licences was a widespread worry. 3.4 Research Activities and Outputs Some of the research focus areas were strongly aligned with regional priorities. The top research themes with the regional influence were: disease genomics (18%), drug discovery (16%), agricultural (6%) and epidemiology (8%), and public health genomics (6%) (Fig. 4 ). However, a key finding was the "publication gap"; while 37.3% of respondents were actively involved in research, only 57% had zero bioinformatics-related publications in the past 5 years. Only 23.2% have supervised bioinformatics research projects. Most publications are in closed access, with qualitative feedback highlighting challenges in institutional funding for publications in high-impact journals. 3.5 Collaboration and Mobility Results from this study show that collaboration was highly valued but often constrained. Figure 5 shows that 90% (58.5% frequently and 23.8% occasionally) of respondents were engaged in some form of collaboration. All participants are interested in varied kinds of collaboration, with 50% having no preference for global South-South or North-South. While these partnerships were seen as crucial for access to expertise and resources, a common qualitative theme was the risk of inequitable collaborations, where local researchers performed data generation or curation but were less involved in advanced analysis, study design, or leadership. The majority of respondents' physical mobility and conference attendance were significantly hampered by financing constraints (25%) and a lack of contacts (17%), according to the statistics. 3.6 Funding and Policy Consistently, in this study, funding scarcity was identified as the most critical systemic challenge. An overwhelming 88% of respondents characterized bioinformatics funding in their country as "inadequate" or "highly competitive and scarce" (Fig. 6 ). The most common source of funds among participants was self-funding (36%). Research progress has been stopped at some points due to a lack of funding, according to 77.5% of participants. The top policy recommendations to speed up bioinformatics research were infrastructure (17%), educational curriculum change (18%), and increased government financing (27%). Policy support was found to be fragmented, with more than 43% being either unaware of or reporting the non-existence of a national policy or strategic roadmap for bioinformatics. According to opinions, two common complaints were the absence of specific financing lines and the categorisation of bioinformatics projects into funding panels for either computer science or biology. 3.7 Ethics and Data Sharing Our data shows that attitudes towards data sharing were complex and nuanced. Responders expressed average hurdles with data sharing. There is limited training on ethics in bioinformatics. While 59.2% of respondents agreed with the principles of open science and data sharing, 28.2% expressed major concerns regarding the ethics of data sovereignty, as shown in Fig. 7 . Overall, there was a powerful consensus on the need for localized ethical guidelines and governance frameworks that ensure equitable benefits and co-authorship for data contributors. 3.8 Future Directions As seen in Fig. 8 , more than 80% of respondents expressed optimism after strategic investments were prioritised in four key areas to change the bioinformatics landscape: promoting equitable international collaborations based on true co-creation and leadership by local researchers, creating dedicated funding streams and national policies that formally recognise bioinformatics as a distinct and strategic discipline, and building capacity through sustained, hands-on training in advanced computational skills infrastructure development, specifically national or regional cloud/high-performance computing hubs with reliable internet, to democratise access. Similarly, there is a need for more outreach on the ongoing bioinformatics initiatives in the global south. Interestingly, 91.5% of the respondents indicated interest in participating in any bioinformatics initiatives targeting the Global South. 4. Discussion Empirical evidence is necessary for the proper design and execution of policies. This paper offers a thorough, empirically supported examination of the bioinformatics situation in the Global South, exposing a picture that is both incredibly promising and severely limited by systemic issues. The results depict a vibrant, young, and highly driven group of researchers whose work is frequently hindered by a well-known trio of constraints: insufficient training, brittle infrastructure and limited financing (Mulder et al., 2016 ; Hamdi et al., 2021 ). But going beyond this conventional wisdom, our poll reveals more complex, nuanced concerns about autonomy, equality, and the direction of the field in these areas going forward. Our results are consistent with the Aron et al. ( 2021 ) publication. Unquestionably, the respondents' consensus goes beyond a simple request for funding and instead calls for a fundamental reorganisation of the process of developing and maintaining bioinformatics capability. Hence, a need to move away from a dependency paradigm and towards one of independence and international collaboration. A significant mismatch between traditional academic curriculum and the quickly changing requirements of contemporary biological research was highlighted by the skills gap that has been observed, especially in high-performance computing and sophisticated data processing (Attwood et al., 2019 ; Tractenberg et al., 2019 ). MOOCs and internet resources have emerged as a critical temporary solution, but this dependence on self-directed learning is unsustainable and does not offer the structured mentoring and practical problem-solving experience that are essential for professional growth (Ranganathan et al. , 2005). According to this research, training in the Global South needs to shift towards intensive, practical workshops and long-term mentorship programmes, also known as "hackathons" or "codeathons", which are created specially to address datasets and research questions that are pertinent to the region (Shaffer et al., 2019 ; Akintola et al., 2024 ). Additionally, the lack of expertise in repeatable workflow management might continue a loop in which research from these areas is perceived as less rigorous, which would limit its worldwide influence and citation (Shaffer et al., 2019 ). The infrastructure findings support earlier studies on the digital divide. They draw attention to a particular and debilitating bottleneck: the divergence between data collection and processing (Western et al., 2025 ). The separation of computational teams and wet laboratories leads to inefficiencies and inhibits the multidisciplinary discussion that remains important to bioinformatics. A convincing answer was the robust support for regional or national HPC/cloud centres. These centralised facilities, which were supported by 85% of respondents, might reduce the expenditures of individual institutions, offer vital technical assistance, and create a collaborative atmosphere that is much required (Fifth Dutch National SDG Report, 2021 ). However, dependable, reasonably priced, high-speed internet is essential to their success; this fundamental utility is still incredibly elusive and calls for immediate governmental investment and legislative change (Aron et al., 2021 ). Possibly the most illuminating results relate to the dynamics of research production and cooperation. A community that is deeply committed to using genomics for the good of society was demonstrated by the connection of research themes—infectious diseases, agriculture, and human genetics—with urgent local needs (Smith et al., 2005 ; Thami et al., 2023 ; Mbisva, 2025 ). Grassroots organisations – including national societies, university groups, and volunteer networks – play a prime role in providing training and mentorship where institutional resources are limited. Emerging organizations in the Global South, like Bioclues ( https://bioclues.org/ last accessed on April 30, 2026) and African Life Science RNA Salon ( https://afrilscrna.org/ last accessed on April 30, 2026), bring bioinformaticians together, foster a strong working mentor-mentee relationship, provide access to bioinformatics resources, organize conferences and workshops, offer information about research, training, and education, and offer accessible and foster open science literacy. Bioclues is a non-profit organization that was founded in 2005 by Dr. Prashanth Suravajhala and Pritish Varadwaj. Bioclues organized reproducibility-focused journal clubs in collaboration with ReproducibiliTea: they work well as a low-cost vehicle in the dissemination of reproducibility concepts across disciplines and regions. These clubs are low-cost, adaptable, and can be run online to reach dispersed participants. But running reproducibility-focused journal clubs faces recurring practical problems: a) Engagement- Due to escalating work commitments or insufficient motivational rewards, gradual decline in participation. b) Paid journals- Limited access to journals limits reading. c) Continuity- Journal club may dissolve when the organizer leaves. d) Institutional support- Undervalues journal clubs. d) Technical barriers- Lack of computational skill. Similar to this, the African Life Science RNA Salon, a scientific community/network that supports RNA research among early-career researchers in Africa with assistance from the RNA Society, USA ( https://www.rnasociety.org/ last accessed on April 30, 2026), has met difficulties in planning its symposia over the last four years since its founding in 2022/2023. These challenges corroborate those mentioned for the Bioclues Journal Club. On the other hand, the "publication gap" suggests that major obstacles keep regional researchers from spearheading the distribution of their own findings. Critiques of "helicopter research" and "parachute science," in which foreign partners from wealthy universities frequently control the ownership and narrative of research that starts in the Global South, are consistent with this (Laumann et al., 2025 ; Alemu et al., 2025 ). According to our study, existing foreign partnerships are frequently viewed as unfair, despite their importance in terms of resource access. Local researchers should be acknowledged as equal intellectual contributors from hypothesis formation to paper writing, rather than just data producers, as part of collaborations based on "true co-creation and leadership" (Mehjabeen et al., 2025 ). This is a strong call for epistemic fairness. A crucial ethical component is added to this conversation by the overwhelming concern (78%) for data sovereignty and ethics. A legitimate concern that data sharing may result in exploitation and the deterioration of national research interests in the absence of strong local governance structures tempers the excitement for open science (Soulé, 2024 ). In order to avoid neocolonial practices in data collection, respondents' demands for localised ethical norms are not a rejection of global standards; rather, they emphasise the need for these standards to be tailored to particular cultural, ethical, and legal settings (Aron et al., 2021 ). This calls for a two-pronged strategy: promoting more equitable international data-sharing regulations while also enhancing local capabilities in data governance and bioethics. Lastly, 80% of respondents strongly agree that national policy and funding are needed, indicating a basic understanding that bioinformatics is currently an "orphan discipline" in many national science portfolios, straddling the boundaries of technology, agriculture, and health agencies. The field has to be acknowledged as a strategic national priority that is vital for economic development, food security, and pandemic preparation to flourish (Carter et al., 2022 ). This necessitates the development of targeted financial mechanisms that address its specific requirements, such as software licences and computer time, as well as campaigning to persuade decision-makers of its cross-cutting importance (Akande et al., 2023 ). Agreeably, the current empirical findings on bioinformatics capacity in the Global South can be powerfully reframed through critical lenses in STEMM education and global science policy. For example, the documented trilemma of asymmetrical partnerships, skills gaps, and infrastructural precarity could become a textbook example of research infrastructure inequality, where the "digital divide" is a structural determinant of scientific dependency rather than just a technical one (Sustainability Directory, 2024 ). Similarly, the reported dynamics of “helicopter research” and local relegation to data provision align with critiques of knowledge colonialism. It has illustrated how global science often functions as an extractive enterprise that reproduces epistemic hierarchies (Odeny and Bosurgi, 2022 ). Furthermore, these findings challenge the current paradigms of global research governance, which often prioritize universalist Open Science mandates over the data sovereignty​ and equitable resource distribution demanded by respondents (Hrabanski and Pesche, 2016 ). Therefore, in this report, the call for “true co-creation” signals a necessary shift in North–South collaboration dynamics. That is, a shift of paradigm from a donor-recipient model of capacity-building towards a co-productive framework that recognizes Global South researchers as agents of their own scientific destiny. 5. Conclusion and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusion This study unequivocally shows that bioinformatics is at a turning point in the Global South. The discipline is driven by a highly dedicated group of academics who are producing science that is effective and relevant locally, but a combination of financial disparities, a significant skills gap, insufficient infrastructure, and unfair international partnerships is seriously impeding its expansion. The results go beyond merely listing restrictions to disclose a distinct and pressing community need: a fundamental transition away from reliance on outside assistance towards the development of locally driven, globally integrated, self-sustaining bioinformatics ecosystems. A huge potential is highlighted by the respondents' unwavering optimism and their accurate identification of strategic goals. Therefore, to address regional and global health, agricultural, and environmental challenges, the Global South must transition from being a consumer of bioinformatics knowledge to a primary innovator and co-leader in the field. Recommendations Based on the empirical findings of this survey, we propose the following targeted recommendations for key stakeholders: For National Governments and Regional Bodies Create national strategies for bioinformatics: Acknowledge bioinformatics as a unique strategic field that is essential to economic security, agriculture, and national health. Provide precise plans for incorporating bioinformatics into national science and technology regulations. Make investments in shared infrastructure: Provide capital for the creation of data cloud and high-performance computing (HPC) centres at the national or regional level. Give fast, dependable internet access to research institutes as a priority, as a basic necessity. Establish funding streams expressly for bioinformatics projects: Start focused grant programmes within national research foundations that encompass software, computing resources, and specialised training. For Universities and Research Institutions Update academic programmes: Include practical, contemporary bioinformatics instruction in life sciences curricula. Develop specialized Master’s and PhD programs that emphasize advanced computational skills, reproducibility, and data analysis using real-world datasets. Encourage multidisciplinary hubs: Dismantle silos by establishing departments or centres that explicitly bring together biological and computational experts, promoting joint research and resource sharing. Give local leadership top priority: Create bioinformatician career tracks and incentives to guarantee clear paths for promotion and the retention of qualified researchers. For International Partners and Funders Encourage fair cooperation: Require and support collaborations that are jointly planned and directed by scholars from the Global South. Evidence of shared capacity training, data sovereignty strategies, and equitable authorship agreements should be required for funding submissions. Encourage long-term capacity building: Go beyond temporary workshops to provide funding for ongoing projects like visiting lecturer programmes, postdoctoral fellowships, and permanent technical support positions integrated within institutions. Match funds to actual needs: Provide funding that covers the full cost of bioinformatics, including open-access publishing costs, software licences, cloud computing credits, and high-speed internet. For the Global Bioinformatics Community Promote Data Sovereignty: Create and ratify fair international data-sharing agreements that uphold the concepts of benefit-sharing, ownership, and consent for data coming from the Global South. Encourage Inclusive Conferences and Publishing: To guarantee representation, provide travel subsidies, price exemptions, and virtual participation choices. To lessen apparent prejudice, encourage publications to actively seek out editors and reviewers from the Global South. Facilitate Networking: Create and support formal and informal networks that connect bioinformaticians across the Global South for peer support, mentorship, and collaboration. Declarations Ethical Approval This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision) and applicable international guidelines for research involving human participants. This study involved an anonymous online survey that collected non-sensitive professional opinions and did not include biological samples, clinical interventions, or personally identifiable information. Also, given the minimal-risk nature of the study and the absence of identifiable personal data, formal institutional ethical approval was not required in accordance with standard international criteria for exempt survey-based research . Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained electronically from all participants before their participation. At the beginning of the Google Form questionnaire, participants were provided with detailed information about the study’s purpose, voluntary nature, confidentiality measures, and data handling procedures. Participants were required to indicate their consent before proceeding with the survey. Therefore, participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents could discontinue participation at any point before submission without penalty. Consent to Publish Not applicable. The manuscript does not contain any person’s data in any form (including individual details, images, or identifiable information). Hence, all data presented are aggregated and anonymized. Clinical Trials Not applicable. Availability of data and materials The survey questionnaire and data is available on request to [email protected] or [email protected] Competing interests None Funding None Authors' contributions PCA wrote the first draft with figures subtly modified by AK and HS. PS,AMK and RK led the project Acknowledgements None References Abouzeid, M., Muthanna, A., Nuwayhid, I., El-Jardali, F., Connors, P., Habib, R. R., Akbarzadeh, S., and Jabbour, S. (2022). Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership? Health Research & Policy System, 20(1): 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00910-6. Akande, O. W., Carter, L. L., Abubakar, A., Achilla, R., Barakat, A., Gumede, N., Guseinova, A., Inbanathan, F. Y., Kato, M., Koua, E., Leite, J., Marklewitz, M., Mendez-Rico, J., Monamele, C., Musul, B., Nahapetyan, K., Naidoo, D., Ochola, R., Ozel, M., Raftery, P., Vicari, A., Wijesinghe, P. R., Zwetyenga, J., Safreed-Harmon, K., Barnadas, C., Mulders, M., Pereyaslov, D. I., Sacks, J. A., Warren, T., Cognat, S., Briand, S., and Samaan, G. (2023). Strengthening pathogen genomic surveillance for health emergencies: insights from the World Health Organization's regional initiatives. Front Public Health. 11:1146730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1146730. Akintola, A. A., Aborode, A. T., Hamza, M. T., Amakiri, A., Moore, B., Abdulai, S., Iyiola, O. A., Sulaimon, L. A., Effiong, E., Ogunyemi, A., Dosunmu, B., Maigoro, A. Y., Lawal, O., Raheem, K., and Hwang, U. W. (2024). Bioinformatics proficiency among African students. Front Bioinform. 4: 1328714. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbinf.2024.1328714. Alemu, K., Berhanu, D., Bergström, A., Hoa, D. P., Swartling Peterson, S., Phoummalaysith, B., Tomson, G., Wanyenze, R. K., and Persson, L. Å. (2025). Towards equitable partnerships in global health research: experiences from Ethiopia, Uganda, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. BMJ Glob Health. 10(6): e019130. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2025-019130. Aron, S., Chauke, P. A., Ras, V., Panji, S., Johnston, K., and Mulder, N (2021). The Development of a Sustainable Bioinformatics Training Environment Within the H3Africa Bioinformatics Network (H3ABioNet). Front. Educ. 6: 725702. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.725702. Attwood, T. K., Blackford, S., Brazas, M. D., Davies, A., and Schneider, M. V. (2019). A global perspective on evolving bioinformatics and data science training needs. Brief Bioinform. 20(2): 398-404. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx100. Berger, M. L., Martin, B. C., Husereau, D., Worley, K., Allen, J. D., Yang, W., Quon, N. C., Mullins, C. D., Kahler, K. H., and Crown, W. (2014). A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 17(2): 143-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.011. Bifulco, M., Di Zazzo, E., Affinito, A., and Pagano, C. (2025). The relevance of the history of biotechnology for healthcare: Teaching students how biotechnology and medicine have been closely entwined during the past century highlights how both fields have inspired and driven each other. EMBO Rep. 2025 Jan;26(2):303-306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-024-00355-8. Bradke, F., Maartens, A., and Teichmann, S. A. (2023). Key attributes of successful research institutes. PLoS Biol. 21(9): e3002267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002267. Capili, B., and Anastasi, J. K. (2024). Ethical Research and the Institutional Review Board: An Introduction. Am J Nurs. 124(3):50-54. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0001008420.28033.e8. Carter, L. L., Yu, M. A., Sacks, J. A., Barnadas, C., Pereyaslov, D., Cognat, S., Briand, S., Ryan, M. J., and Samaan, G. (2022). Global genomic surveillance strategy for pathogens with pandemic and epidemic potential 2022-2032. Bull World Health Organ. 100(4): 239-239A. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.22.288220. Castro Torres, A. F., and Alburez-Gutierrez, D. (2022). North and South: Naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 119(10): e2119373119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119373119. Casula, M., Rangarajan, N., and Shields, P. (2021). The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Qual Quant. 55(5): 1703-1725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9. Dehghani, A. (2024). Development and validation of the clinical judgment capability questionnaire in nurses: A sequential exploratory mixed method study. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 6: 100191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100191. Fifth Dutch National SDG Report. (2021). Sustainable Development in the Netherlands. Available from https://www.sdgnederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dutch-National-SDG-Report-2021.pdf. (Accessed on October 10, 2025). Hamdi, Y., Zass, L., Othman, H., Radouani, F., Allali, I., Hanachi, M., Okeke, C. J., Chaouch, M., Tendwa, M. B., Samtal, C., Mohamed Sallam, R., Alsayed, N., Turkson, M., Ahmed, S., Benkahla, A., Romdhane, L., Souiai, O., Tastan Bishop, Ö., Ghedira, K., Mohamed Fadlelmola, F., Mulder, N., and Kamal Kassim, S. (2021). Human OMICs and Computational Biology Research in Africa: Current Challenges and Prospects. OMICS. 25(4): 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2021.0004. Hayah, I., Ezebuiro, V., Kagame, S. P., Kuja, J. O., Waruhiu, C., Nesengani, L. T., Mdyogolo, S., Molotsi, A. H., Abechi, P., Abushady, A. M., Amor, N., Andika, B., Barakat, A., Beedessee, G., Botes, M., David, X., Ebuzoeme, N., Edea, Z., El Allali, A., Elekima, O. P., Elsherif, A. K., Gaouar, S. B. S., Gebre, Y. G., Georgewill, O. A., Hadjeras, L., Hassan, M. A., Hijri, M., Houaga, I., Ideozu, J. E., Igoh, M., Iwundu, M. P., Jaffer Ali, S. A. S., Jaouani, A., Kermouni Serradj, A. M., Khedim, R., Kilian, M., Kivuva, D. M., Knidiri, M., Koukoura, K. K., Kwasi, E. R., Labuschagne, K., Mafwila, A. L., Mensah, I., Modebelu, U., Mokgokong, P., Mokhtar, M. M., Muzemil, S., Nigussie, H., Ntui, V. O., Ogwang, J., Olivier, N. A., Olufowobi, O., Omotoriogun, T. C., Folarin, O., Eromon, P., Orina, J., Ouardi, F., Parish, T., Peter, M., Potgieter, J., Radouani, F., Ramantswana, M., Reda, S. R. A., Salifu, S. P., Schwartz, S. B., Shabangu, N., Sharaf, A., Siminialayi, I. M., Smith, R. M., Taniguchi, H., Tari-Ukuta, P. M., Tesfaye, K., Tmimi, F. Z., Tonfack, L. B., Udensi, O. U., Wambua, V. W., Wambua, S., Were, K., Wood, T. T., Wurdeman, B. M., Zoclanclounon, Y. A. B., Adu, A. F., Gillis-Harry, S. L., Opoku, N. K.O., Tshilate, T. S., Dede, S., Minimah, S. O., Tchiechoua, Y. H., Gisel, A., Hamdi, C., Mafokwane, T., Odogwu, B. A., Nwachukwu, G., Mungloo-Dilmohamud, Z., Ghodhbane-Gtari, F., Ibeachu, C., Zipfel, R. D., Madu, W. C., Okorocha, J. C., Masebe, T., Borgbara, K., Goosen, W., Fortuin, S., Nel Van Zyl, K., Mbhele, O., Happi, A., Happi, C., Mapholi, N., Osuji, J. O., Muigai, A. W., Ebenezer, T. E., and Badaoui, B. (2025). Unlocking the African bioeconomy and strengthening biodiversity conservation through genomics and bioinformatics. NPJ Biodivers. 4(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-025-00102-9. Hirani, R., Noruzi, K., Khuram, H., Hussaini, A. S., Aifuwa, E. I., Ely, K. E., Lewis, J. M., Gabr, A. E., Smiley, A., Tiwari, R. K., and Etienne, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare: A Journey through History, Present Innovations, and Future Possibilities. Life (Basel). 14(5): 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14050557. Hornidge, A. K., Partelow, S., and Knopf, K. (2023). Knowing the Ocean: Epistemic Inequalities in Patterns of Science Collaboration. In: Partelow, S., Hadjimichael, M., Hornidge, AK. (eds) Ocean Governance. MARE Publication Series, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20740-2_2. Kruk, M. E., Gage, A. D., Arsenault, C., Jordan, K., Leslie, H. H., Roder-DeWan, S., Adeyi, O., Barker, P., Daelmans, B., Doubova, S. V., English, M., García-Elorrio, E., Guanais, F., Gureje, O., Hirschhorn, L. R., Jiang, L., Kelley, E., Lemango, E. T., Liljestrand, J., Malata, A., Marchant, T., Matsoso, M. P., Meara, J. G., Mohanan, M., Ndiaye, Y., Norheim, O. F., Reddy, K. S., Rowe, A. K., Salomon, J. A., Thapa, G., Twum-Danso, N. A. Y., and Pate, M. (2018). High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health. 6(11): e1196-e1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3. Laumann, K. M., Hoad, N. M., Alvaro, L., Badri, S. L., Burke, N., Carew, A., Corte, G. N., Croquer, A., Shah Esmaeili, Y., Farrell, M., Kouchi, N., Lee, J., Nakaoka, M., Nordlund, L. M., Sellares-Blasco, R. I., Sheldon, E., Villalpando, M. F., and Lefcheck, J. S. (2025). Closing the parachute and opening the umbrella: Strategies for inclusivity and representation in producing impactful coastal ecosystem research. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures, 3 (e21): 1–8. Mbisva, S. (2025). The role of open-source bioinformatics tools in resource-limited African settings. Innovative Medicines & Omics 2025, 2(2): 51–63. https://doi.org/10.36922/imo.8111 Mehjabeen, D., Patel, K., and Jindal, R. M. (2025). Decolonizing global health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 25(1): 828. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12890-8. Mulder, N. J., Adebiyi, E., Alami, R., Benkahla, A., Brandful, J., Doumbia, S., Everett, D., Fadlelmola, F. M., Gaboun, F., Gaseitsiwe, S., Ghazal, H., Hazelhurst, S., Hide, W., Ibrahimi, A., Jaufeerally, Fakim, Y., Jongeneel, C. V., Joubert, F., Kassim, S., Kayondo, J., Kumuthini, J., Lyantagaye, S., Makani, J., Mansour Alzohairy, A., Masiga, D., Moussa, A., Nash, O., Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer, O., Owusu-Dabo, E., Panji, S., Patterton, H., Radouani, F., Sadki, K., Seghrouchni, F., Tastan, Bishop, Ö., Tiffin, N., Ulenga, N., and H3ABioNet Consortium. (2016). H3ABioNet, a sustainable pan-African bioinformatics network for human heredity and health in Africa. Genome Res. 26(2): 271-7. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.196295.115. Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., and Ranfagni, S. (2023). A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789. Nakamura, G., Soares, B. E., Pillar, V. D., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Duarte, L. (2023). Three pathways to better recognize the expertise of Global South researchers. NPJ Biodiversity, 2(1):17-19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00021-7. Puniya, B. L., Verma, M., Damiani, C., Bakr, S., and Dräger, A. (2024). Perspectives on computational modeling of biological systems and the significance of the SysMod community. Bioinform Adv. 4(1): vbae090. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioadv/vbae090. Ranganathan, S. (2005). Bioinformatics education--perspectives and challenges. PLoS Comput Biol. 1(6): e52. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010052. Reed, M. S., Ferré, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., and Holden, J. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Research Policy, 50(4), 104147. Rohr, J. R., Civitello, D. J., Halliday, F. W., Hudson, P. J., Lafferty, K. D., Wood, C. L., and Mordecai, E. A. (2020). Towards common ground in the biodiversity-disease debate. Nat Ecol Evol. 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6. Satam, H., Joshi, K., Mangrolia, U., Waghoo, S., Zaidi, G., Rawool, S., Thakare, R. P., Banday, S., Mishra, A. K., Das, G., and Malonia, S. K. (2023). Next-Generation Sequencing Technology: Current Trends and Advancements. Biology (Basel). 12(7): 997. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12070997. Schroter, S., Plowman, R., Hutchings, A., and Gonzalez, A. (2006). Reporting ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals. J Med Ethics. 32(12): 718-23. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.015115. Shaffer, J. G., Mather, F. J., Wele, M., Li, J., Tangara, C. O., Kassogue, Y., Srivastav, S. K., Thiero, O., Diakite, M., Sangare, M., Dabitao, D., Toure, M., Djimde, A. A., Traore, S., Diakite, B., Coulibaly, M. B., Liu, Y., Lacey, M., Lefante, J. J., Koita, O., Schieffelin, J. S., Krogstad, D. J., and Doumbia, S. O. (2019). Expanding Research Capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa Through Informatics, Bioinformatics, and Data Science Training Programs in Mali. Front. Genet. 10: 331. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00331. Smith, A. C., Mugabe, J., Singer, P. A., and Daar, A. S. (2005). Harnessing genomics to improve health in Africa - an executive course to support genomics policy. Health Res Policy Syst. 3(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-3-2. Soulé F. (2024). Digital Sovereignty in Africa: Moving beyond Local Data Ownership. Center for International Governance Innovation. Policy Brief No. 185, 1-10. Available from https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/PB_no.185.pdf (Last accessed October 5, 2025). Thami, P. K., Choga, W. T., Dandara, C., O'Brien, S. J., Essex, M., Gaseitsiwe, S., and Chimusa, E. R. (2023). Whole genome sequencing reveals population diversity and variation in HIV-1-specific host genes. Front Genet. 14: 1290624. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1290624. Tractenberg, R. E., Lindvall, J. M., Attwood, T. K., and Via, A. (2019). The Mastery Rubric for Bioinformatics: A tool to support design and evaluation of career-spanning education and training. PLOS ONE. Available from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225256. Western, M. J., Smit, E. S., Gültzow, T., Neter, E., Sniehotta, F. F., Malkowski, O. S., Wright, C., Busse, H., Peuters, C., Rehackova, L., Gabriel Oteșanu, A., Ainsworth, B., Jones, C. M., Kilb, M., Rodrigues, A. M., Perski, O., Wright, A., and König, L. (2025). Bridging the digital health divide: a narrative review of the causes, implications, and solutions for digital health inequalities. Health Psychol Behav Med. 13(1): 2493139. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2025.2493139. Sustainability Directory. (2024). Equitable Research Infrastructure. Available from https://prism.sustainability-directory.com/term/equitable-research-infrastructure/. (Last Accessed on April 30, 2026). Odeny, B., and Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. PLoS Medicine , 19(9), e1004099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004099. Hrabanski, M., and Pesche, D. (Eds.). (2016). The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Meeting the challenge of biodiversity conservation and governance (1st ed.). Routledge . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651095 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editor assigned by journal 19 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 07 May, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 05 May, 2026 First submitted to journal 30 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8549203","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":641495769,"identity":"1903817d-bad6-4cd1-9692-38f7ba6fefd2","order_by":0,"name":"Peter Chinedu Agu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"South West University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peter","middleName":"Chinedu","lastName":"Agu","suffix":""},{"id":641495770,"identity":"9bd2face-61d9-4ab3-9605-865151f10508","order_by":1,"name":"Hemani Sharma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bioclues.org","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hemani","middleName":"","lastName":"Sharma","suffix":""},{"id":641495771,"identity":"6783aa6d-392e-4974-b9b7-14b6d9404852","order_by":2,"name":"Anil Kumar S","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Bioclues.org","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anil","middleName":"Kumar","lastName":"S","suffix":""},{"id":641495772,"identity":"8d55d77a-9eec-4950-89fe-d0700ea37b11","order_by":3,"name":"Asif M Khan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Doha Science and Technology,","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Asif","middleName":"M","lastName":"Khan","suffix":""},{"id":641495773,"identity":"f081bd18-769b-4243-a673-d39f8b7c5c89","order_by":4,"name":"Ramesh Katam","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ramesh","middleName":"","lastName":"Katam","suffix":""},{"id":641495774,"identity":"8f1ac5b2-a7c8-43a7-9abb-6a24460e6e9f","order_by":5,"name":"Prashanth Suravajhala#","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Manipal University Jaipur","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Prashanth","middleName":"","lastName":"Suravajhala#","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-08 08:54:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8549203/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8549203/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109462677,"identity":"4dcd82e1-3f3d-48ad-a9b5-93b5d3bc1c88","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 11:18:13","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":330150,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDemographics of the study population (n=142).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eNationality and Residence country: (others for nationality: Pakistan, Tanzania, Rwanda, Egypt, Cameroon, Sri Lanka, Malawi, Kenya, Benin, Bangladesh, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Zambia, Iran, Republic of Congo). (Others for residence: China, Pakistan, Tanzania, Germany, Czech Republic, Egypt, Cameroon, Malawi, Kenya, Benin, United Kingdom, Bangladesh, Cote d’Ivoire, Russia).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Region of the country of residence.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eGender.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAge group.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ee.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCurrent role.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ef.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eThe sector of primary work.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eg.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eCareer stage.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eh.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eYears of experience in bioinformatics or related fields.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ei.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHighest degree completed.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ej.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWork experience outside the home country in a bioinformatics-related role.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ek.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eParticipants identifying as being from the Global South\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/315bcf27968ca5a01bdb45d3.png"},{"id":109759790,"identity":"39d1360b-25fd-40a9-86e7-68231831c0b5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:27:42","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":382001,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLevel of Bioinformatics Training and Skills of the study population (n=142).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHow did you acquire most of your bioinformatics skills?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHave you ever received these bioinformatics professional training?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat are your levels of confidence with the following bioinformatics skills? (0=not confident;5=very confident).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/e0b8965bf49e2225694056d6.png"},{"id":109462678,"identity":"16490df5-fd6c-4f56-8f74-f6194730f770","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 11:18:13","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":205780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eInfrastructure \u0026amp; Resources (n=142)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhich resources are available at your institution?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHow often do you experience downtime in computing resources?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat is your biggest infrastructure bottleneck?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eRating, ease of access, and adequacy of infrastructure (0=not adequate or very inefficient, or very difficult;5=very adequate, or very efficient, or very easy to access)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/e64556b73d5578c66d045a3e.png"},{"id":109760196,"identity":"fb519441-dfea-4127-ae96-71d401c0b372","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:28:18","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":181647,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eResearch Activities \u0026amp; Outputs (n=142)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAre you currently running bioinformatics research projects?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhich research domains are you working in?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHow many bioinformatics-related peer-reviewed publications have you produced in the last 5 years?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eAre your research outputs openly accessible?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ee.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHave you supervised students in bioinformatics research projects?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ef.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eOpinion on research activities \u0026amp; output.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/733421af60f512cdd993ac2d.png"},{"id":109462680,"identity":"a6baaa03-3917-4206-8d99-9a4cd92e09c3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 11:18:13","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":186780,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCollaboration \u0026amp; Mobility (n=142)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eDo you collaborate with researchers outside your country?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat are the main barriers to international collaboration?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHave you participated in South–South collaborations?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWould you prefer more South–South-South collaborations compared to North–South?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ee.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eOpinion on collaboration \u0026amp; mobility.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/9d239e1f9471e9205e58f9fa.png"},{"id":109462682,"identity":"e9fc4779-0107-4008-ad86-b69c285ec3aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 11:18:13","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":176641,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics \u0026amp; Data Sharing (n=142)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eDo you face ethical or legal hurdles in sharing genomic or health data?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eHow comfortable are you using cloud services for genomic data?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eWhat data governance model would you prefer for your region?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ed.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEthics training and opinion.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/b51d3fcfb9c2e8868203f037.png"},{"id":109759209,"identity":"f9f4ff12-1d09-44fa-a16f-6eec5effacad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:26:07","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":349443,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFuture Directions (n=142)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ea.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ePerspective on the way forward (0=extremely unimportant/pessimistic); 5=extremely important/pessimistic.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eb.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eFamiliarity with bioinformatics initiatives in the global south?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ec.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eParticipants’ interest in any follow-up programme on bioinformatics targeting the Global South\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"PeteretalManuscriptBioinformaticsGlobalSouthCopy8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/690d974242b4a2dc2f3d65a3.png"},{"id":109799677,"identity":"2af12c97-56e7-4a60-9254-fa2693637f78","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 15:33:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1870653,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8549203/v1/ef15ae00-01bd-4d54-89a6-d3d7404ab889.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Accelerating Bioinformatics in Global South: A Preliminary Perspective-Driven Empirical Study","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eBioinformatics has become a foundational pillar of contemporary life sciences. According to recent reports, it is fundamentally transforming the understanding of biological systems at molecular, organismal, and population levels (Puniya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Akintola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). For instance, the integration of high-throughput sequencing, computational modelling, and large-scale data analytics has significantly expedited scientific discovery. These are propelling the advancements in precision medicine, pathogen surveillance, agriculture, and biotechnology (Satam et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Thami et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Bifulco et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, bioinformatics is now widely regarded as essential infrastructure underpinning modern scientific innovation (Shaffer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Despite this global expansion, growth remains profoundly uneven. It has been identified that there is a large structural disparity that is increasing the distance between regions with robust computational infrastructure and those building the foundational capacity to grow (Aron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Typically, high-income demographics and a large portion of Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and Southeast Asia (often referred to as the Global South) exemplify this disparity the most (Hayah et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Global South represents a crucial frontier in the global bioinformatics landscape. In this region, there is immense biodiversity, distinct disease burdens, and pressing agricultural challenges that demand regionally customized genomic and bioinformatics solutions (Rohr et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Thami et al., 2024). Yet, their scientific contributions remain underrepresented in international discourse. This reflects deep-seated inequities in research leadership, authorship, recognition, and epistemic authority. Obviously, lack of funding, fragmented policy support, infrastructure deficiencies, and a shortage of skilled workers are ongoing obstacles that risk excluding the Global South from scientific discoveries with immediate influence on their society and ecosystems (Tractenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Laumann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). According to recent research, capacity gaps comprised structural obstacles in training development, global knowledge hierarchies, and sustained research leadership in addition to technical constraints. Invariably, critical analyses are urging a move away from simplistic deficit narratives and \"North\u0026ndash;South\" dichotomies in the ongoing global discussion reflecting on scholarly reports to critically examine leadership localisation, authorship equity, and governance frameworks (Abouzeid et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Attwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Castro Torres \u0026amp; Alburez-Gutierrez, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Nakamura et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Hornidge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsequently, moving beyond conceptual discourse to ground this debate in empirical evidence is essential at this moment. Systematic surveys and other empirical methods can provide a potent means to document the prevailing realities, motivations, and insights of researchers within the Global South. Similarly, such data can offer crucial, practitioner-informed evidence on research productivity, training quality, resource availability, and strategic priorities to capture trends that anecdotal reporting may miss (Reed et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Bradke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, this evidence base is vital as it can ensure that the people most affected by these disparities inform future dialogues and intervention strategies. Concurrently, grassroots initiatives are actively strengthening local capacity. These point to a growing momentum toward more inclusive ecosystem development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn light of these, the current study undertakes a structured empirical assessment to provide a comprehensive perspective on bioinformatics in the Global South. The objective was to integrate survey data to identify trends in: (1) the demographic, institutional, and professional landscape of practitioners; (2) key barriers in training, infrastructure, funding, collaboration, and policy; and (3) community-defined priorities for sustainable and equitable growth. Methodologically, it employed a cross-sectional online survey targeting bioinformaticians, life scientists, educators, and stakeholders across Global South regions, with quantitative descriptive and qualitative thematic analyses. Thoughtfully, this approach can advance a more inclusive and evidence-based global narrative by elevating the voices of scholars in these areas remotely. Therefore, data from this study have the potential to guide practical strategies, institutional policy change, and forms of cooperation that encourage fair involvement, bolster local leadership, and facilitate the crucial shift from applying knowledge globally to co-creating knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.1 Study rationale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026quot;Bioinformatics in the Global South: Where are we heading?\u0026quot; was the sub-theme panel discussion that took place at the SANBIX2025 conference, and this study was conceived as a direct empirical follow-up to that topic. In addition to highlighting important shortages in infrastructure, training, and policy frameworks, the panel, which included experts from a variety of geographic areas, brought up pressing issues about sustainable capacity building in low- and middle-income areas (Kruk et al., 2018). A structured survey instrument was created to methodically gather the experiences and viewpoints of the bioinformatics community throughout the Global South to go beyond anecdotal reflections and produce solid empirical evidence (Mulder \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2016; Hirani\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.2 Survey design and structure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on earlier research on scientific capability evaluations, a standardised digital questionnaire was created using Google Forms (see Appendix I) (Berger \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2014; Dehghani et al., 2024). \u0026nbsp;Eight theme parts of the test were intended to collect both quantitative and qualitative data:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col class=\"decimal_type\" style=\"list-style-type: lower-alpha;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDemographics: Recording the background of the responder, including their academic or professional status, institutional affiliation, and geographic location.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTraining and Skills: Assessing educational exposure, skill acquisition, and perceived adequacy of bioinformatics training.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInfrastructure and Resources: Evaluating access to computational tools, databases, and laboratory-computational integration.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eResearch Activities and Outputs: Mapping research themes, publication trends, and translational relevance.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCollaboration and Mobility: Exploring institutional and cross-border collaboration, mentorship, and academic exchange.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFunding and Policy: Gauging the availability of national or institutional support, funding accessibility, and policy awareness.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEthics and Data Sharing: Understanding perspectives on data governance, open science, and ethical frameworks.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFuture Directions: Collecting opinions on strategic priorities and envisioned trajectories for bioinformatics in the region.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.3 Target respondents\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTargeting a wide range of stakeholders directly involved in or impacting the growth of bioinformatics, the survey included practicing bioinformaticians, graduate and postgraduate students, researchers in the life sciences and related fields, educators and trainers in bioinformatics-related fields, policy makers, and stakeholders in science, technology, and innovation (Akintola \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2024). \u0026nbsp;The purpose of this multi-tiered sample technique was to guarantee that viewpoints from various sectors, career phases, and institutional responsibilities were fairly represented (Berger \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.4 Data collection procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor extensive and effective data collection, digital channels were used, a strategy that has been successfully used in other international surveys (Dehghani et al., 2024). Between August 19, 2025, and September 20, 2025, the URL to the questionnaire was shared via direct email correspondence, regional academic mailing lists, professional networks, and specialised WhatsApp groups. Participants from a variety of nations and institutional contexts were able to contribute, and the multi-platform strategy allowed for quick distribution in low-connectivity environments. To minimise social desirability bias and promote honest replies, data were gathered anonymously.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.5 Data Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGoogle Forms automatically compiled the responses, which were then exported for examination. \u0026nbsp;Consistent with methodological techniques in comparable landscape studies, the principal analytical strategy was descriptive, emphasising the summarization of views and impressions rather than inferential hypothesis testing (Casula \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2021). In the quantitative analysis, categorical responses were summarised by frequency and percentage, and tables, pie charts, and bar charts were used to display the data. Open-ended replies were thematically grouped as part of qualitative analysis in order to find recurrent issues, recommendations, and emerging themes (Naeem \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2023). In this study, the overarching framework sought to provide insights into the state of bioinformatics today, with a focus on issues that the community saw and locally suggested remedies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.6 Ethical considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed permission was electronically sought at the start of the questionnaire, and participation was entirely optional. Respondents were guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality; no personal information was gathered. According to standard international criteria, the study was free from formal institutional ethical assessment since it contained non-sensitive professional opinions and did not contain biological or personal data (Schroter \u003cem\u003eet al.,\u003c/em\u003e 2006; Capili and Anastasi, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.7 Methodological Limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is a descriptive, cross-sectional survey design; therefore, it has limitations. As outlined in the methodology, data were collected through an anonymous, structured online questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic grouping rather than inferential or causal modeling. Accordingly, the results should be viewed as preliminary-level insights rather than objective assessments of infrastructure capacity or policy efficacy. This is because they are based on self-reported impressions and experiences at the time of responding to the questionnaire. Additionally, reliance on digital dissemination channels (email lists, professional networks, and messaging platforms) may have introduced sampling bias, potentially favoring respondents who are already connected to academic or bioinformatics communities and underrepresenting more isolated or infrastructure-constrained stakeholders. Furthermore, while the survey captured broad trends across multiple Global South regions, it was not designed to perform country-level comparisons or stratified analyses; therefore, important contextual differences between middle-income countries and fragile or conflict-affected settings may not be fully resolved by this report. Consistent with the study\u0026rsquo;s descriptive framework, the analysis inventories perceived barriers and priorities but does not establish causal explanations for observed disparities, which is an objective that would require complementary qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or institutional case studies. In general, because the study did not incorporate formal benchmarking against parallel large-scale assessments, the authors maintained that these reported findings are positioned as an empirical baseline rather than a comparative evaluation within a global metrics framework.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eA total of 142 participants filled out the form across the Global South. The results are organized thematically to align with the survey\u0026apos;s structure. This was to provide a quantitative and qualitative overview of the current state of bioinformatics in the Global South region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.1 Demographics\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRespondents represented diverse nationalities/residences from Nigeria, India, Uganda, Pakistan, Tanzania, Rwanda, Egypt, Cameroon, Sri Lanka, Malawi, Kenya, Benin, Bangladesh, Cote d\u0026apos;Ivoire, Gambia, Russia, United Kingdom, Zambia, Iran, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Republic of Congo within regions of the Global South, with notable participation from Africa (66.2%) and South Asia (19%), followed by others like North America and Southeast Asia (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The majority of respondents identified as early-career researchers (48.9%) or postgraduate students (43%), with the remainder comprising senior researchers (22.3%), faculty (25%), and policymakers (4%). We identify that this distribution reflects a community that is rapidly growing but still maturing, with a strong foundation in academic institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.2 Training and Skills\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA significant skills gap was identified as a primary constraint. Respondents reported some formal bioinformatics training topped by online self-study (27%), short course or workshop (24%), and formal university degree (23%). A greater number of the participants identified the adequacy of their training as \u0026quot;basic\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;inadequate\u0026quot; to meet their research needs, as in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. The most commonly cited skill deficiencies were in high-performance computing (HPC) management, advanced statistical analysis, and reproducible workflow development (e.g., Nextflow, Snakemake). The qualitative responses in this study emphasized a heavy reliance on online, self-directed learning (e.g., MOOCs, YouTube tutorials) to supplement often theoretical and outdated university curricula.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.3 Infrastructure and Resources\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs shown in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, there is limited availability of bioinformatics resources overall. Over 60% of respondents cited inconsistent internet connectivity as a \u0026quot;significant\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;severe\u0026quot; obstacle to their work. Access to high-performance computing clusters was limited, with only 13% having regular, unimpeded access. A critical infrastructure gap was identified in the integration between wet labs and computational resources; 23.9% reported that data generation and analysis are siloed, leading to inefficiencies. The majority of respondents (54.9%) selected financing, indicating that open-source tools were the most popular substitute and that the expense of commercial software licences was a widespread worry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.4 Research Activities and Outputs\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSome of the research focus areas were strongly aligned with regional priorities. The top research themes with the regional influence were: disease genomics (18%), drug discovery (16%), agricultural (6%) and epidemiology (8%), and public health genomics (6%) (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). However, a key finding was the \u0026quot;publication gap\u0026quot;; while 37.3% of respondents were actively involved in research, only 57% had zero bioinformatics-related publications in the past 5 years. Only 23.2% have supervised bioinformatics research projects. Most publications are in closed access, with qualitative feedback highlighting challenges in institutional funding for publications in high-impact journals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.5 Collaboration and Mobility\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eResults from this study show that collaboration was highly valued but often constrained. Figure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e shows that 90% (58.5% frequently and 23.8% occasionally) of respondents were engaged in some form of collaboration. All participants are interested in varied kinds of collaboration, with 50% having no preference for global South-South or North-South. While these partnerships were seen as crucial for access to expertise and resources, a common qualitative theme was the risk of inequitable collaborations, where local researchers performed data generation or curation but were less involved in advanced analysis, study design, or leadership. The majority of respondents\u0026apos; physical mobility and conference attendance were significantly hampered by financing constraints (25%) and a lack of contacts (17%), according to the statistics.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.6 Funding and Policy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConsistently, in this study, funding scarcity was identified as the most critical systemic challenge. An overwhelming 88% of respondents characterized bioinformatics funding in their country as \u0026quot;inadequate\u0026quot; or \u0026quot;highly competitive and scarce\u0026quot; (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). The most common source of funds among participants was self-funding (36%). Research progress has been stopped at some points due to a lack of funding, according to 77.5% of participants. The top policy recommendations to speed up bioinformatics research were infrastructure (17%), educational curriculum change (18%), and increased government financing (27%). Policy support was found to be fragmented, with more than 43% being either unaware of or reporting the non-existence of a national policy or strategic roadmap for bioinformatics. According to opinions, two common complaints were the absence of specific financing lines and the categorisation of bioinformatics projects into funding panels for either computer science or biology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.7 Ethics and Data Sharing\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOur data shows that attitudes towards data sharing were complex and nuanced. Responders expressed average hurdles with data sharing. There is limited training on ethics in bioinformatics. While 59.2% of respondents agreed with the principles of open science and data sharing, 28.2% expressed major concerns regarding the ethics of data sovereignty, as shown in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e. Overall, there was a powerful consensus on the need for localized ethical guidelines and governance frameworks that ensure equitable benefits and co-authorship for data contributors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003e3.8 Future Directions\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAs seen in Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"Fig8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, more than 80% of respondents expressed optimism after strategic investments were prioritised in four key areas to change the bioinformatics landscape: promoting equitable international collaborations based on true co-creation and leadership by local researchers, creating dedicated funding streams and national policies that formally recognise bioinformatics as a distinct and strategic discipline, and building capacity through sustained, hands-on training in advanced computational skills infrastructure development, specifically national or regional cloud/high-performance computing hubs with reliable internet, to democratise access. Similarly, there is a need for more outreach on the ongoing bioinformatics initiatives in the global south. Interestingly, 91.5% of the respondents indicated interest in participating in any bioinformatics initiatives targeting the Global South.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence is necessary for the proper design and execution of policies. This paper offers a thorough, empirically supported examination of the bioinformatics situation in the Global South, exposing a picture that is both incredibly promising and severely limited by systemic issues. The results depict a vibrant, young, and highly driven group of researchers whose work is frequently hindered by a well-known trio of constraints: insufficient training, brittle infrastructure and limited financing (Mulder et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Hamdi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). But going beyond this conventional wisdom, our poll reveals more complex, nuanced concerns about autonomy, equality, and the direction of the field in these areas going forward. Our results are consistent with the Aron et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) publication. Unquestionably, the respondents' consensus goes beyond a simple request for funding and instead calls for a fundamental reorganisation of the process of developing and maintaining bioinformatics capability. Hence, a need to move away from a dependency paradigm and towards one of independence and international collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA significant mismatch between traditional academic curriculum and the quickly changing requirements of contemporary biological research was highlighted by the skills gap that has been observed, especially in high-performance computing and sophisticated data processing (Attwood et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Tractenberg et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). MOOCs and internet resources have emerged as a critical temporary solution, but this dependence on self-directed learning is unsustainable and does not offer the structured mentoring and practical problem-solving experience that are essential for professional growth (Ranganathan \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005). According to this research, training in the Global South needs to shift towards intensive, practical workshops and long-term mentorship programmes, also known as \"hackathons\" or \"codeathons\", which are created specially to address datasets and research questions that are pertinent to the region (Shaffer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Akintola et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, the lack of expertise in repeatable workflow management might continue a loop in which research from these areas is perceived as less rigorous, which would limit its worldwide influence and citation (Shaffer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe infrastructure findings support earlier studies on the digital divide. They draw attention to a particular and debilitating bottleneck: the divergence between data collection and processing (Western et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). The separation of computational teams and wet laboratories leads to inefficiencies and inhibits the multidisciplinary discussion that remains important to bioinformatics. A convincing answer was the robust support for regional or national HPC/cloud centres. These centralised facilities, which were supported by 85% of respondents, might reduce the expenditures of individual institutions, offer vital technical assistance, and create a collaborative atmosphere that is much required (Fifth Dutch National SDG Report, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, dependable, reasonably priced, high-speed internet is essential to their success; this fundamental utility is still incredibly elusive and calls for immediate governmental investment and legislative change (Aron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePossibly the most illuminating results relate to the dynamics of research production and cooperation. A community that is deeply committed to using genomics for the good of society was demonstrated by the connection of research themes\u0026mdash;infectious diseases, agriculture, and human genetics\u0026mdash;with urgent local needs (Smith et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Thami et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Mbisva, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Grassroots organisations \u0026ndash; including national societies, university groups, and volunteer networks \u0026ndash; play a prime role in providing training and mentorship where institutional resources are limited. Emerging organizations in the Global South, like Bioclues (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://bioclues.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://bioclues.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e last accessed on April 30, 2026) and African Life Science RNA Salon (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://afrilscrna.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://afrilscrna.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e last accessed on April 30, 2026), bring bioinformaticians together, foster a strong working mentor-mentee relationship, provide access to bioinformatics resources, organize conferences and workshops, offer information about research, training, and education, and offer accessible and foster open science literacy. Bioclues is a non-profit organization that was founded in 2005 by Dr. Prashanth Suravajhala and Pritish Varadwaj. Bioclues organized reproducibility-focused journal clubs in collaboration with ReproducibiliTea: they work well as a low-cost vehicle in the dissemination of reproducibility concepts across disciplines and regions. These clubs are low-cost, adaptable, and can be run online to reach dispersed participants. But running reproducibility-focused journal clubs faces recurring practical problems: a) Engagement- Due to escalating work commitments or insufficient motivational rewards, gradual decline in participation. b) Paid journals- Limited access to journals limits reading. c) Continuity- Journal club may dissolve when the organizer leaves. d) Institutional support- Undervalues journal clubs. d) Technical barriers- Lack of computational skill. Similar to this, the African Life Science RNA Salon, a scientific community/network that supports RNA research among early-career researchers in Africa with assistance from the RNA Society, USA (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.rnasociety.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.rnasociety.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e last accessed on April 30, 2026), has met difficulties in planning its symposia over the last four years since its founding in 2022/2023. These challenges corroborate those mentioned for the Bioclues Journal Club.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOn the other hand, the \"publication gap\" suggests that major obstacles keep regional researchers from spearheading the distribution of their own findings. Critiques of \"helicopter research\" and \"parachute science,\" in which foreign partners from wealthy universities frequently control the ownership and narrative of research that starts in the Global South, are consistent with this (Laumann et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Alemu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). According to our study, existing foreign partnerships are frequently viewed as unfair, despite their importance in terms of resource access. Local researchers should be acknowledged as equal intellectual contributors from hypothesis formation to paper writing, rather than just data producers, as part of collaborations based on \"true co-creation and leadership\" (Mehjabeen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). This is a strong call for epistemic fairness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA crucial ethical component is added to this conversation by the overwhelming concern (78%) for data sovereignty and ethics. A legitimate concern that data sharing may result in exploitation and the deterioration of national research interests in the absence of strong local governance structures tempers the excitement for open science (Soul\u0026eacute;, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). In order to avoid neocolonial practices in data collection, respondents' demands for localised ethical norms are not a rejection of global standards; rather, they emphasise the need for these standards to be tailored to particular cultural, ethical, and legal settings (Aron et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This calls for a two-pronged strategy: promoting more equitable international data-sharing regulations while also enhancing local capabilities in data governance and bioethics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLastly, 80% of respondents strongly agree that national policy and funding are needed, indicating a basic understanding that bioinformatics is currently an \"orphan discipline\" in many national science portfolios, straddling the boundaries of technology, agriculture, and health agencies. The field has to be acknowledged as a strategic national priority that is vital for economic development, food security, and pandemic preparation to flourish (Carter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). This necessitates the development of targeted financial mechanisms that address its specific requirements, such as software licences and computer time, as well as campaigning to persuade decision-makers of its cross-cutting importance (Akande et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAgreeably, the current empirical findings on bioinformatics capacity in the Global South can be powerfully reframed through critical lenses in STEMM education and global science policy. For example, the documented trilemma of asymmetrical partnerships, skills gaps, and infrastructural precarity could become a textbook example of research infrastructure inequality, where the \"digital divide\" is a structural determinant of scientific dependency rather than just a technical one (Sustainability Directory, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Similarly, the reported dynamics of \u0026ldquo;helicopter research\u0026rdquo; and local relegation to data provision align with critiques of knowledge colonialism. It has illustrated how global science often functions as an extractive enterprise that reproduces epistemic hierarchies (Odeny and Bosurgi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, these findings challenge the current paradigms of global research governance, which often prioritize universalist Open Science mandates over the data sovereignty​ and equitable resource distribution demanded by respondents (Hrabanski and Pesche, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, in this report, the call for \u0026ldquo;true co-creation\u0026rdquo; signals a necessary shift in North\u0026ndash;South collaboration dynamics. That is, a shift of paradigm from a donor-recipient model of capacity-building towards a co-productive framework that recognizes Global South researchers as agents of their own scientific destiny.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Conclusion and Recommendations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5.1 Conclusion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study unequivocally shows that bioinformatics is at a turning point in the Global South. \u0026nbsp;The discipline is driven by a highly dedicated group of academics who are producing science that is effective and relevant locally, but a combination of financial disparities, a significant skills gap, insufficient infrastructure, and unfair international partnerships is seriously impeding its expansion. The results go beyond merely listing restrictions to disclose a distinct and pressing community need: a fundamental transition away from reliance on outside assistance towards the development of locally driven, globally integrated, self-sustaining bioinformatics ecosystems. A huge potential is highlighted by the respondents\u0026apos; unwavering optimism and their accurate identification of strategic goals. Therefore, to address regional and global health, agricultural, and environmental challenges, the Global South must transition from being a consumer of bioinformatics knowledge to a primary innovator and co-leader in the field.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on the empirical findings of this survey, we propose the following targeted recommendations for key stakeholders:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-alpha;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFor National Governments and Regional Bodies\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCreate national strategies for bioinformatics: \u0026nbsp; Acknowledge bioinformatics as a unique strategic field that is essential to economic security, agriculture, and national health. \u0026nbsp;Provide precise plans for incorporating bioinformatics into national science and technology regulations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMake investments in shared infrastructure: Provide capital for the creation of data cloud and high-performance computing (HPC) centres at the national or regional level. \u0026nbsp;Give fast, dependable internet access to research institutes as a priority, as a basic necessity.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEstablish funding streams expressly for bioinformatics projects: Start focused grant programmes within national research foundations that encompass software, computing resources, and specialised training.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFor Universities and Research Institutions\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUpdate academic programmes: Include practical, contemporary bioinformatics instruction in life sciences curricula. Develop specialized Master\u0026rsquo;s and PhD programs that emphasize advanced computational skills, reproducibility, and data analysis using real-world datasets.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEncourage multidisciplinary hubs: Dismantle silos by establishing departments or centres that explicitly bring together biological and computational experts, promoting joint research and resource sharing.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGive local leadership top priority: Create bioinformatician career tracks and incentives to guarantee clear paths for promotion and the retention of qualified researchers.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFor International Partners and Funders\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEncourage fair cooperation: Require and support collaborations that are jointly planned and directed by scholars from the Global South. Evidence of shared capacity training, data sovereignty strategies, and equitable authorship agreements should be required for funding submissions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEncourage long-term capacity building: Go beyond temporary workshops to provide funding for ongoing projects like visiting lecturer programmes, postdoctoral fellowships, and permanent technical support positions integrated within institutions.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMatch funds to actual needs: \u0026nbsp;Provide funding that covers the full cost of bioinformatics, including open-access publishing costs, software licences, cloud computing credits, and high-speed internet.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFor the Global Bioinformatics Community\u003col style=\"list-style-type: lower-roman;\"\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePromote Data Sovereignty: Create and ratify fair international data-sharing agreements that uphold the concepts of benefit-sharing, ownership, and consent for data coming from the Global South.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEncourage Inclusive Conferences and Publishing: To guarantee representation, provide travel subsidies, price exemptions, and virtual participation choices. \u0026nbsp;To lessen apparent prejudice, encourage publications to actively seek out editors and reviewers from the Global South.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFacilitate Networking: Create and support formal and informal networks that connect bioinformaticians across the Global South for peer support, mentorship, and collaboration.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ol\u003e\n \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (2013 revision) and applicable international guidelines for research involving human participants. This study involved an anonymous online survey that collected non-sensitive professional opinions and did not include biological samples, clinical interventions, or personally identifiable information. Also, given the minimal-risk nature of the study and the absence of identifiable personal data, formal institutional ethical approval was not required in accordance with standard international criteria for exempt survey-based research\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained electronically from all participants before their participation. At the beginning of the Google Form questionnaire, participants were provided with detailed information about the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, voluntary nature, confidentiality measures, and data handling procedures. Participants were required to indicate their consent before proceeding with the survey. Therefore, participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents could discontinue participation at any point before submission without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. The manuscript does not contain any person\u0026rsquo;s data in any form (including individual details, images, or identifiable information). Hence, all data presented are aggregated and anonymized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical Trials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe survey questionnaire and data is available on request to [email protected] or [email protected]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNone\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePCA wrote the first draft with figures subtly modified by AK and HS. PS,AMK \u0026nbsp;and RK led the project\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNone\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbouzeid, M., Muthanna, A., Nuwayhid, I., El-Jardali, F., Connors, P., Habib, R. R., Akbarzadeh, S., and Jabbour, S. (2022). Barriers to sustainable health research leadership in the Global South: Time for a Grand Bargain on localization of research leadership? Health Research \u0026amp; Policy System, 20(1): 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00910-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkande, O. W., Carter, L. L., Abubakar, A., Achilla, R., Barakat, A., Gumede, N., Guseinova, A., Inbanathan, F. Y., Kato, M., Koua, E., Leite, J., Marklewitz, M., Mendez-Rico, J., Monamele, C., Musul, B., Nahapetyan, K., Naidoo, D., Ochola, R., Ozel, M., Raftery, P., Vicari, A., Wijesinghe, P. R., Zwetyenga, J., Safreed-Harmon, K., Barnadas, C., Mulders, M., Pereyaslov, D. I., Sacks, J. A., Warren, T., Cognat, S., Briand, S., and Samaan, G. (2023). Strengthening pathogen genomic surveillance for health emergencies: insights from the World Health Organization\u0026apos;s regional initiatives. Front Public Health. 11:1146730. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1146730.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkintola, A. A., Aborode, A. T., Hamza, M. T., Amakiri, A., Moore, B., Abdulai, S., Iyiola, O. A., Sulaimon, L. A., Effiong, E., Ogunyemi, A., Dosunmu, B., Maigoro, A. Y., Lawal, O., Raheem, K., and Hwang, U. W. (2024). Bioinformatics proficiency among African students. Front Bioinform. 4: 1328714. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbinf.2024.1328714.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlemu, K., Berhanu, D., Bergstr\u0026ouml;m, A., Hoa, D. P., Swartling Peterson, S., Phoummalaysith, B., Tomson, G., Wanyenze, R. K., and Persson, L. \u0026Aring;. (2025). Towards equitable partnerships in global health research: experiences from Ethiopia, Uganda, Lao PDR, and Vietnam. BMJ Glob Health. 10(6): e019130. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2025-019130.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAron, S., Chauke, P. A., Ras, V., Panji, S., Johnston, K., and Mulder, N (2021). The Development of a Sustainable Bioinformatics Training Environment Within the H3Africa Bioinformatics Network (H3ABioNet). Front. Educ. 6: 725702. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.725702.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAttwood, T. K., Blackford, S., Brazas, M. D., Davies, A., and Schneider, M. V. (2019). A global perspective on evolving bioinformatics and data science training needs. Brief Bioinform. 20(2): 398-404. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx100.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerger, M. L., Martin, B. C., Husereau, D., Worley, K., Allen, J. D., Yang, W., Quon, N. C., Mullins, C. D., Kahler, K. H., and Crown, W. (2014). A questionnaire to assess the relevance and credibility of observational studies to inform health care decision making: an ISPOR-AMCP-NPC Good Practice Task Force report. Value Health. 17(2): 143-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.12.011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBifulco, M., Di Zazzo, E., Affinito, A., and Pagano, C. (2025). The relevance of the history of biotechnology for healthcare: Teaching students how biotechnology and medicine have been closely entwined during the past century highlights how both fields have inspired and driven each other. EMBO Rep. 2025 Jan;26(2):303-306. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-024-00355-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradke, F., Maartens, A., and Teichmann, S. A. (2023). Key attributes of successful research institutes. PLoS Biol. 21(9): e3002267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002267.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCapili, B., and Anastasi, J. K. (2024). Ethical Research and the Institutional Review Board: An Introduction. Am J Nurs. 124(3):50-54. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0001008420.28033.e8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarter, L. L., Yu, M. A., Sacks, J. A., Barnadas, C., Pereyaslov, D., Cognat, S., Briand, S., Ryan, M. J., and Samaan, G. (2022). Global genomic surveillance strategy for pathogens with pandemic and epidemic potential 2022-2032. Bull World Health Organ. 100(4): 239-239A. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.22.288220.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCastro Torres, A. F., and Alburez-Gutierrez, D. (2022). North and South: Naming practices and the hidden dimension of global disparities in knowledge production. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences U.S.A., 119(10): e2119373119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2119373119.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCasula, M., Rangarajan, N., and Shields, P. (2021). The potential of working hypotheses for deductive exploratory research. Qual Quant. 55(5): 1703-1725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01072-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDehghani, A. (2024). Development and validation of the clinical judgment capability questionnaire in nurses: A sequential exploratory mixed method study. Int J Nurs Stud Adv. 6: 100191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100191.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFifth Dutch National SDG Report. (2021). Sustainable Development in the Netherlands. Available from https://www.sdgnederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Dutch-National-SDG-Report-2021.pdf. (Accessed on October 10, 2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHamdi, Y., Zass, L., Othman, H., Radouani, F., Allali, I., Hanachi, M., Okeke, C. J., Chaouch, M., Tendwa, M. B., Samtal, C., Mohamed Sallam, R., Alsayed, N., Turkson, M., Ahmed, S., Benkahla, A., Romdhane, L., Souiai, O., Tastan Bishop, \u0026Ouml;., Ghedira, K., Mohamed Fadlelmola, F., Mulder, N., and Kamal Kassim, S. (2021). Human OMICs and Computational Biology Research in Africa: Current Challenges and Prospects. OMICS. 25(4): 213-233. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2021.0004.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayah, I., Ezebuiro, V., Kagame, S. P., Kuja, J. O., Waruhiu, C., Nesengani, L. T., Mdyogolo, S., Molotsi, A. H., Abechi, P., Abushady, A. M., Amor, N., Andika, B., Barakat, A., Beedessee, G., Botes, M., David, X., Ebuzoeme, N., Edea, Z., El Allali, A., Elekima, O. P., Elsherif, A. K., Gaouar, S. B. S., Gebre, Y. G., Georgewill, O. A., Hadjeras, L., Hassan, M. A., Hijri, M., Houaga, I., Ideozu, J. E., Igoh, M., Iwundu, M. P., Jaffer Ali, S. A. S., Jaouani, A., Kermouni Serradj, A. M., Khedim, R., Kilian, M., Kivuva, D. M., Knidiri, M., Koukoura, K. K., Kwasi, E. R., Labuschagne, K., Mafwila, A. L., Mensah, I., Modebelu, U., Mokgokong, P., Mokhtar, M. M., Muzemil, S., Nigussie, H., Ntui, V. O., Ogwang, J., Olivier, N. A., Olufowobi, O., Omotoriogun, T. C., Folarin, O., Eromon, P., Orina, J., Ouardi, F., Parish, T., Peter, M., Potgieter, J., Radouani, F., Ramantswana, M., Reda, S. R. A., Salifu, S. P., Schwartz, S. B., Shabangu, N., Sharaf, A., Siminialayi, I. M., Smith, R. M., Taniguchi, H., Tari-Ukuta, P. M., Tesfaye, K., Tmimi, F. Z., Tonfack, L. B., Udensi, O. U., Wambua, V. W., Wambua, S., Were, K., Wood, T. T., Wurdeman, B. M., Zoclanclounon, Y. A. B., Adu, A. F., Gillis-Harry, S. L., Opoku, N. K.O., Tshilate, T. S., Dede, S., Minimah, S. O., Tchiechoua, Y. H., Gisel, A., Hamdi, C., Mafokwane, T., Odogwu, B. A., Nwachukwu, G., Mungloo-Dilmohamud, Z., Ghodhbane-Gtari, F., Ibeachu, C., Zipfel, R. D., Madu, W. C., Okorocha, J. C., Masebe, T., Borgbara, K., Goosen, W., Fortuin, S., Nel Van Zyl, K., Mbhele, O., Happi, A., Happi, C., Mapholi, N., Osuji, J. O., Muigai, A. W., Ebenezer, T. E., and Badaoui, B. (2025). Unlocking the African bioeconomy and strengthening biodiversity conservation through genomics and bioinformatics. NPJ Biodivers. 4(1):29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-025-00102-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHirani, R., Noruzi, K., Khuram, H., Hussaini, A. S., Aifuwa, E. I., Ely, K. E., Lewis, J. M., Gabr, A. E., Smiley, A., Tiwari, R. K., and Etienne, M. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare: A Journey through History, Present Innovations, and Future Possibilities. Life (Basel). 14(5): 557. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14050557.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHornidge, A. K., Partelow, S., and Knopf, K. (2023). Knowing the Ocean: Epistemic Inequalities in Patterns of Science Collaboration. In: Partelow, S., Hadjimichael, M., Hornidge, AK. (eds) Ocean Governance. MARE Publication Series, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20740-2_2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKruk, M. E., Gage, A. D., Arsenault, C., Jordan, K., Leslie, H. H., Roder-DeWan, S., Adeyi, O., Barker, P., Daelmans, B., Doubova, S. V., English, M., Garc\u0026iacute;a-Elorrio, E., Guanais, F., Gureje, O., Hirschhorn, L. R., Jiang, L., Kelley, E., Lemango, E. T., Liljestrand, J., Malata, A., Marchant, T., Matsoso, M. P., Meara, J. G., Mohanan, M., Ndiaye, Y., Norheim, O. F., Reddy, K. S., Rowe, A. K., Salomon, J. A., Thapa, G., Twum-Danso, N. A. Y., and Pate, M. (2018). High-quality health systems in the Sustainable Development Goals era: time for a revolution. Lancet Glob Health. 6(11): e1196-e1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30386-3.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLaumann, K. M., Hoad, N. M., Alvaro, L., Badri, S. L., Burke, N., Carew, A., Corte, G. N., Croquer, A., Shah Esmaeili, Y., Farrell, M., Kouchi, N., Lee, J., Nakaoka, M., Nordlund, L. M., Sellares-Blasco, R. I., Sheldon, E., Villalpando, M. F., and Lefcheck, J. S. (2025). Closing the parachute and opening the umbrella: Strategies for inclusivity and representation in producing impactful coastal ecosystem research. Cambridge Prisms: Coastal Futures, 3 (e21): 1\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMbisva, S. (2025). The role of open-source bioinformatics tools in resource-limited African settings. Innovative Medicines \u0026amp; Omics 2025, 2(2): 51\u0026ndash;63. https://doi.org/10.36922/imo.8111\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMehjabeen, D., Patel, K., and Jindal, R. M. (2025). Decolonizing global health: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 25(1): 828. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12890-8.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMulder, N. J., Adebiyi, E., Alami, R., Benkahla, A., Brandful, J., Doumbia, S., Everett, D., Fadlelmola, F. M., Gaboun, F., Gaseitsiwe, S., Ghazal, H., Hazelhurst, S., Hide, W., Ibrahimi, A., Jaufeerally, Fakim, Y., Jongeneel, C. V., Joubert, F., Kassim, S., Kayondo, J., Kumuthini, J., Lyantagaye, S., Makani, J., Mansour Alzohairy, A., Masiga, D., Moussa, A., Nash, O., Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer, O., Owusu-Dabo, E., Panji, S., Patterton, H., Radouani, F., Sadki, K., Seghrouchni, F., Tastan, Bishop, \u0026Ouml;., Tiffin, N., Ulenga, N., and H3ABioNet Consortium. (2016). H3ABioNet, a sustainable pan-African bioinformatics network for human heredity and health in Africa. Genome Res. 26(2): 271-7. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.196295.115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., and Ranfagni, S. (2023). A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNakamura, G., Soares, B. E., Pillar, V. D., Diniz-Filho, J. A. F., Duarte, L. (2023). Three pathways to better recognize the expertise of Global South researchers. NPJ Biodiversity, 2(1):17-19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00021-7.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePuniya, B. L., Verma, M., Damiani, C., Bakr, S., and Dr\u0026auml;ger, A. (2024). Perspectives on computational modeling of biological systems and the significance of the SysMod community. Bioinform Adv. 4(1): vbae090. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioadv/vbae090.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRanganathan, S. (2005). Bioinformatics education--perspectives and challenges. PLoS Comput Biol. 1(6): e52. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0010052.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eReed, M. S., Ferr\u0026eacute;, M., Martin-Ortega, J., Blanche, R., Lawford-Rolfe, R., Dallimer, M., and Holden, J. (2021). Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework. Research Policy, 50(4), 104147.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRohr, J. R., Civitello, D. J., Halliday, F. W., Hudson, P. J., Lafferty, K. D., Wood, C. L., and Mordecai, E. A. (2020). Towards common ground in the biodiversity-disease debate. Nat Ecol Evol. 24-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1060-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSatam, H., Joshi, K., Mangrolia, U., Waghoo, S., Zaidi, G., Rawool, S., Thakare, R. P., Banday, S., Mishra, A. K., Das, G., and Malonia, S. K. (2023). Next-Generation Sequencing Technology: Current Trends and Advancements. Biology (Basel). 12(7): 997. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12070997.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchroter, S., Plowman, R., Hutchings, A., and Gonzalez, A. (2006). Reporting ethics committee approval and patient consent by study design in five general medical journals. J Med Ethics. 32(12): 718-23. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.015115.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaffer, J. G., Mather, F. J., Wele, M., Li, J., Tangara, C. O., Kassogue, Y., Srivastav, S. K., Thiero, O., Diakite, M., Sangare, M., Dabitao, D., Toure, M., Djimde, A. A., Traore, S., Diakite, B., Coulibaly, M. B., Liu, Y., Lacey, M., Lefante, J. J., Koita, O., Schieffelin, J. S., Krogstad, D. J., and Doumbia, S. O. (2019). Expanding Research Capacity in Sub-Saharan Africa Through Informatics, Bioinformatics, and Data Science Training Programs in Mali. Front. Genet. 10: 331. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.00331.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith, A. C., Mugabe, J., Singer, P. A., and Daar, A. S. (2005). Harnessing genomics to improve health in Africa - an executive course to support genomics policy. Health Res Policy Syst. 3(1): 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-3-2.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSoul\u0026eacute; F. (2024). Digital Sovereignty in Africa: Moving beyond Local Data Ownership. Center for International Governance Innovation. Policy Brief No. 185, 1-10. Available from https://www.cigionline.org/static/documents/PB_no.185.pdf (Last accessed October 5, 2025).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThami, P. K., Choga, W. T., Dandara, C., O\u0026apos;Brien, S. J., Essex, M., Gaseitsiwe, S., and Chimusa, E. R. (2023). Whole genome sequencing reveals population diversity and variation in HIV-1-specific host genes. Front Genet. 14: 1290624. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2023.1290624.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTractenberg, R. E., Lindvall, J. M., Attwood, T. K., and Via, A. (2019). The Mastery Rubric for Bioinformatics: A tool to support design and evaluation of career-spanning education and training. PLOS ONE. Available from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225256.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWestern, M. J., Smit, E. S., G\u0026uuml;ltzow, T., Neter, E., Sniehotta, F. F., Malkowski, O. S., Wright, C., Busse, H., Peuters, C., Rehackova, L., Gabriel Oteșanu, A., Ainsworth, B., Jones, C. M., Kilb, M., Rodrigues, A. M., Perski, O., Wright, A., and K\u0026ouml;nig, L. (2025). Bridging the digital health divide: a narrative review of the causes, implications, and solutions for digital health inequalities. Health Psychol Behav Med. 13(1): 2493139. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2025.2493139.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSustainability Directory. (2024). Equitable Research Infrastructure. Available from https://prism.sustainability-directory.com/term/equitable-research-infrastructure/. (Last Accessed on April 30, 2026).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOdeny, B., and Bosurgi, R. (2022). Time to end parachute science. \u003cem\u003ePLoS Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 19(9), e1004099. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004099.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHrabanski, M., and Pesche, D. (Eds.). (2016). The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): Meeting the challenge of biodiversity conservation and governance (1st ed.). \u003cem\u003eRoutledge\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315651095\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Public Health](https://link.springer.com/journal/12982)","snPcode":"12982","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/12982/3","title":"Discover Public Health","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Bioinformatics, Global South, Capacity Building, Digital Divide, Equitable Collaboration, Health Innovation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8549203/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8549203/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contemporary science, bioinformatics is an essential field. However, there are notable differences between the Global North and South. This study examined trends in the bioinformatics community's environment, major obstacles, and growth objectives to identify the particular strengths and systemic issues in the Global South to promote fair scientific progress and community-driven initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study used a descriptive, cross-sectional survey design. A structured online survey was disseminated to professionals and bioinformatics stakeholders across the Global South from August 19, 2025, to September 20, 2025. The questionnaire collected quantitative and qualitative data across eight domains: demographics, training, infrastructure, research outputs, collaboration, funding, ethics, and future directions. Data analyses applied a descriptive and thematic approach to identify trends.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 142 people from various Global South areas took part. The following key findings revealed significant obstacles: restricted access to high-performance computers (75%), unstable internet connectivity (62%), a lack of practical training (68% claimed inadequate skills), and severely limited funding (85%). Research was in line with local objectives, such as agriculture and infectious disease, according to the trend. Contextual ethical frameworks for data sharing and equitable collaborations were strongly supported by the majority (72%) of respondents. The prioritisation of investment in regional computational infrastructure (82%), capacity building (88%), and supporting national policies (78%), notwithstanding the obstacles, was evidently optimistic.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings from this paper offer evidence-based insights showing that fair international cooperation, long-term investments in infrastructure and training, and a move towards locally managed initiatives are all necessary for sustainable bioinformatics growth in the Global South. For these areas to transition from information consumers to bioinformatics innovators and leaders, community-defined goals are essential.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Accelerating Bioinformatics in Global South: A Preliminary Perspective-Driven Empirical Study","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-18 11:18:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8549203/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-05-19T11:27:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-05-07T10:31:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T04:22:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Public Health","date":"2026-04-30T10:59:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Public Health](https://link.springer.com/journal/12982)","snPcode":"12982","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/12982/3","title":"Discover Public Health","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"8a0721d3-be7b-4edd-9ba3-5bfd89ad170f","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-05-19T11:27:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"1","date":"2026-05-07T10:31:42+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-05-05T04:22:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T11:18:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-18 11:18:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8549203","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8549203","identity":"rs-8549203","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}