- Agile, equitable and effective global health architecture
Open sharing of knowledge is important for creating an “agile, equitable and effective global health architecture.” Open science benefits from public sector support for research and development, and robust limitations and exceptions to intellectual property rights for research.
In order to enhance the amount of public sector funding of R&D that is open and shared without restrictions it may be necessary to create cross-border norms on minimum levels of spending, similar to negotiations taking place today regarding defense spending among NATO members.
In this regard, if there were cross-border norms for minimum investments in public sector funding of health R&D, the spending on (1) areas of priority, and (2) research that is shared as an open public good, should be given a large weight.
A particularly sophisticated version of a global agreement on funding biomedical R&D was the 2005 proposal for a Medical Research and Development Treaty (MRDT). (See: https://www.keionline.org/25276; http://www.cptech.org/workingdrafts/rndtreaty.html, and the Attached PDF file).
It is challenging, of course, to get buy-in for commitments to fund R&D as a global public good, if only some countries are willing to shoulder the cost of doing so, but everyone benefits. For this reason, there should be room for plurilateral R&D consortium agreements, similar to those used for defense or some energy projects, where the outputs of the research are openly licensed among consortium members, who qualify through funding R&D, or other measures that have tangible benefits to the other consortium members.
We also encourage the EU to evaluate the possible mechanisms for progressively delinking biomedical R&D incentives from temporary IP and regulatory monopolies. (See delinkage.org)
In discussions over access and benefit sharing obligations in the WHO PABS system, the BBNJ, the Cali Fund and for any WIPO related treaty on genetic resources, traditional knowledge, or traditional cultural expressions, triggers for benefit sharing should be focused on downstream activities, like filing patents, or registering and selling products, rather than as conditions on access to databases, samples or knowledge, and governments should assume responsibility for enforcing benefit sharing obligations, and not rely on contracts associated with access to databases.
- Tackling misinformation and disinformation to strengthen trust in science.
In 2019 the WHO adopted WHA72.8, a resolution titled “Improving the transparency of markets for medicines, vaccines, and other health products.” (https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/wha72.8). Germany, Hungary, and the United Kingdom stated they would not join consensus on the resolution.
During the COVID 19 crisis, governments abandoned many norms on transparency, citing national security concerns. During the five years of negotiations on a WHO Pandemic Agreement, member states imposed considerable secrecy over the negotiations. Nearly all negotiations were secret, including plenary discussions. The ongoing secrecy over R&D and procurement contracts, treaty negotiations, prices, and licensing conditions, undermine trust in public health institutions and governments.
In the public’s minds, secrecy is associated with corruption. Secrecy is also fuel for disinformation.