In the world of increasing fragmentation and polarization, the 78th World Health Assembly starting on Monday will adopt the epidemic agreement and present itself as a beacon of hope. This would be a decisive moment, as the World Health Organization (WHO) calls it, where the leaders of the world believe that in a highly interacted world, we stand to benefit while giving importance to cooperation and equity.
The WHO epidemic agreement, which was finalized in Geneva in April and will be adopted in the World Health Assembly, has been included during a global health crisis, a lot of installed views about the role played by technology sharing and the rights of intellectual property (IP), such as the Kovid -19 epidemic. The draft states that the parties for the agreement believe that intellectual property rights are important for the development of new medical products, but they should not stop member states from taking measures to protect public health. The amended draft also addressed concerns about the impact of intellectual property rights on the prices of medical products.
Regarding the transfer and learning of technology, under Article 11, “license, worldwide, worldwide, worldwide and on a transparent basis and for the benefit of developing countries is mentioned to provide” licenses … “and” Within its abilities, within your capabilities, support for supporting capacity and epidemic for the transfer of technology.
The use of intellectual property (IP) rights as a tool for blocking vaccines and drugs came under scanner during the Kovid -19 epidemic in 2020. India and South Africa demanded a temporary discount on patents for medical products related to Kovid -19, including MRNA vaccines. The arguments for the World Trade Organization (WTO), which belongs to IP rights related to the trading of intellectual property (Trips), faced intensive resistance from rich countries, as well as pharmaceutical industry.
High-II countries such as the US, UK, European Union, Norway and Canada argued that IP rights played an important role in furthering innovation in science and it did not require its exemption for fair distribution during epidemics as other means such as voluntary licensing, technology transfer system, and donor-funded covax advance market commitment could be used. However, they were ignoring the reality that patents could act as private governance rules, as Dr. Iceling McMahon told for vaccines, drugs and Kovid -19 for diagnosis in global equal access: the role of patent as a private governance. Paper argues that the patent holders can determine who achieves access and at which price, controls the supply of important products such as vaccines and medicines. For example, the US fulfilled the global supply of Ramedicivir, at that time a drug believed to help to recover faster than Kovid -19. Mentor It was reported that the US had bought almost all stocks from the drug manufacturer Gillid, which kept the only patent for Ramedesivir for three months in 2020.
In its argument for exemption of a trip to the WTO, South Africa cited the example of a legal quarrel in India between pharma companies, physic and glaxosomithkline (GSK), with Medicine Sans Sans Frranteres (MSF) on pneumococcal vaccine. A patent blocked the development of alternative versions of the vaccine. The MSF was eventually able to break the “Struggles” of the two companies, but after 20 years.
In the above cases, not only reflects the equity to the equity created due to the patent and equity obstacles, but also the risk of the risk of the price of important drugs and vaccines by the big pharma companies, for which the bottom line is a core driver. After the legal battle, the MSF statement said, “There is very little transparency on the prices charged by Fizer and GSK, as corporations have a large length to keep prices secret.
After this, it argues whether IP ingredients are important in promoting and supporting innovation and excellence. The United Nations agency, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), says IP rights “enable people to earn recognition or financial benefits, which they invent or create,”, which gives many arguments, encourages further innovation.
However, there are very few evidence to support this argument. In contrast, IP rights can limit competition and an innovative drive. Supported a report nominated by the Council of Royal Society Keeping science open: Effect of intellectual property policy The conduct of science states that IP rights can be “impractical to pursue scientific research within the areas claimed for others, and because the inventions cannot be patented. If they already have public knowledge, they can encourage the atmosphere of privacy. It is an orphan to many scientists who feel that a free flow producer of ideas and information is important for research.”
Finally, dealing with the question of reward and recognition for innovators – Is the benefits of an innovation only related to a set of people or society? To answer this debate subject, let’s turn to two papers. First, paper Political aspect of innovation Jerry Court Visanos has stated how governments support research and development subsidies and older innovations, patent protection and other intellectual property rights through tax concessions. In other titles titled Technical sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policyElder et al argues on a similar note about the fact that innovation for technical sovereignty is often focused on selected and strategically identified domains. Strategically identified domains are widely state-supported and sometimes witness to state intervention as conservationist measures.
Should innovators be credited only to innovators when protected and publicized by a state or industry, and effectively the result of a very big attempt? If it is the creation of an entire society, whether IP rights should stop its use by humanity on a large scale, especially when its justified distribution can distinguish between life and death?
The basis of the search for balance between innovation and equity, therefore, is as much as it is in the realities of the market as it is in morality and justice. Therefore, when the World Health Assembly meets from next week, in the end, to adopt an epidemic agreement, member nations will have to send a message vigorously and clearly – innovation without equity is unstable, unattainable and immoral.
(Maha Siddiqui is a journalist who has reported extensively on public policy and global affairs.)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
