TWN Info Service on Health Issues (Feb24/08)
27 February 2024
Third World Network

WHO: 290 scientists call for effective access and benefit sharing under the pandemic instrument

27 February, Geneva (TWN) – 290 scientists from 36 countries have made an open call for an effective and accountable system of access and benefit sharing known as the Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) System under the new pandemic instrument being developed in the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB).

The open letter was published by the journal, Nature, as a “comment” in its 626^th volume dated 29 February 2024. An online version of the letter was made available on 23 February.

The published open letter was later sent to the Bureau of the INB which is mandated to negotiate the pandemic instrument.

The 8^th meeting of the INB is taking place at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva in a hybrid mode from 19 February to 2 March.

The letter states that “Access and benefit-sharing could just as easily be called ‘science for science’: the PABS System will support more pandemic science, and ensure that scientists’ contributions result in their communities having access to lifesaving advancements”.

Further the letter states, “If Article 12 is weakened or dismantled, it will be a monumental setback for global health justice — and for the global scientific community”.

Article 12 of the draft pandemic instrument deals with access to pathogens and their genetic sequence data (GSD), and the benefits arising from the use of such pathogens and GSD. These benefits include health products such as therapeutic medicines, vaccines and diagnostics. The pandemic instrument is envisaging a PABS System which will handle both access to pathogens and GSD, on the one hand, and fair and equitable benefit sharing on the other hand, on an equal footing.

However, developed countries are increasingly opposed to developing an effective and accountable system, as they echo industry that wants to leave benefit sharing as either optional or voluntary under the pandemic instrument. But they seek to make their access to pathogens and GSD obligatory. They also oppose any form of good governance over the systems that share access to pathogens and GSD.

On the other hand, the countries of the Africa Group and Group for Equity have proposed a system which addresses both handles in an equal obligatory manner.  Last week, it was reported that countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and others wanted to push for even anonymous models of data sharing, causing not only concerns for benefit sharing but also biosecurity. However, the 47 Member States of the Africa Group, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Indonesia and India have vehemently opposed these moves to continue with an unaccountable system.

The constant argument of the developed countries is that any form of governance, for that matter even user identification and registration, is considered a hindrance to research and innovation. They argue that it negatively affects the scientific community from both North and South.

It is in this context that the open letter from this collective of 290 scientists is of importance and great relevance. The letter suggests that “The WHO could also establish its own repository or clearinghouse for genetic sequence data and samples, which would potentially provide scientists with more transparent management of these resources and the guarantee of continued access”.

Alexandra Phelan, senior author of the collective scientists’ call, explained her take on the issue to Third World Network, that “The governance of sequence data should be transparent, accountable and supportive of both science and equity. That means ensuring open science and clarity around acknowledgements, research collaborations and how the benefits of any products developed from sequence data are to be shared”.

The letter states that the “scientists will still be able to share their data freely outside of PABS platforms, and widely used databases could enter into the PABS System — meaning that most researchers would never experience any disruptions to their workflow”.

On the contrary, the WHO Secretariat and developed countries have been pushing to continue with the current system of GSD sharing, which does not guarantee further access (re-sharing of data) nor benefit sharing. Disruptions faced by scientists with regard to access to GSD in one of WHO Secretariat’s preferred privately-owned database, GISAID, is well documented.

[GISAID is the Global Initiative on Sharing Avian Influenza Data started by a group of scientists as a private venture in 2006 and as described by The Economist in April 2023, “Donors and scientists accuse GISAID of caprice and a lack of transparency”. The full article is available here.]

Another major GSD sharing system, the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC), managed by the governments of the United States, Japan and 21 European countries, is known to provide anonymous access undermining both accountability and benefit sharing.

Both these sets of platforms have been promoting the sharing of GSD but without generating any fair and equitable benefit sharing.

One of major reasons for inequities relating to vaccines or other health products as evidenced by the cases of Ebola and the COVID-19 Pandemic, is the neglect of the international obligation on access and benefit sharing arising from the use of GSD. However, the WHO Secretariat has constantly expressed its reluctance to set up a WHO database or to take effective steps to address these concerns.

The scientist collective argued in its open letter that the new pandemic instrument under development cannot succeed “unless it ensures that everyone will benefit from pandemic science”.

Thus, the letter ends with a caution and aspiration that “Although today’s scientific community has embraced the ideals of open data sharing, the world is no closer to a fair system for sharing vaccines and therapeutics. Intellectual property, not benefit-sharing, is the antithesis of open science. We dream of a world in which such barriers are dismantled for lifesaving medicines. Until that day, the Pandemic Agreement offers the last best chance to avoid repeating the mistakes made during the COVID-19 pandemic.”

On the motivation behind the letter, Alexandra Phelan said, “It is important to recognize that scientists are not a monolith: scientists in the Global South have been denied the credit, funding, opportunities and even vaccines that have come from their work, while scientists in the Global North are increasingly recognizing the need for both access and benefit sharing, for equity and epidemic preparedness.”  

The full Nature article can be accessed here.

The list of signatories can be accessed here.