The WHO Pandemic Agreement’s Missing Epistemic Architectures: Infodemics and Antimicrobial Resistance as Examples

IF 1.1 Q3 ETHICS
Calvin Wai Loon Ho, Karel Caals
{"title":"The WHO Pandemic Agreement’s Missing Epistemic Architectures: Infodemics and Antimicrobial Resistance as Examples","authors":"Calvin Wai Loon Ho,&nbsp;Karel Caals","doi":"10.1007/s41649-025-00387-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>On 20 May 2025, the 78<sup>th</sup> World Health Assembly adopted the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement (PA). With the benefit of lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic, the PA rightly focuses on advancing equity, but we are concerned that the PA appears to apply equity narrowly as distributive justice and neglects epistemic justice. Using infodemics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as examples, we argue that the PA misses epistemic architectures. We first explain why infodemics are an important public health concern that the PA seeks to address, even though it does not clearly mention them. We then explain why equity must be interpreted to include epistemic justice. Using infodemics as an example, we subsequently discuss how the epistemic architecture of the PA on infodemics will need to be set out clearly as an annex to the PA or through the adoption of an additional protocol. We note in particular that the PA could help to draw together different normative and human rights approaches and frameworks to meet the requirements of epistemic justice. A similar challenge applies to AMR as an epistemically complex phenomenon, and our argument is that a global response to AMR will require a just and equitable epistemic architecture that the PA could lay the foundation for.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44520,"journal":{"name":"Asian Bioethics Review","volume":"17 3","pages":"495 - 514"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12304356/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41649-025-00387-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

On 20 May 2025, the 78th World Health Assembly adopted the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Agreement (PA). With the benefit of lessons learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic, the PA rightly focuses on advancing equity, but we are concerned that the PA appears to apply equity narrowly as distributive justice and neglects epistemic justice. Using infodemics and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as examples, we argue that the PA misses epistemic architectures. We first explain why infodemics are an important public health concern that the PA seeks to address, even though it does not clearly mention them. We then explain why equity must be interpreted to include epistemic justice. Using infodemics as an example, we subsequently discuss how the epistemic architecture of the PA on infodemics will need to be set out clearly as an annex to the PA or through the adoption of an additional protocol. We note in particular that the PA could help to draw together different normative and human rights approaches and frameworks to meet the requirements of epistemic justice. A similar challenge applies to AMR as an epistemically complex phenomenon, and our argument is that a global response to AMR will require a just and equitable epistemic architecture that the PA could lay the foundation for.

世卫组织大流行协议缺失的知识架构:以信息流行病和抗菌素耐药性为例。
2025年5月20日,第七十八届世界卫生大会通过了世界卫生组织《大流行协定》。得益于从2019冠状病毒病大流行中吸取的教训,《行动纲领》正确地将重点放在促进公平上,但我们担心,《行动纲领》似乎将公平狭隘地应用于分配正义,而忽视了认识正义。以信息流行病和抗菌素耐药性(AMR)为例,我们认为PA错过了认知架构。我们首先解释为什么资讯流行病是PA寻求解决的一个重要的公共卫生问题,尽管它没有明确提到它们。然后,我们解释了为什么公平必须被解释为包括认识正义。以infodemic为例,我们随后讨论了如何将关于infodemic的PA的认知架构作为PA的附件或通过采用附加协议明确列出。我们特别注意到,PA可以帮助汇集不同的规范和人权方法和框架,以满足认识正义的要求。类似的挑战也适用于作为认知复杂现象的抗菌素耐药性,我们的观点是,对抗菌素耐药性的全球响应将需要一个公正和公平的认知架构,而PA可以为其奠定基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
3.40%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Asian Bioethics Review (ABR) is an international academic journal, based in Asia, providing a forum to express and exchange original ideas on all aspects of bioethics, especially those relevant to the region. Published quarterly, the journal seeks to promote collaborative research among scholars in Asia or with an interest in Asia, as well as multi-cultural and multi-disciplinary bioethical studies more generally. It will appeal to all working on bioethical issues in biomedicine, healthcare, caregiving and patient support, genetics, law and governance, health systems and policy, science studies and research. ABR provides analyses, perspectives and insights into new approaches in bioethics, recent changes in biomedical law and policy, developments in capacity building and professional training, and voices or essays from a student’s perspective. The journal includes articles, research studies, target articles, case evaluations and commentaries. It also publishes book reviews and correspondence to the editor. ABR welcomes original papers from all countries, particularly those that relate to Asia. ABR is the flagship publication of the Centre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore. The Centre for Biomedical Ethics is a collaborating centre on bioethics of the World Health Organization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信