大流行期间的知识产权和全球获得卫生技术:反思疫苗民族主义、COVID-19和世卫组织大流行协议谈判——集体行动和制度变革的必要性。

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Aisling M McMahon
{"title":"大流行期间的知识产权和全球获得卫生技术:反思疫苗民族主义、COVID-19和世卫组织大流行协议谈判——集体行动和制度变革的必要性。","authors":"Aisling M McMahon","doi":"10.1017/jme.2025.10149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Focusing on intellectual property rights (IPRs) and their role in global access to vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, this article argues that key aspects of the current institutional system align towards delivering individualistic state/regional/rightsholders priorities in the use of IPRs over pandemic health technologies. This played a key role in the vaccine nationalism and global vaccine inequity that emerged during the pandemic. It critically analyzes the IPR provisions within the World Health Organisation's Pandemic Agreement and negotiation process. It argues that nationalistic/individualistic approaches toward the use of IPRs over health technologies also permeate such contexts. The final text of the Agreement leaves considerable discretion to states around IPRs, and much will depend on how it is implemented in practice. For effective future pandemic preparedness around how IPRs are used over health technologies, this article argues that a deeper bottom-up institutional change is needed - one which offers nuanced strategies to balance the potential incentivization role of IPRs with the implications certain uses of IPRs can have on access to downstream health technologies. A key element of this change is embedding a greater recognition of the range of resources provided by entities (e.g. funders, biobanks, and universities) necessary in the successful development of health technologies, including in pandemic contexts. Such entities should leverage these resources, including by attaching contractual conditions to access these, which mandate avenues for downstream access to pandemic health technologies. In the longer term such approaches could be part of a broader institutional change, which prioritises global collective health needs in pandemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":50165,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"398-414"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intellectual Property Rights and Global Access to Health Technologies During Pandemics: Reflecting on Vaccine Nationalism, COVID-19 & the WHO Pandemic Agreement Negotiations - The Need for Collective Action and Institutional Change.\",\"authors\":\"Aisling M McMahon\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jme.2025.10149\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Focusing on intellectual property rights (IPRs) and their role in global access to vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, this article argues that key aspects of the current institutional system align towards delivering individualistic state/regional/rightsholders priorities in the use of IPRs over pandemic health technologies. This played a key role in the vaccine nationalism and global vaccine inequity that emerged during the pandemic. It critically analyzes the IPR provisions within the World Health Organisation's Pandemic Agreement and negotiation process. It argues that nationalistic/individualistic approaches toward the use of IPRs over health technologies also permeate such contexts. The final text of the Agreement leaves considerable discretion to states around IPRs, and much will depend on how it is implemented in practice. For effective future pandemic preparedness around how IPRs are used over health technologies, this article argues that a deeper bottom-up institutional change is needed - one which offers nuanced strategies to balance the potential incentivization role of IPRs with the implications certain uses of IPRs can have on access to downstream health technologies. A key element of this change is embedding a greater recognition of the range of resources provided by entities (e.g. funders, biobanks, and universities) necessary in the successful development of health technologies, including in pandemic contexts. Such entities should leverage these resources, including by attaching contractual conditions to access these, which mandate avenues for downstream access to pandemic health technologies. In the longer term such approaches could be part of a broader institutional change, which prioritises global collective health needs in pandemics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50165,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"398-414\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10149\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.10149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以知识产权及其在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间在全球疫苗获取中的作用为重点,认为当前制度体系的关键方面与在使用知识产权而不是大流行卫生技术方面为个人主义的国家/地区/权利持有人提供优先事项相一致。这在大流行期间出现的疫苗民族主义和全球疫苗不平等现象中发挥了关键作用。它批判性地分析了世界卫生组织《大流行病协定》和谈判进程中的知识产权条款。它认为,在卫生技术上使用知识产权的民族主义/个人主义做法也渗透在这种情况下。《协定》的最终文本在知识产权问题上给各国留下了相当大的自由裁量权,这在很大程度上取决于在实践中如何实施。为了在未来有效地防范知识产权在卫生技术上的使用,本文认为需要进行更深层次的自下而上的制度变革——提供微妙的战略,以平衡知识产权的潜在激励作用与知识产权的某些使用可能对获取下游卫生技术产生的影响。这一变化的一个关键因素是更多地认识到实体(如资助者、生物库和大学)提供的各种资源是成功开发卫生技术,包括在大流行病背景下开发卫生技术所必需的。这些实体应利用这些资源,包括为获取这些资源附加合同条件,其中规定了下游获取大流行病卫生技术的途径。从长期来看,这些方法可以成为更广泛的制度变革的一部分,这种变革优先考虑流行病方面的全球集体卫生需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intellectual Property Rights and Global Access to Health Technologies During Pandemics: Reflecting on Vaccine Nationalism, COVID-19 & the WHO Pandemic Agreement Negotiations - The Need for Collective Action and Institutional Change.

Focusing on intellectual property rights (IPRs) and their role in global access to vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic, this article argues that key aspects of the current institutional system align towards delivering individualistic state/regional/rightsholders priorities in the use of IPRs over pandemic health technologies. This played a key role in the vaccine nationalism and global vaccine inequity that emerged during the pandemic. It critically analyzes the IPR provisions within the World Health Organisation's Pandemic Agreement and negotiation process. It argues that nationalistic/individualistic approaches toward the use of IPRs over health technologies also permeate such contexts. The final text of the Agreement leaves considerable discretion to states around IPRs, and much will depend on how it is implemented in practice. For effective future pandemic preparedness around how IPRs are used over health technologies, this article argues that a deeper bottom-up institutional change is needed - one which offers nuanced strategies to balance the potential incentivization role of IPRs with the implications certain uses of IPRs can have on access to downstream health technologies. A key element of this change is embedding a greater recognition of the range of resources provided by entities (e.g. funders, biobanks, and universities) necessary in the successful development of health technologies, including in pandemic contexts. Such entities should leverage these resources, including by attaching contractual conditions to access these, which mandate avenues for downstream access to pandemic health technologies. In the longer term such approaches could be part of a broader institutional change, which prioritises global collective health needs in pandemics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics
Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 医学-医学:法
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
70
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Material published in The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (JLME) contributes to the educational mission of The American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, covering public health, health disparities, patient safety and quality of care, and biomedical science and research. It provides articles on such timely topics as health care quality and access, managed care, pain relief, genetics, child/maternal health, reproductive health, informed consent, assisted dying, ethics committees, HIV/AIDS, and public health. Symposium issues review significant policy developments, health law court decisions, and books.
×
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