China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Practical knowledge (2) - science, equity and systems
Published in Nigel Crisp, Turning the World Upside Down Again, 2022
Perhaps the biggest question of all from a global perspective is of who benefits from the science and the technology. Is it kept with a closed circle of wealthy countries and individuals? Is it the closely guarded intellectual property of private companies that is only available at exorbitant costs? Will it be used for political purposes - for state control as well as vaccine diplomacy?
A new definition for global bioethics: COVID-19, a case study
Published in Global Bioethics, 2022
A basic element that emerges for global bioethics is the use of diplomacy. Just as diplomacy is required for interactions among nations and member organizations of the United Nations (WHO, the World Trade Organization, UNICEF, and others), it is a necessary ingredient in global bioethics. In its series on epidemic ethics, the Ethox Center of Oxford University hosted a virtual seminar entitled “Vaccine Diplomacy During the COVID-19 Pandemic” on April 12, 2021 (Vaccine Diplomacy, 2021).2 Speakers at the seminar criticized vaccine nationalism and called for “vaccine cosmopolitanism.” One participant pointed out that Russia and China have taken the lead in distributing vaccines to countries that lack them. The speaker questioned whether this is altruism or rather, a self-interested way of obtaining some dominance over the countries to which it has provided vaccines. Another speaker agreed, asking whether bilateral arrangements are an example of “good” vaccine diplomacy, since they may be used to gain influence over the recipient countries. The seminar participants questioned whether countries could learn from the current flawed experience of COVID-19 vaccine rollout and use some sort of multi-national strategy the next time around. In the end, some remained skeptical about the process of international vaccine diplomacy, given the dominance of vaccine nationalism. But it does not follow that diplomacy should be ruled out in other situations that global bioethics might address and that affect much of the world, such as climate change, water and air pollution, and future pandemics.
COVID-19 and the rise of anti-science
Published in Expert Review of Vaccines, 2021
I think there’s a few things. Firstly, that this concept of ‘vaccine diplomacy’, or vaccine cooperation between nations, is vital for success if we’re going to have vaccines for neglected diseases and pandemic threats. Secondly, the existing ecosystem is very fragile, and we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic how quickly things can break down – for example, under the Trump Administration the US pulled out of the World Health Organization and the COVAX facility. Another factor is the fact that vaccine producers from some nations began creating bilateral relationships between nations in ways that did not always follow our usual norms of global governance. There’s a new term that’s been used to describe it called ‘vaccinationalism’ and it’s been having a very destructive effect on providing vaccines of lesser quality and questionable ability to have any cross-protection against the new variants to people. This aggressive rise in anti-science and anti-vaccine movements is significantly affecting our ability to vaccinate large percentages of the population because of vaccine refusal. How we restore both the governance of the vaccines, and how we tamp down the anti-science movements is going to determine our ability to solve the COVID-19 pandemic and other future threats.