As science-based activists, the right of everyone “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”1 —or more simply, the right to science—offers tremendous potential for our work. Yet this right has been underexplored and underutilized. Under the
leadership of Mike Frick, now codirector of our TB project, TAG began framing our advocacy within a right to science lens in 2015, adding to the small but growing body of work to understand and apply the right.2 Building off the body
of work that has resulted over the past five years, we decided to dedicate an edition of TAGline to the right,
THE in light of upcoming official detailed communications on what the right to science means (see Frick page 4). We had no idea that by edition launch, we’d be in the throes of a pandemic, with the need to realize the right to science more important than
ever. The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the resultant pandemic of COVID-19
disease facilitated by many countries’ horrible mismanagement of it, are tragic demonstrations of why the right
to science is so essential. Science underpins all the tools we need to combat a pandemic: evidence-driven epidemiology and public policy; sound information and public communications; and eventually, new diagnostics, therapeutics, and possibly vaccines.
Only a science-based response will get us out of this with as minimal impact and lives lost as possible. Such a response requires strong political will and effectual governments to make adequate fiscal and policy investments to—in
the language of the right to science—both develop and diffuse those advances to all who need them. On the investment side, we see clearly from recent events that waiting until an emergency to make investments
in research and development (R&D) means that highquality, life-saving tools come far too late. While it can be hard, if not impossible, to predict what pathogen will explode as the next global health crisis, proactive and sustained investing
in light of upcoming official detailed communications on what the right to science means (see Frick page 4). We had no idea that by edition launch, we’d be in the throes of a pandemic, with the need to realize the right to science
more
in infectious disease research and product development helps support an infrastructure that can be readily deployed and adapted to respond to emerging threats. Instead, years of a free market-driven approach to R&D means that many
companies have abandoned their infectious disease drug and vaccine development units in favor of more lucrative, yet less essential therapeutic areas. Chronic underfunding of science directly threatens the rigor of biomedical research,
with fewer resources to conduct and power randomized controlled trials to generate quality data.3 Underinvesting in research and accepting potentially biased or anecdotal evidence in place of randomized trials result in weak guidelines
and challenge
uptake of new interventions. Sustained and increased investments in public research institutions, such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health, are critical for building a basic science knowledge base to understand conditions and
underpin product development, as well as providing funding opportunities to attract private sector endeavors. Investments also ensure that our best and brightest engage in advancing crucial research, while bringing promising, earlycareer
researchers into the fields of emerging and neglected infectious diseases. But developing the tools is only half of the battle. Making sure they equitably reach those affected is equally
essential. With the
COVID-19 pandemic, we are already seeing the breakdown of who benefits from science, including publicly-funded science, as we continue to see with the HIV, TB, and HCV epidemics. This inequity applies both within and across borders.
For example, though the human right to science and its benefits is universal, the ability to obtain testing for COVID-19
hugely depends upon in which country one lives (compare early testing rates in South Korea versus the
U.S., for example)3 as well as how resources and health care coverage are distributed within a country.4 A particularly egregious example of this breakdown is President Trump attempting to buy exclusive rights to a vaccine candidate
from a German company, with an eye toward making it
available only in the U.S.5 Or the case of U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Azar not committing to ensure that any vaccine developed would be affordable.6 In a time where rapid and unfettered access is vital, the policies lobbied by industry
in the name of protecting innovation and intellectual property rights are barriers to meeting urgent health needs and limits the realization of the right to science for all. So while economic stimulus packages to incentivize private
sector development may help produce
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
