Skip to main content
Welcome to
super saver spring
offer ends april 20
save over $140
Sale ends in
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
Welcome to
super saver spring
$0.99
per week for 24 weeks
save over $140
// //

A medical worker tests a sample from a suspected COVID-19 coronavirus case at the Maccabi Health Services laboratory in Israel's central city of Rehovot on May 27, 2020.

GIL COHEN-MAGEN/AFP/Getty Images

The coronavirus pandemic has rekindled a long-standing debate on whether viruses are a country’s property, and if countries are obliged to share biological samples and scientific data that are key to developing life-saving treatments and vaccines.

More than 6.5 million people are reported to have been infected globally, according to a Reuters tally.

China, where the novel coronavirus emerged late last year, shared the viral genetic sequence data (GSD) with the World Health Organization (WHO) in early January.

Story continues below advertisement

That enabled laboratories around the world to start developing test kits, medications and vaccines.

Coronavirus guide: Updates and essential resources about the COVID-19 pandemic

What is the reopening plan in my province? A guide

How many coronavirus cases are there in Canada, by province, and worldwide? The latest maps and charts

Since then, however, a war of words has erupted around who gets access to vaccines and treatments first, with outrage over reports the U.S. administration tried to gain access to a potential vaccine being developed by a German firm.

“It is morally wrong to think that someone has a stronger claim to a vaccine because they happen to live in a rich country,” said Mark Eccleston-Turner, co-author of a recent paper on the issue of viral sovereignty.

The international legal system encourages countries to look at viruses as their “sovereign resources that can be bargained and bartered away in exchange for future health goods such as vaccines,” he told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

“We need to move away from this model to one where viruses, and the health goods which are developed are seen as public goods, which everyone in the world has equal claim and access to,” said Mr. Eccleston-Turner, a lecturer at Britain’s Keele University.

’BLIND SPOT’

Countries have fought before over sharing virus samples and data, and access to vaccines, notably during the AIDS crisis and the Ebola outbreak.

In 2007, Indonesia stopped sharing virus samples of the H5N1 avian flu virus, on concerns that wealthy countries were developing vaccines based on those strains, which they would then sell at high prices.

Story continues below advertisement

Indonesia resumed sharing of virus samples after the WHO vowed to help boost vaccine production in poorer countries, but the faceoff reiterated the persistent challenge of sharing scientific data and biological samples.

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and its Nagoya Protocol (2012) on access and benefit sharing both recognize countries’ sovereignty over genetic resources, with no legal obligation to share, even in a health emergency.

“The lack of a clear legal obligation to share represents a blind spot in international law and governance, impeding pandemic response and scientific progress,” Mr. Eccleston-Turner wrote in the Science journal paper published in May.

But “limiting access to the resources on the basis of state sovereignty may be one of the few points of leverage available to developing countries hoping to negotiate fair and equitable access to diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines,” he said.

The question of who owns data – and not just scientific data – has come under scrutiny during the coronavirus crisis, as countries rolled out technologies to track the virus, but which digital rights experts say invade privacy and increase surveillance.

But the very idea of data sovereignty “is illusory,” said Martin Tisné, managing director of philanthropic organization Luminate, that works on digital rights issues.

Story continues below advertisement

“COVID-19 is a public harm; we will fight it by building a public good. The data, models and software used to address the COVID-19 pandemic should be as open as possible,” he said.

MANDATORY SHARING

The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated existing inequalities, and exposed the vulnerability of disadvantaged populations including the urban poor, Indigenous people and migrant workers, according to human rights groups.

The gap between wealthy and poor countries is evidenced in everything from quarantine facilities to relief measures, with fears that “immunity passports” that can clear people to travel or work, would further entrench inequalities.

This is why the WHO must ensure “mandatory worldwide sharing” of COVID-19 related knowledge and data “with need prioritized above the ability to pay,” more than 150 academics, former heads of state and UN officials said in an open letter last month.

“The ask for free access to vaccines, data and treatments is based on the experience of health and development experts that denial of access is often a serious problem in handling a health crisis,” said Purnima Mane, a signatory to the letter.

“It is entirely relevant in a global pandemic where poorer countries and less well-off populations in countries are often denied the benefits of development and progress,” said Ms. Mane, a former head of health care non-profit Pathfinder International.

Story continues below advertisement

Luminate funds a project of the Britain-based Open Data Institute (ODI) to make all data related to the coronavirus open, so it can be used “quickly and without restrictions by those who need it most, and to the benefit of everyone.”

The WHO has launched the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, supported by other international institutions and about 30 countries, and aimed at making vaccines, tests, treatments and other health technologies accessible to all.

But while the coronavirus crisis has seen many examples of rapid sharing, it has also highlighted the reality that “countries may not readily relinquish their sovereignty over pathogenic genetic resources and associated GSD,” Mr. Eccleston-Turner said.

What’s needed is a legal framework that makes these resources available for research and development, he said.

“It is understandable that countries will want to use what leverage they have to gain equitable access to necessary and limited resources,” said Jeni Tennison, vice-president of ODI.

But withholding data “seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.”

Story continues below advertisement

New York Times columnist and political commentator David Brooks discusses how politics and society will be different after the coronavirus pandemic during a conversation with Rudyard Griffiths of the Munk Debates. The Globe and Mail

Sign up for the Coronavirus Update newsletter to read the day’s essential coronavirus news, features and explainers written by Globe reporters and editors.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies