Editorial: Transparency at last
Published in The Hindu on April 2, 2008
The tough stand taken by Indonesia on sharing its bird flu samples with the World Health Organisation collaborating centres has brought in substantial changes for the better. The world body has put in place an electronic system that will allow free public access for tracking all H5N1 and other potentially pandemic human virus samples shared by the affected countries with it through the Global Influenza Surveillance Network (GISN). The tracking system which has data on shared samples will allow contributing countries to know if their samples have been developed into vaccine viruses and who the recipients of such vaccine viruses are. The system would also indicate if the developed countries have been prompt in sharing their samples, as they claim. The stand off between Indonesia and the WHO over the sample sharing mechanism in return for assured vaccine supply in case of a pandemic had brought to light the non-transparent nature of the surveillance network. Though countries that have had bird flu outbreaks are obliged to share samples with the WHO, until now they had no way of knowing who were using their samples and for what purposes. This is best illustrated by the pharmaceutical company based in Australia which developed a bird flu vaccine using the Indonesian strain without Indonesia being aware of it.
It is a shame that though the network has been in place for 60 years, there has been much confusion about who the players are and how it operates. That it became clear only last year that there were other institutions involved in the GISN, apart from the collaborating centres, confirms the opaqueness of the system. Though the primary concern of Indonesia, which has been in the forefront in highlighting the inequity of the sample sharing system, remains largely unaddressed, the way the world body was compelled to accede to its demand for a data tracking system should strengthen its resolve for seeking a fair mechanism for making vaccines available when a pandemic strikes anywhere. Though the developed countries see Indonesia’s reluctance to share its samples as putting everybody at great risk, it should be borne in mind that the developing countries have been compelled to resort to such brinkmanship only to fight inequity in the world of vaccine and drug research. The time has come for many of the WHO’s policies, which are antiquated and skewed in favour of the developed countries that have large pharmaceutical industries, to be changed to ensure a fair deal for the developing countries. If this cannot be achieved through negotiations in the normal course, developing countries might be tempted to follow Indonesia’s example and raise the issue when a crisis is at hand.
