Global Strategy and Plan of Action for Public Health,
Innovation and Intellectual Property
A Student’s Perspective
Usman A. Mushtaq
Vice president of External Affairs,
International Federation of Medical Students Association
Youth commissioner, The Lancet-University of Oslo and
Harvard Public Health School Commission on Global
Governance for Health
World Health Summit 2012, Berlin
Are our innovation & intellectual property
rights doing enough to empower LMICs
to fight such a disease burden, or more
importantly, to merge the growing gap in
stark health inequities?
Rationale for the strategy
• Health inequity: Restricted sharing of
biotechnical and intellectual
advancement in LMICs--> bifurcates into
richer countries with easier access vs.
poorer with limited access.
• Chronic+infectious disease double-
burden: Defeats the inherent purpose of
innovation--> to ameliorate disease
burden and improve health care
accessibility and technical prowess in
Rationale for the strategy
Ethical & Human Rights Considerations:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:“Right
to share in scientific advancement and its
benefits..".Denying access to advanced health care and
resources is an ethical violation.
Promote innovation in research and development
paradigms unique to LMICs: Which will help in focused
needs-based development and accessible medicines.
• Over 100 action points over a broad area involving
numerous governing bodies.
• WHO passionately leading the work with progress
• Many initiatives proposed,
• capacity building LMIC on utilizing the TRIPS
• Open source licensing, patent pool, prizes
• Was a step to the Consultative Expert Working
Group on Research and Development
• The strategy so broad that it makes it vague?
• Despite the increased focus on the issue of
access and innovation, progress still remains
• Many of the solutions lays outside the working
area of WHO and falls under other global
Paradoxes of Health and Trade
k on reconcile divergent interests?
• How do member states work on reconcile divergent
• Do member states prioritize health over trade?
• How can interests around protection of knowledge for
the sake of trade and investment be reconciled with
efforts to produce global public goods?
International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
•UAEM Global Health Impact Report Card: Measures
licensure and IP restrictions pertinent to Universities
•Evaluates on three parameters:
• 1. Access: Are licensed/IP rights protected
biomedical technologies developed by Universities
accessible and affordable to LMICs?
• 2. Innovation: How pertinent is the development to
needs of LMICs double disease-burden or poverty
• 3. Curriculum: Does the development do justice to
academia's calling to promote global health
Students from McMaster University
Recommendations from the
CEWG on R&D
John-Arne Røttingen, CEWG chair:
“If the price of health products
continues to reflect the full cost of
R&D products, these products will
never be affordable for those that
need them most. We therefore
need to do two things: to delink the
cost of research from the price of
the product, and to develop
mechanisms in addition to
intellectual property rights to
incentivize research investment in
Post 2015 development agenda
Where does the issue of access fit in?