This document summarizes a presentation given by Usman A. Mushtaq on global strategies for public health innovation and intellectual property. The presentation argues that current IP rights do not do enough to empower low and middle income countries to address their disease burdens and health inequities. It provides the rationale that restricted sharing of biotechnology and IP in LMICs violates human rights and ethics. The strategy proposes over 100 action points led by WHO to build LMIC capacity, utilize flexibilities in IP laws, and promote needs-based innovation. However, challenges remain in implementation across governing bodies and reconciling trade and health interests. Student advocacy groups are working to address these issues and promote curriculum on global health needs.

1. 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

2. 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?

3. BUT
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
LMICs

4. BUT
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.

5. Implementation
• Over 100 action points over a broad area involving
numerous governing bodies.
• WHO passionately leading the work with progress
of implementation.
• Many initiatives proposed,
• capacity building LMIC on utilizing the TRIPS
flexibilities
• Open source licensing, patent pool, prizes
• Was a step to the Consultative Expert Working
Group on Research and Development

6. Some Challenges
• The strategy so broad that it makes it vague?
• Despite the increased focus on the issue of
access and innovation, progress still remains
slow.
• Many of the solutions lays outside the working
area of WHO and falls under other global
governing bodies

7. Paradoxes of Health and Trade
k on reconcile divergent interests?
• How do member states work on reconcile divergent
interests?
• 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?

8. Student-led advoacy
Iconic development
International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations

9. Student-led advoacy
Iconic development
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines
•UAEM Global Health Impact Report Card: Measures
licensure and IP restrictions pertinent to Universities
medical innovations.
•Evaluates on three parameters:
• 1. Access: Are licensed/IP rights protected
biomedical technologies developed by Universities
accessible and affordable to LMICs?

10. Student-led advoacy
Iconic development
• 2. Innovation: How pertinent is the development to
needs of LMICs double disease-burden or poverty
afflictions?
• 3. Curriculum: Does the development do justice to
academia's calling to promote global health
education?

11. Student-led advoacy
Iconic development
Students from McMaster University

12. Looking ahead

13. 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
these diseases.”

14. Post 2015 development agenda
Where does the issue of access fit in?

16. Thank you for listening!