select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Scientists comment on the World Health Assembly adopting the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement.
Prof Emma Thomson, Director of the MRC-University of Glasgow Centre for Virus Research, said:
“The adoption of this agreement is a major step forward for global pandemic preparedness. It reflects a growing international consensus that equitable access to surveillance, diagnostics, vaccines, and therapeutics is not just a moral imperative, but a scientific necessity. The commitment to strengthen global data sharing, including genomic surveillance, is particularly encouraging. While details on implementation will be crucial, this framework provides a strong foundation for more coordinated, science-led responses to future health threats. For the UK, it’s an opportunity to reinforce both our domestic preparedness and our support for international collaboration.”
Prof Alice Hughes, Group Leader Biodiversity Analytics of Terrestrial Ecosystems (BAT) group, University of Hong Kong, said:
“This is a very important document, and a major step forwards. However, I feel it could have been stronger in calling out some of the higher risk interactions and the need for monitoring and management to mitigate risk. This includes the destruction of native habitats, especially in areas which may dramatically increase the risk of spillover, the role of wildlife trade and fur farms, and the need for biomonitoring, and the appreciation of the need for the recognition of ecology as a key element in understanding potential risks which vary across space, time, and life-history phases.”
Jeremy Knox, Head of Infectious Disease Policy, Wellcome, said:
“In order to ensure an equitable effective response to future health emergencies, we need a worldwide consensus on how best to prepare. The Pandemic Agreement is a significant and important step in establishing this. Despite a challenging geopolitical environment, it is to be commended that member states have united after a long and difficult negotiation process to commit to improving how the world responds to global health crises.
“We now need a sustained and persistent effort to achieve the agreement’s ambitions on issues such as making R&D, access to vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics more equitable in an emergency. Achieving this will require Governments, as well as public and private sector partnerships, to work together to build on this momentum of cooperation to deliver a more resilient, equitable approach to tackling future epidemics or pandemics.”
Prof Stephen Griffin, Professor of Cancer Virology, Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, said:
“This pandemic agreement announced by the WHO is, in principle, a hugely positive advancement in planetary-wide pandemic preparedness and co-operation, which was found to be lacking on many fronts when SARS-CoV-2 first emerged in 2019. Embedded throughout the text are recurring themes of equity, cooperation and preparation, which are all of vital importance.
“In addition, the importance of combatting mis/disinformation is highlighted, both of which have grown in their insidious influence since 2020, hampering our ability to deal effectively with both pandemic and other illnesses, exemplified by the dreadful measles outbreak in the USA at present.
“Notably, it involves the establishment of networks to help enable equitable access and support for all countries involved in the agreement. The “Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing System” (PABS) will allow access to both materials and information, notably sequencing data, in the event of an outbreak. This will run in parallel with the Global Supply Chain and Logistics Network (GSCL), to promote equitable access to medical supplies and other items. These will be overseen by the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG).
“All of these advances will be a huge benefit if and when they are implemented, but I think there are areas that need to be addressed in order to realise its potential impact, and these will require significant buy-in from world governments. The first is that Governments must be made to recognise that pandemic preparedness is not something that is only needed once a century, and cannot simply be kicked into the long grass. This is challenging given the current geopolitical landscape, which is ravaged by conflict, inequity, and full-blooded attacks upon public health and scientific research in certain countries where they were previously world-class. We must not allow the lack of institutional memory that plagued the UK pandemic response, for example, where learnings from our own preparedness exercises, scientific advisors, and other countries were simply not recognised or acted upon by the sitting Government. This includes the importance of Find, Test, Trace, Isolate, and support (FTTIS), so brilliantly implemented in certain South East Asian countries and at the heart of WHO pandemic response guidance. It also involves adopting the “precautionary principle” and the importance of a multi-layered response to disease outbreaks recognising the dangers of both airborne and pre/asymptomatic transmission.
“The second area is the need for Government buy-in to either incentivise and influence, or potentially replace the current model where development of vaccines and therapeutics are almost entirely dependent upon large Pharmaceutical Companies. Pharma cannot be blamed for seeking a return on its considerable investments running into the billions of dollars; they are, after all, businesses. So, persuading them to support development of medicines that may or may not be used in the immediate future is understandably difficult. This also generates a catch 22 scenario due to the associated emphasis placed upon “marketability” for the few Government funded research schemes that include emerging/re-emerging pathogens in their remit. The principle of the 100 day plan is an excellent one, namely developing core medical resources targeting high risk pathogens that can be rapidly adapted to specific agents. However, this is again entirely dependent upon more Government support to reach this state of readiness in a meaningful sense.
“Both of these issues naturally involve investment at a time when many nations face a cost-of-living crisis, but their potential value in preventing the trillions of dollars that the COVID pandemic continues to cost the world is incalculable. I hope that this WHO agreement can become a vehicle by which Governments genuinely unite and achieve a genuine state of readiness, especially as many virologists are genuinely concerned about the risks of the ongoing avian influenza panzootic (animal pandemic).”
Prof Sir Andrew Pollard, Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group; and Ashall Professor of Infection and Immunity at the Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, said:
“The pandemic agreement is an important endorsement of a globally collegiate approach to tackling the existential threat we face from a future pandemic. It recognises the particular challenges highlighted by the COVID19 pandemic around equity in access to life saving vaccines and drugs, the geographical boundaries caused by limited global manufacturing capability and nationalism. The agreement also highlights the importance of international research coordination so that we are better prepared for the next one. It shows a level of cooperation and coordination that could make the world a safer place, but the real test of such a document is in its execution. It is heavily dependent on the actions of the world’s major powers today to lay the groundwork in surveillance, strengthening of health systems distributed manufacturing and research, all of which are severely hampered by the current political and economic headwinds. We will also critically need such cooperation to remain strong in the face of the next life-threatening microbial invasion of national borders, which will challenge even the most resolute political minds.”
Prof Mishal Khan, Professor of Global Public Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“It’s been a huge challenge to get to this point so the fact that this has now been formally agreed at the World Health Assembly, is very welcome.
“But in reality we won’t know how useful this agreement is until the next pandemic hits.
“A key question is around whether countries will voluntarily comply with the terms and, if not, how enforceable is it. Past experience, for example with the International Health Regulations, suggests that powers to enforce will be limited.
“The success of this treaty will also depend on each country’s capacity to contribute to potentially valuable elements such as the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System through collecting and sharing high-quality data.
“It’s concerning that the US will not be bound to the treaty and has not been part of the final discussions, leaving us unsure what its approach to resource and data sharing will be in future disease outbreaks.
“We must continue to strengthen and support capacity globally to ensure the agreement is equitable and has the best chance of being effective in protecting the world from pandemics.”
Prof Alice Norton, Associate Professor, Pandemic Sciences Institute, University of Oxford, said:
“The adoption of the Pandemic Agreement by the 78th World Health Assembly today is welcome news for global health security.
“Article 9 on research and development was one of the first to be unanimously agreed by member state negotiators. This recognises the ability for science to get us out of a pandemic, as was the case for COVID-19, showing that unlike many other natural disasters we can mitigate the risks and impacts of pandemics through science.
“Respect for human rights, equity, solidarity and science-based evidence are all key principles rightly enshrined in the Agreement.
“What will be needed now is the political will and sustainable financing so that all countries can make the Agreement a reality.
“It is a mistake to believe that our recent experience of a pandemic means we are safe for a while. The threat of epidemic and pandemic diseases that could devastate lives, livelihoods and economies still loom large.
“Recent global health funding cuts only serve to worsen our preparedness and response capabilities. After today’s announcement, governments must now step-up and put the Agreement’s principles into practice.”
Prof Martin Antonio, Professor of Molecular Microbiology and Global Health based at the MRC Unit The Gambia at LSHTM, and Co-Director of the LSHTM Centre for Epidemic Preparedness and Response, said:
“Having all WHO member states (except the US) endorsing the treaty is a big leap forward in the fight against future pandemics. Crucially it will accelerate appropriate action, for example the commitment we need to enable vaccines to be developed quickly and made globally accessible within the 100 days mission target set by CEPI.
“This is a global agreement and will only work with global support. But to make these measures effective, we must also push for investment in regional measures such as the development of ‘pandemic’ manufacturing facilities in Africa in support of diagnostics, vaccines, and other interventions.”
Dr Richard Hatchett, CEO of CEPI, said:
“Rebecca Solnit once wrote that ‘Perfection is a stick with which to beat the possible.’ Is the Pandemic Agreement perfect? No. But no such international agreement can be.
“Does it represent a huge step forward, in terms of recognising the threat that pandemics pose and as a binding expression of solidarity against this common threat? Absolutely. It is now a defining feature of the landscape, under the canopy of which all our efforts going forward will be conducted.
“Is there a great deal of practical work still to be done to make the world safe from pandemics? Of course.
“But this is a moment to celebrate! And also a moment to rededicate ourselves to the hard work of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.”
CEPI statement on the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement:
CEPI commends the commitment of countries and negotiators to advancing this once-in-a-generation opportunity to make the world a safer place. By their nature, pandemics can only be effectively tackled through international cooperation and the adoption of the Pandemic Agreement represents an historic step forward in this regard. It seeks to drive systemic change that will address the inequity that characterized the response to COVID-19 and brings us closer to realizing the 100 Days Mission goal to respond to future pandemic threats with a new vaccine in just three months.
CEPI stands ready to support the implementation of the Pandemic Agreement, including:
While we celebrate today’s achievement, we must also recognise that the Agreement on its own will not deliver the level of pandemic preparedness the world urgently needs.
It will take sustained investment, enduring political commitment and unprecedented scientific collaboration to create the systemic change needed to protect not just our own generation, but generations to come.
Dr Daniela Manno, Clinical Assistant Professor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said:
“We know pandemics do not respect borders. COVID-19 demonstrated how quickly infectious diseases can spread and underscored the importance of international cooperation for early detection and response.
“Adopting this first global agreement on pandemic preparedness and response is a major milestone. It signals a global commitment to avoiding the fragmented and unequal responses of past crises, and to promoting greater solidarity and equity in future health emergencies.
“It shows that countries are willing to work together more effectively and more fairly, through timely data sharing, coordinated rapid responses, and fair access to vaccines, diagnostics and treatments.
“However, while the treaty marks important progress, concerns remain about its strength and enforceability. For example, the proposal to create a Coordinating Financial Mechanism is a positive step, but it lacks firm commitments to new, long-term funding streams, specifically for low- and middle-income countries. Without clear financial provisions, LMICs may face increased debt or be forced to divert funding from other essential health services to meet treaty obligations.
“While the treaty references inclusiveness and community engagement, there needs to be a greater emphasis on integrating local knowledge and enabling community-led decision-making. This is crucial to avoid top-down approaches that may not reflect the needs and realities of diverse communities, particularly in LMICs.”
Dr Michael Head, Senior Research Fellow in Global Health, University of Southampton, said:
“The WHO Pandemic Agreement is quite a triumph for diplomacy, and will rely hugely on cooperations from the member states. The draft agreement is full of words such as equity, respect and solidarity. This is where the WHO is very strong, in providing expert guidance from an ethical and practical standpoint that applies across the world. However, the Organization does not have much of a role in any legal enforcement.
“The Agreement makes reference to the International Health Regulations (IHR) 2005. Member states have a legal obligation to adhere to the IHR, although it’s not fully clear what would happen if a country chooses not to.
“For example, the USA are technically still a member of WHO, with a one year notice period for withdrawal put forward by the Trump government. Given their recent commentary on national and global health, one can imagine they may not comply with regulations both currently in place and proposed here under the Agreement.”
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA78/A78_10-en.pdf
Declared interests
Prof Alice Hughes: “None.”
Jeremy Knox: “No COIs.”
Prof Stephen Griffin: “Co-Chair of Independent SAGE.”
Prof Sir Andrew Pollard: “Professor Pollard is chair of JCVI which provides independent scientific advice on vaccines to DHSC. The comment above is given in a personal capacity.”
Prof Mishal Khan: “No conflicts.”
Prof Alice Norton: “Professor Alice Norton receives a research grant from the World Health Organization – this does not relate to the Pandemic Agreement.”
Prof Martin Antonio: “I have no conflict of interest to declare.”
Dr Richard Hatchett: “No conflicts of interest to declare.”
Dr Daniela Manno: “No conflicts to declare.”
Dr Michael Head: “No COI from me (and not involved in the Pandemic Treaty in any way).”
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.