Science is one of the world’s foremost science journals. Alas, like other establishment science and medical journals, it regularly publishes articles that promote woke agendas that undermine excellence in science in the name of furthering equity and radical public-policy agendas.
True to form, a recent article penned by two public-health professors disdains intellectual-property rights as “colonialist” and advocates dismantling capitalism in the realm of medical research. From “Science Should Save All, Not Just Some”:
The legacy of colonialism in scientific research includes an intellectual property system that favors Global North countries and the big corporations they support. This unfairness shows up in who gets access to the fruits of science and raises the question of who science is designed to serve or save.
The prime example the writers use involves Covid:
Consider the COVID-19 pandemic, which gave already known mRNA vaccine technology a global platform. But even as the world celebrated this achievement with a Nobel Prize, the stunning fact remains that COVID-19 vaccines failed to reach millions of people in the Global South in a timely manner, despite the public investments into making these technologies. Global North governments hoarded vaccines and were lobbied by pharmaceutical companies to block a patent waiver that could have enabled Global South countries to make their own mRNA vaccines as a short-term solution during a period of acute need. The commitment to capitalist exploitation that powered much of European colonization persists in science and continues to cost lives.
Good grief. The vaccine-distribution problems had many causes, including the structural inability of some countries to maintain the proper temperature to keep the vaccine viable — they need to be kept very cold — and structural issues involving poor countries not having sufficient infrastructure to manufacture vaccines.
Beyond that, the evil Big Pharma “colonialists” invested billions over many years to develop this new type of vaccine. It didn’t happen by accident. It was a product of free-market economics.
The authors assert a “right” for all people to access the fruits of science. This would replace the current approach, which has succeeded so spectacularly in advancing human knowledge, with collectivist decision-making:
For this right to be realized, science must no longer be an enterprise that privileges profits and the elite. Communities most affected by problems must help drive the agenda on what science gets conducted, by whom, how, and who benefits the most from it.
Paid for and managed by whom? Top-down prioritization and funding by international agencies:
Scientists must collectively advocate for reforms to how science is funded, who is funded, how governments define intellectual property regimes, and how scientists are incentivized. Funding agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, Wellcome Trust, and Fogarty International Center are starting to directly support Global South partners and affected communities. All funders must do this. And scientists everywhere must be trained to see equity, access, and justice as key values in their work. This is starting to happen in global health and medical research, but must become universal.
Wouldn’t that result in less money spent on scientific research?
Aiding poorer areas of the world to develop scientific infrastructure is a terrific idea, particularly if it creates a system that would allow these scientists to reap the fruits of capitalistic research incentives. Alas, that’s not what the authors have in mind.
Big Pharma certainly has its problems. But establishing a quasi-socialistic technocratic approach — focused on equity instead of excellence — would stifle innovation, muffle scientific imagination, and transform a dynamic system of medical and scientific research into a sclerotic mess.