Since the start of the pandemic, Pakistanis have become less likely to say they will accept a COVID vaccine. Saher Asad (Lahore University of Management Sciences), Javaeria Qureshi (University of Illinois at Chicago), Mariam Raheem (Centre for Economic Research in Pakistan – CERP), Taimur Shah (CERP), and Basit Zafar (University of Michigan) looks at the findings of a new survey into vaccine hesitancy and suggests how the government could overcome it

Asad, Saher

Qureshi, Javaeria

Raheem, Mariam

Shah, Taimur

Zafar, Basit

English

LSE Research Online

It’s	not	just	about	patents	on	COVID	vaccines:	why	Iam	not	celebrating	World	Intellectual	Property	DayOn	World	Intellectual	Property	Day,	26	April,	Siva	Thambisetty	(LSE)	explains	why	she	will	not	be	celebrating.	Thecontroversy	over	suspending	COVID	vaccine	patents	is	just	the	latest	example	of	acute	misalignment	and	injusticesdriven	by	current	IP	law.	Far	from	being	an	unmistakable	force	for	good,	she	argues,	patents	reward	certain	kinds	ofcreativity	over	others	and	privilege	corporate	power	at	the	expense	of	those	who	cannot	afford	to	defend	their	rightsand	assert	their	contribution.Three	million	have	died	—	with	many	more	to	come	—	and	only	0.2%	of	those	in	developing	countries	have	so	farbeen	vaccinated.	Yet	still	we	give	a	platform	to	those	who	think	it	is	too	‘radical’	to	suspend	patents.	Thediscomfiting	truth	of	the	matter	is	that	the	patent	system	is	functioning	exactly	as	it	was	set	up	to	function,	which	iswhy	it	has	been	left	to	scholars	to	explain	why	and	how	we	need	to	make	the	technology	more	accessible	—	evenas	economists,	former	world	leaders	and	EU	lawmakers	issue	calls	to	‘break	the	patents’	on	COVID	vaccines	and‘support	the	patent	waiver’.Intellectual	property	(IP)	has	its	place,	and	there	are	some	good	reasons	to	continue	with	an	IP	system	that	is	fit	forpurpose,	but	also	many	reasons	not	to.	None	of	what	follows	are	reasons	for	an	outright	rejection	of	all	IP	laws,	butthey	are	symptoms	of	a	diseased	system,	and	stem	from	highly	questionable	premises	grounded	in	a	flawed	view	ofhuman	nature.IP	creates	artificial	scarcity	so	that	the	holder	of	that	right	can	generate	returns	from	it.	This	device	plays	animportant	function — it	gives	you	an	incentive	to	to	come	up	with	something — an	idea,	a	tune,	a	novel,	a	pill	—	andhelps	protect	it	as	yours	when	you	do.	Research	tells	us	that	this	incentive	may	be	necessary	for	routine	tasksrequiring	some	creativity.	But	higher	order	creativity	that	requires	sophisticated	cognitive	functions	do	not	respondto	incentives	in	the	same	way.	A	system	that	assumes	that	all	creativity	and	innovation	is	best	incentivised	byintellectual	property	rights	(IPRs)	is	in	effect	hard-selling	us	a	particular	and	limited	version	of	creativity.There	are	three	main	kinds	of	IP	rights: patents,	copyright	and	trademarks.	Historically	and	legally	the	reasons	toestablish	these	rights	are	different,	yet	they	all	suffer	from	overreach	and	blind	spots	that	threaten	our	ability	to	stayin	charge	of	our	autonomous,	creative	selves.	So	here	are	ten	problems	with	‘world	intellectual	property’	to	explainwhy	I	am	not	celebrating	today.1.	It	puts	muscular	meritocracy	ahead	of	peopleAccess	to	affordable	patented	medicines	is	a	longstanding	problem,	and	the	pandemic	has	magnified	it.	We	needbetter	ways	to	incentivise	ethical	and	humanitarian	innovation.	When	we	focus	on	commercial	benefits,	we	forget	toamplify	other,	more	human	drivers.	There	is	the	idea	that	by	creating	something	that	may	be	protected	byintellectual	property,	one	has	created	something	of	value	and	therefore	the	individual	herself	is	morally	entitled	to	allextractive	expressions	of	that	value.	Success	in	IP	(which	could	be	as	trivial	as	gaining	a	patent,	or	producing	musicthat	can	be	traded)	is	often	equated	with	moral	deserving.	This	simple	yet	pernicious	equation	has	converted	IP	intoa	muscular	form	of	meritocracy	that	privileges	narratives	of	individual	initiative	and	mastery	over	good	fortune,hubris	over	humility,	and	outcome	over	the	pleasure	of	labour.This	version	of	human	striving	creates	a	culture	where	individual	responsibility	and	deserving	is	everything.	Theinventors	of	the	AstraZeneca	vaccine	at	the	University	of	Oxford,	for	instance,	are	heralded	as	inventors	deservingof	a	patent.	But	the	infrastructure	of	the	university	and	the	work	of	countless	post-docs	and	researchers	has	madethe	vaccine	possible.	Over	time,	this	view	not	only	sanctifies	winners	and	denigrates	losers,	it	tramples	onprovidential	or	communitarian	labour	and	inputs.Intellectual	work	is	as	much	the	product	of	fortune	and	fate	as	anything	else.	Deeply	embedded	notions	of	merit,moral	deserving	and	value	threaten	our	self-image	at	a	time	when	our	most	fundamental	challenges — like	climatechange,	food	security,	and	pandemic	resilience	—	are	civilisational	and	collective	in	nature.LSE Covid 19 Blog: It’s not just about patents on COVID vaccines: why I am not celebrating World Intellectual Property Day Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-04-26Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/04/26/its-not-just-about-patents-on-covid-vaccines-why-i-am-not-celebrating-world-intellectual-property-day/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2.	It	undermines	imitative	learningUntil	a	few	decades	ago,	there	was	no	‘world	IP’.	Intellectual	property	was	designed	as	a	territorial	right,	forindividual	nations	to	decide	tailor-made	incentives	for	local	industries	depending	on	the	maturity	of	the	industry.Imitation	is	a	powerful	means	of	learning.	In	the	early	days	of	an	industry, copying	and	free	riding	are	a	significantdriver	that	can	lead	eventually	to	innovative	local	industries.	For	instance,	many	countries	in	the	late	1970s	and1980s	did	not	have	patent	protection	for	chemical	products.	This	allowed	them	to	thrive	by	reverse-engineering	andcopying	new	information	from	wherever	it	existed,	eventually	growing	innovative	pharmaceutical	industries.	‘WorldIP’	pushed	through	global	trade	treaties	means	the	ability	to	organically	develop	local	industries	does	not	currentlyexist	for	scores	of	developing	and	least	developed	countries.	The	harmonisation	of	intellectual	property	rightsmakes	assumptions	about	the	state	of	preparedness	of	economies	to	use	monopoly	rights,	and	denies	countriesthe	time	they	need	to	learn	by	imitation.A	school	staff	member	is	vaccinated	in	Des	Moines,	Iowa,	in	February	2021.	Photo:	PhilRoeder	via	a	CC	BY	2.0	licence3.	It	creates	an	unequal	fight	between	public	and	private	realmsIP	depletes	the	source	material	we	all	use	to	be	creative,	because	IP	holders	have	been	able	to	incrementallyextend	the	scope	of	their	rights,	often	relying	on	ambiguous	interpretations	of	the	law	to	push	extractive	agendas.Newspaper	headlines,	musical	riffs	and	fragments	that	are	such	an	important	part	of	subconscious	creativity	maybe	exclusively	monopolised.	Critically,	property	holders	are	more	keen	to	protect	their	rights	than	the	public	are	todefend	their	right	to	continue	to	access	the	public	domain.	This	skews	our	ability	to	preserve	the	public	domain,even	where	the	law	is	not	so	clear	about	who	owns	what.	Consider	recipes,	trends	in	fashion,	humour	and	comedy,good	writing;	they	all	depend	on	source	material	being	freely	available	for	everyone	to	build	on.4.	It	perpetuates	‘measurable’	creativityMore	IP	does	not	mean	more	creativity	or	more	innovation.	The	vast	proportion	of	patents	that	are	granted	protectinventions	that	will	never	make	it	to	the	marketplace.	Yet	no	one	can	use	the	information	in	those	patents	for	theduration	of	the	patent	right — 20	years.		Patents	or	patent	applications	are	tenuous	markers	of	innovation,	butnonetheless	are	central	to	innovation	policy	making.5.	It	is	unsuited	to	a	digital	ageLSE Covid 19 Blog: It’s not just about patents on COVID vaccines: why I am not celebrating World Intellectual Property Day Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-04-26Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/04/26/its-not-just-about-patents-on-covid-vaccines-why-i-am-not-celebrating-world-intellectual-property-day/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/IP	does	not	easily	map	on	to	patterns	of	creativity	in	the	digital	age.	Think	of	the	ease	of	remixing	and	rehashing,the	way	we	can	cut	and	paste	small	bits	of	music	or	film	or	text	to	often	create	something	magical	and	entertaining.Personal	use,	or	use	for	non-commercial	purposes,	is	constantly	under	threat	by	over-zealous	IP	holders	who	workon	the	assumption	that	anything	of	value	must	be	propertised.	This	leads	to	fragmented	ownership	of	ideas,knowledge	and	information.	When	in	doubt,	most	of	us	would	rather	not	infringe	intellectual	property	rights	than	takethe	chance.	It	does	not	help	that	the	law	is	often	ambiguous	on	what	amounts	to	infringement.6.	It	compounds	inequalityIPRs	help	make	money,	but	often	in	ways	that	favour	large	aggregated	rights	holders	like	publishers	and	musiccollection	societies	at	the	cost	of	individual	creators,	song	writers,	and	authors.	Litigation	is	extremely	expensive.Unless	you	can	make	credible	threats	to	litigate	and	spend	money	on	lawyers	and	the	courts,	your	IP	right	remainsa	protection	in	name	only.7.	It	is	an	international	tool	of	exclusionMany	international	norms	of	justice	are	useless	and	ineffective	because	IP	is	now	a	matter	of	foreign	policy.	TheParis	Agreement	could	not	reach	a	consensus	on	climate	related	technology	transfer	and	intellectual	property,	so	itwas	left	out	of	the	Agreement.	The	new	UN	oceans	treaty	is	also	under	threat	if	we	cannot	agree	a	fair	way	todistribute	benefits	from	marine	genetic	resources	of	the	deep	sea — some	of	which	could	be	productive	sources	ofanti-virals.	In	a	global	world,	IP	is	the	handmaiden	of	trade,	capital	and	power.8.	It	appropriates	hidden	labourMany	of	our	closest	experiences	of	IP	come	from	brand	value,	or	public	consumption	of	entertainment,	and	there	isa	great	deal	of	hidden	labour	in	public	culture.	Consumers	who	participate	and	amplify	different	meanings	contributeenormously	to	the	success	of	a	brand.	For	brand	owners	to	claim	that	they	own	much	of	the	value	of	what	wascreated	should	feel	unfair,	but	it	often	doesn’t	because	our	labour	is	atomised	and	appropriated.9.	It	devalues	social	innovationIntellectual	property	rights	do	little	to	acknowledge	the	work	of	previous	inventors	and	creators.	Imagine	a	child	istrapped	under	a	car,	and	four	people	are	unable	to	lift	it.	A	fifth	person	arrives	and	the	car	moves.	The	childescapes	unhurt.	Who	would	you	give	the	credit	of	saving	the	child	—	all	five,	or	just	the	fifth	person?	Many	IPRs	donot	acknowledge	the	contribution	of	the	four	people,	but	give	a	‘winner	takes	all’	reward	to	the	fifth	person,	thusundervaluing	the	sociality	of	innovation.10.	It	undermines	traditional	knowledgeThe	patent	system	favours	particular	forms	of	knowledge	over	others,	acting	as	a	gatekeeper	and	curator	of	vastquantities	of	scientific	and	technical	knowledge	and	information.	Unfortunately	it	has	no	way	to	grant	equivalence	totraditional	forms	of	knowledge.	There	are	many	ways	of	knowing	something — if	we	discover	that	ginger	has	anti-viral	properties	that	can	dampen	the	effect	of	COVID,	we	might	say	the	reason	it	does	so	is	‘the	spirit	in	the	root’,	oryou	could	say	the	technically	described,	active	ingredient	in	ginger	has	an	anti-viral	effect.	The	patent	system	willonly	allow	someone	who	uses	the	latter	language	to	claim	an	exclusive	right	to	use	ginger	as	an	anti-viral.	Thismisalignment	has	led	to	communities	losing	patrimony	over	traditional	forms	of	knowledge,	taken	over	by	reductiveways	of	controlling,	owning	and	disseminating	information.So	by	all	means	raise	a	glass	today,	but	not	to	‘World	IP’.	Spare	a	thought	instead	for	the	diversity	of	all	thecreators	and	innovators	out	there	—scientists	working	towards	treatments	and	vaccines;	the	ingenuity	of	many	inmarginalised	communities	who	hack	their	way	to	a	better	life;	and	those	communities	who	steward	the	biodiversitythat	now	contributes	to	many	of	our	pharmaceuticals.This	post	represents	the	views	of	the	author	and	not	those	of	the	COVID-19	blog,	nor	LSE.LSE Covid 19 Blog: It’s not just about patents on COVID vaccines: why I am not celebrating World Intellectual Property Day Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-04-26Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/04/26/its-not-just-about-patents-on-covid-vaccines-why-i-am-not-celebrating-world-intellectual-property-day/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/LSE Covid 19 Blog: It’s not just about patents on COVID vaccines: why I am not celebrating World Intellectual Property Day Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2021-04-26Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/04/26/its-not-just-about-patents-on-covid-vaccines-why-i-am-not-celebrating-world-intellectual-property-day/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/

Vaccine hesitancy in Pakistan is growing: here’s how it can be tackled

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/110584/1/covid19_2021_04_26_its_not_just_about_patents_on_covid_vaccines_why_i.pdf

Vaccine hesitancy in Pakistan is growing: here’s how it can be tackled

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online