UTSC Global & International Health Week-by IDSC11
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation*-Global Saviour or Guardian of Corporate Interests?
*This website has no affiliation with Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. This is a project for UTSC IDSC11, 2021.
The Foundation's Involvement with Polio
To combat Polio, the Foundation with numerous groups carries out a decades-long vaccination campaign. These organizations include [4]:
-
Private Organizations: Rotary International
-
Multilateral Institutions: World Health Organization (WHO) The United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF), The UN Foundation
-
Private-Public Partnerships (PPP): Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), & Gavi Vaccine Alliance
In 2011, Private sector contributions covered about 35% of the GPEI's USD $1.1 billion budget, with the Foundation funding presenting about 30% of the GPEI's total budget. [5 pp. 36]
In 2012, Private sector contributions covered about 34% of the GPEI's USD $1.16 billion budget, with the foundation presenting about 30% of those GPEI's total budget [6 pp.30].
In 2019, The financial contributions from the Foundation alone covered roughly 40% of the GPEI budget [6 pp.25].
In recent years, polio eradication has comprised up to one-fifth of WHO’s total budget, with sizeable earmarked support for this effort from the Gates Foundation, private actors, and government donors.
Why are experts critiquing polio eradication and the Foundation's role?
Image Credit: Cision PR Newswire, Alwaleed Philanthropies Joins the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Partners With New Commitment to Eradicate Polio, 21 Nov 2019, 18:12 GMT
Image Credit: Knkx, Bill Gates says innovation will beat malaria, OCT 19, 2011.
The Foundation's Involvement with Malaria
The Gates Foundation has also worked, with various organizations to tackle Malaria. Collaborators include:
-
Intergovernmental Coalitions: African Leaders Malaria Alliance (ALMA) and Asia Pacific Leaders Malaria Alliance (APLMA)
-
Private-Public Partnerships and Product Development Partnerships: The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria, Medicines for Malaria Venture and PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative.
-
Multilateral Institutions: UN Foundation and WHO Global Malaria Program
-
University-Led Effort: UCSF Malaria Elimination Initiative (MEI)
The persistence of Malaria has also spawned bilateral and multilateral initiatives such as the U.S. President’s Malaria Initiative and the World Bank’s Malaria Booster Program.
Yet critics argue that these efforts remain poorly targeted and are still linked to colonial legacies [7].
What are the pros and cons of BMGF's interest in dealing with malaria?
The Foundation's Involvement with COVID-19
During the COVID-19 Pandemic, The Foundation has played a major role in championing and funding vaccine development, providing equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines, and accelerated production of COVID-19 tests, treatments, and vaccines.
In the U.S, the lack of leadership in pandemic preparedness generated a chaotic domestic response (Mike, D., The Monster Enters, 2020, pp. 26-34). When the U.S pulled out of the WHO, this also jeopardized the global health response (Madhukar, 2020).
But another organization rapidly filled this leadership vacuum: The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), a PPP headquartered in Oslo.
The CEPI was launched in 2017 by the Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the governments of Norway, Germany, and Japan.
During the Pandemic, the CEPI has helped funnel investments to ambitious start-ups and small-to-medium-sized firms involved in vaccine innovations like mRNA technology to tackle COVID-19. (Mike, D., The Monster Enters, 2020, pp. 26-34)
Yet spearheaded by the BMGF CEPI-supported vaccination research has been gifted to profiteering pharmaceutical corporations, rather than going to public manufacturers.
"Oxford University surprised and pleased advocates of overhauling the vaccine business in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker... a few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course. It signed an exclusive vaccine deal with AstraZeneca that gave the pharmaceutical giant sole rights and no guarantee of low prices—with the less-publicized potential for Oxford to eventually make millions from the deal and win plenty of prestige. Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their deals—and planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots." (Hancock, 2020)
"In the current plan for a global vaccine deal, poor countries would receive only enough doses to inoculate 20 percent of their populations by the end of next year. Some models show that there will not be enough vaccines to cover the entire world until 2024. “The consequence of long-time Gates strategies is that they go along with corporate control oversupply,” said Brook Baker, a Northeastern University law professor and policy analyst for Health GAP, which advocates equitable access to drugs."(Twohey & Kulish, 2020)
Despite WHO's efforts in promoting global collaboration for equitable access to COVID-19 diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines. The BMGF's efforts largely incentivize private players who are likely to profit from their involvement [1]. What is the best approach to ensure equitable access for COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics?
