Empirically – pathogen patents have blocked international cooperation on pandemics when they were legal
Jorge L. Contreras, 2023 - James T. Jensen Endowed Professor for Transactional Law and Director of the Program on Intellectual Property and Technology Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. Adjunct Professor, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah School of Medicine “ PATHOGEN GENOMES AS GLOBAL PUBLIC GOODS (AND WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE PATENTED)”, 55 N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol. 533, Nexis Uni, Accessed via University of Michigan //DH
Further, as discussed in Sections II.A and II.B, certain foreign governments have sought to delay international research on outbreaks and response efforts in order to gain concessions under the banner of "access and benefit sharing" (ABS).156 The most prominent example of this approach occurred during 2006-07, when the government of Indonesia refused to share samples of the H5N1 influenza virus with the WHO.157 Some countries adopted similar approaches during the MERS, Ebola and Zika outbreaks.158 If countries are willing to delay international research and the response to a pandemic in order to secure ABS benefits for themselves, then they are also [*568] likely to use patents to extract further concessions from the international community. Demands for ABS concessions are not necessarily unjustified in view of past exploitation of local resources by foreign firms.159 Yet, these barriers to the international response to emergent disease outbreaks can negatively impact global health. Reintroducing pathogen patenting will give countries where outbreaks emerge yet another tool to hold up critical international research and development to the detriment of all.