Public health literature has long recognized the existence of determinants of health, a set of socio-economic conditions that affect health risks and health outcomes across the world. The World Health Organization defines these determinants as “forces and systems” consisting of “factors combin[ing] together to affect the health of individuals and communities.” Frameworks relying on determinants of health have been widely adopted by countries in the global South and North alike, as well as international institutional players, several of which are direct or indirect players in transnational intellectual property (IP) policymaking. Issues raised by the implementation of IP policies, however, are seldom treated as an integral part of analyses using these frameworks, even though IP bears direct effects on the dynamics of several determinants of health, such as access to health goods and health services.
This article conceptualizes post-TRIPs IP as a contributing element to the literature on the socio-economic determinants of health. IP norms and policies have long been understood as playing a role in outcomes that closely align with determinants frameworks, but interventions inspired by institutions relying on determinants frameworks routinely fail to consider the role of international IP regimes. The article explores two consequences of this dissociation: first, it argues that TRIPs-implemented IP materially affects several determinants of health, both at the social and economic levels; and second, it argues that IP should be regarded on equal footing with other canonically recognized determinants of health. While taking steps towards the development of an IP framework that can be articulated with, and incorporated by, literature on the determinants of health, the article presents three short case studies on pharmaceutical and agricultural technologies—HIV prophylactic drugs (Truvada); drugs and vaccines needed for epidemic and pandemic preparedness (Ebola vaccines and COVID-19 treatments like remdesivir); and genetically modified rice crops.
[1]
5. A Political History of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980
,
2020,
Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation.
[2]
J. Mascola,et al.
An mRNA Vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — Preliminary Report
,
2020,
The New England journal of medicine.
[3]
Ana Santos Rutschman.
Property and Intellectual Property in Vaccine Markets
,
2020,
Texas A&M Journal of Property Law.
[4]
Margaret Chon,et al.
The Cambridge Handbook of Public-Private Partnerships, Intellectual Property Governance, and Sustainable Development
,
2018
.
[5]
S. Plotkin.
Vaccines for epidemic infections and the role of CEPI
,
2017,
Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics.
[6]
Ryan Whalen.
The Bayh–Dole Act & Public Rights in Federally Funded Inventions: Will the Agencies Ever Go Marching in?
,
2015
.
[7]
Bill Tomlinson,et al.
Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Patents: One Experimental View of the Cathedral
,
2012
.
[8]
S. Shavell,et al.
Property Rules Versus Liability Rules: An Economic Analysis
,
1996
.
[9]
G. Calabresi,et al.
Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral
,
1972
.
[10]
V. Preedy,et al.
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
,
2010
.
[11]
R. Rodes.
The Canon of American Legal Thought
,
2007
.
[12]
Stewart J. Schwab,et al.
Property Rules and Liability Rules: The Cathedral in Another Light
,
1995
.