It’s a full blown Framing War now. Perhaps it
always was, but after last week’s US shift in position, and the ongoing Covid horror
in India and elsewhere, the war has gone into overdrive.
Against that backdrop, it’s perhaps good to
again reflect on how experts (scientists & others) can contribute to this
debate in, what is arguably and admittedly, a rather difficult “political
economy” in the EU. Indeed, let’s face it, with the sheer amount of “liberal”
politicians (in the European sense: that means, almost neoliberal on this issue (see
von der Leyen, Merkel, Michel, Macron, Rutte, …) at top level in the EU (and a bunch of
neo-authoritarians watching from the corridors), it’s obvious that it will be anything
but easy to change the position of ‘Team Europe’ on the issue of a Trips
waiver. Germany is perhaps the key domino in this fight, but doesn’t really look like falling in the short term, for a number of reasons, see for example Katri
Bertram’s blog on the impact of upcoming German elections, or Hyo Yoon Kang 's points on Twitter.
And yes, I know, it’s no silver bullet, the
temporary waiver, but that sort of argument is also too easily used for a
rather cynical “status quo” position, including among experts, especially in
academia, who often like to leave the dirty work to activists on more controversial
items (not just because of the typical scientists’ ambition to be seen as a
credible, nuanced experts ( unlike activists
and, on the other side, Big Pharma) but also sometimes because there are ‘vested
interests’ in the own institution or organization at play).
So perhaps a gentle reminder on how scientist
experts can indeed provide ‘nuance’ in this vital global health equity debate.
Given that this is a ruthless framing war
now, perhaps we can borrow a leaf from some of the more outspoken politicians
and their ‘debate cards’ when they enter a tv-studio or write an op-ed. Indeed, there’s absolutely no need at this
stage in the pandemic for an expert to sound like a centre “middle of the
road”
politician, going like, “on the one hand… on the other hand…”. “The Third Way” might have been popular end
of the 90s and early 2000s, these days I would argue it’s only popular in Big
Pharma circles (and their supporters).
And so scientists & other experts who
believe strongly in global vaccine solidarity, who are asked to weigh in,
should ruthless examine arguments from both sides and clearly point out where
they have a point, whether it’s a big point or minor point, or where instead
these arguments totally suck. Obviously, based on our own values (yes, scientists
do have values and even an ideology, the horror! 😊). Unlike the average
politician, we don’t have to conveniently ‘forget’ arguments if they don’t fit
our values and case. But there’s no need to use woolly language either: if an
argument sucks, let’s clearly say so.
And at the end of an op-ed or media
intervention, let’s also not shy away from giving a clear advice to public opinion
(confused in this framing war, and I don’t blame them), based on this ruthless
& systematic exploration of the strengths, merits and flaws of the various
arguments in play. While I don’t fully agree with Rachel Silverman (CGD) ’s presentation
from last weekend, I think her meticulous and very analytical approach, not
shying away though from taking a clear stance on certain arguments and also
going for a clear conclusion, deserves a good following. And yes, experts can and
should certainly also weigh in on the difficult political economy in the EU,
WTO, … and the higher political and diplomatic interests, but that should not
become a pretext for defeatism or weary political realism, sometimes bordering cynicism.
Indeed, these are no times for cynicism, we
have seen some remarkable things happening in recent years, including in terms
of paradigms shifting. And sometimes you have to help ‘self-fulfilling
prophecies’ a bit : )
Final comment: let’s face it, 30 years of
neoliberalism have all affected us, deep down, whether we recognize it or not. Sadly,
to some extent, we’re all neoliberals now. I don’t think a discourse currently popular in
EU power corridors, focused on “protecting innovation and competitivity”
would have had it so easy in the 50s and 60s
(the time of Jonas Salk). Conversely, we probably would have been far
more open to pope Francis’ discourse from this weekend, when he supported
the temporary suspension of intellectual property rights in unequivocal terms “while offering
his own classification for “variants of
concern””
(in the words of Peter Singer on Twitter).
When push comes to shove, for pharma
companies to share their mRNA technology, even with Russia and China (which some, like
BioNtech are already doing anyway), is not like sharing atombomb technology to the nazis…
In sum: nuance shouldn’t be a pretext for
weary political realism and too 'balanced' viewpoints. We can’t afford it. More, if we do so, the risk is that we become “objective
allies” of the ones who want to maintain the status quo.
PS: similarities with the climate emergency
crisis are obvious…
