Open letter to leaders of G7, G20, BRICS and all nations on finalizing the WHO Pandemic Agreement’s Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing annex

The open letter urging global leaders to finalize the WHO Pandemic Agreement’s Pathogen Access and Benefit Sharing (PABS) annex arrives at a critical juncture in international health governance, where the lessons of COVID-19 collide with geopolitical fragmentation. This push isn’t merely about bureaucratic housekeeping; it represents a last chance to institutionalize equitable access to pathogens and their data before the next pandemic strikes. The PABS annex, stalled since negotiations began in 2021, would require countries and pharmaceutical companies to share virus samples and benefits—such as vaccines or treatments—more transparently and swiftly. Without it, the world risks replaying the unequal distribution of COVID-19 tools, where wealthy nations hoarded doses while low-income regions suffered preventable deaths. The backstory here is one of mistrust and uneven power dynamics. Developing nations, led by Brazil and South Africa, argue that the current system benefits pharmaceutical giants in the Global North, which profit from pathogens discovered in poorer countries without guaranteed returns. The 2009 swine flu pandemic exposed these flaws when vaccine doses were diverted to wealthy states, leaving others waiting. Yet the PABS annex faces resistance from industry lobbies and some governments wary of surrendering control over biological data—a resource now treated as strategic as oil or rare earth minerals. The letter’s signatories, including scientists and public health advocates, are essentially pleading for a binding framework before the next crisis dulls the collective memory of COVID’s inequities. What happens next depends on whether leaders prioritize public health over short-term interests. If the G7, G20, and BRICS can bridge their divides, the PABS annex could set a precedent for global data-sharing, akin to climate accords but with immediate life-or-death stakes. Yet the absence of the U.S. and China from early negotiations looms large, as does the risk of watered-down compromises that leave loopholes for exploitation. The broader trend here is the erosion of multilateralism in favor of narrow nationalism—a dangerous path when pathogens don’t respect borders. This letter is a test: Can the world cooperate when it matters most, or will the next pandemic find us just as divided?