887
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Article Commentary

Life Science 2.0: reframing the life science sector for ‘the benefit on mankind’

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, , & ORCID Icon show all
Article: 2330758 | Received 08 Feb 2024, Accepted 11 Mar 2024, Published online: 05 Apr 2024
 

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic put the life science sector to the test. Vaccines were developed at unprecedented speed, benefiting from decades of fundamental research and now honoured by a Nobel Prize. However, we saw that the fruits of science were inequitably distributed. Most low- and middle-income countries were left behind, deepening the inequalities that the Sustainable Development Goals were set to reduce. We argue that the life science sector must reinvent itself to be better and more equitably prepared for the next health crisis and to ensure fair access to health across current and future generations. Our recommendations include global governance, national strategies and the role of universities and corporations. Improved and more equitable health care should be centre stage for global health action and a core mission of a reframed Life Science sector – what we call Life Science 2.0.

    Paper Context

  • Main findings: During the COVID-19 pandemic the Life Science sector stepped up to the challenge, but vaccines and medicines were not equitably distributed.

  • Added knowledge: Obstacles were identified that hindered global access to medical innovations.

  • Global health impact for policy and action: Global and national governance, universities and the private sector should join forces to create a Life Science sector (Life Science 2.0) that affords equitable access to medical advances across geographical and generational boundaries and socio-economic strata.

Responsible Editor Stig Wall

Responsible Editor Stig Wall

Acknowledgement

OPO is grateful for support from the program “Stiftung Charité Visiting Fellows 2023.”

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Author contributions

Conceptualisation, O.P.O.; writing – original draft preparation, M.V.; writing – review and editing, M.V., G.T., B.K., E.E., S.S.P., R.K.W. and O.P.O.; supervision, G.T and O.P.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Additional information

Funding

The authors reported that there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.