The article explores how the COVID-19 pandemic revived discussions on the importance of local pharmaceutical production for promoting health security and resilient health systems. It examines the World Health Organization's hub and spoke mRNA vaccine production model (mRNA hub), a global initiative that aims to establish sustainable, local mRNA manufacturing capabilities in low- and middle-income countries in response to the inequities in access to COVID-19 vaccines and the trade disruptions during the pandemic. Using the mRNA hub as case study, the paper discusses how the tectonic shift towards local production implicates supply and license agreements, and thus IPRs. The paper maps the intellectual property challenges that might impact the mRNA hub's sustainability and provides recommendations on how to enhance the initiative's chances of success and foster a more equitable pharmaceutical sector in the future.

Conventional benefit–cost analysis is well-established and widely used to assess interventions designed to improve public health and welfare. While it has many advantages, it has well-known limitations. Chief among these is its inattention to the distributional equity of the impacts. To measure individual well-being, the conventional approach relies on individuals’ willingness to exchange their own income for the outcomes they experience. To measure societal welfare, it relies on simple aggregation of these values across individuals. This approach reflects a relatively narrow conception of welfare and ignores how impacts are distributed across advantaged and disadvantaged individuals. Social welfare analysis has been proposed as an alternative approach to address these limitations, but real-world applications are rare due largely to the complexity of the calculations. This article provides a pragmatic approach for conducting equity-sensitive benefit–cost analysis globally that addresses data limitations and other challenges, illustrated with example applications. It formally develops and implements equity weights that adjust for the decreasing marginal value of money and for additional moral considerations, prioritizing increases in welfare for those who are worse off.

In response to our critics, we clarify and defend key ideas in the report Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage. First, we argue that procedural fairness has greater value than Dan Hausman allows. Second, we argue that the Report aligns with John Kinuthia's view that a knowledgeable public and a capable civil society, alongside good facilitation, are important for effective public deliberation. Moreover, we agree with Kinuthia that the Report's framework for procedural fairness applies not merely within the health sector, but also to the wider budget process. Third, we argue that while Dheepa Rajan and Benjamin Rouffy-Ly are right that robust processes for equal participation are often central to a fair process, sometimes improvements in other aspects of procedural fairness, such as transparency, can take priority over strengthening participation. Fourth, while we welcome Sara Bennett and Maria Merritt's fascinating use of the Report's principles of procedural fairness to assess the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, we argue that their application of the Report's principle of equality to development partners' decision-making requires further justification.

Several concepts are introduced and defined: measurement invariance, structural bias, weak measurement invariance, strong factorial invariance, and strict factorial invariance. It is shown that factorial invariance has implications for (weak) measurement invariance. Definitions of fairness in employment/admissions testing and salary equity are provided and it is argued that strict factorial invariance is required for fairness/equity to exist. Implications for item and test bias are developed and it is argued that item or test bias probably depends on the existence of latent variables that are irrelevant to the primary goal of test constructers.

The relevance of education and outreach (E&O) activities about the Antarctic Treaty has been recognized at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) and at the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP). This study examines the key topics and the target audiences detailed in papers submitted to the ATCM on E&O. Since the Antarctic Treaty entered into force in 1961, a total of 216 ATCM papers on E&O have been produced. The number of papers has increased substantially since the mid-1990s. ‘Science’ (76.9%) and ‘Wildlife/Biodiversity/Environment’ (75.5%) were the most addressed topics in these papers, while the ‘Public’ (81.0%) and those attending ‘Schools’ (69.0%) are the main target audiences. ‘Science’ in ATCM papers increased ~120-fold from 1961–1997 to 2015–2023, while ATCM papers discussing engagement with the ‘Public’ increased ~40-fold during the same period. ‘Climate change’ was first mentioned in 2006, and the number of papers per year increased fourfold by 2015–2023. This study shows the increasing interest in E&O through time, addressing key topics to relevant audiences related to the Antarctic region. From an educational perspective, attention should be paid to emerging topics (e.g. equity, diversity and inclusion), and the engagement of early-career professionals and educators should be made a priority.

Participant representation, including the Good Participatory Practice guidelines, in the design and execution of clinical research can profoundly affect research structure and process. Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, an online registry called the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes (HERO) Registry, was launched to capture the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) on the pandemic frontlines. It evolved into a program that distributed COVID-19-related information and connected participants with COVID-19-related research opportunities. Furthermore, a subcommittee of HCWs was created to inform the COVID-19-related clinical research, engagement, and communication efforts. This paper, coauthored by the HERO HCW subcommittee, describes how it was formed, the impact of community participation on the HERO Registry and Research Program, reflections on lessons learned, and implications for future research. Engagement of the HCW Subcommittee resulted in representing their lived experience and ensured that their perspectives as HCWs were incorporated into the HERO Research. The strategies not only supported recruitment and retention efforts but also influenced the HERO research team in framing research questions and data collection pertinent to the participant community. This experience demonstrated the importance of having participants’ input as expert advisors to an investigative team in their research efforts during a global health emergency.

A screening test for more than 50 cancers at earlier stages would strike many as a godsend. Such a test would promise, prima facie, to save 160,000 lives annually from a premature death from cancer, reduce the intensity of medical treatment, and reduce social costs. In brief, this is what is promised by the Galleri test. We will delineate those claims in greater detail and critically assess them from medical, economic, and ethical perspectives. We conclude, with many others, that this test lacks clinical validity and clinical utility. In addition, annual public funding of $100 billion for this test would be socially unaffordable; the opportunity costs would be unacceptable for both ethical and economic reasons. Further, the least well off with respect to cancer care would be made worse off if this test were publicly funded for everyone over the age of fifty.

In this article, we examine the relationship between the World Health Organization International Health Regulations (IHR) and human rights and its implications for IHR reform, considering the evolution of human rights in the 2005 IHR, the role of human rights in IHR reforms and the implications of these reforms in key domains including equity and solidarity, medical countermeasures, core capacities, travel restrictions, vaccine certificates, social measures, accountability, and financing.

This perspective article addresses the critical issue of equitable access to sustainable healthcare services for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite the increasing prevalence of ASD globally, significant disparities persist in accessing appropriate healthcare services. The lack of comprehensive data on autism prevalence and incidence in many regions further exacerbates this challenge, hindering the development of targeted interventions and equitable resource allocation. This paper sheds light on barriers to equitable access, including geographical disparities, cultural stigma, communication barriers and inadequate training of healthcare providers. Strategies for achieving sustainable solutions are proposed, including the expansion of telehealth services, financial assistance programmes, competency training, community-based support programmes and investment in high-quality research. By addressing these challenges and implementing evidence-based interventions, we can work towards ensuring that all children with autism have access to the healthcare services they need for optimal development and well-being.

In addition to representing a main source of data in linguistic research, example sentences are a core vehicle for linguists in teaching a wide range of phenomena to our students. However, the content of these sentences often reflects the biases of the researchers who construct them: referents are typically given Anglocentric proper names like John and Mary, reflecting (at least implicitly) dominant white culture and conformity to heteronormative gender roles. To support linguists in shifting these practices, we present the Diverse Names Database, a database of 78 names from a variety of languages and cultures, confirmed with native speakers. We outline the goals for the project, introduce our process of developing and adjusting the design, and present some additional issues and reflections for consideration, such as how to use the database as one component of an affirming, anti-racist, and gender-equitable linguistics pedagogy. We aim to generate meta-level discussions about disciplinary conventions and canons, and to challenge the idea that underlying linguistic structures are, or should be, the only things of relevance when constructing example sentences. How we teach linguistics is part of how we practise it, and how we do both matters to the composition and direction of the field.