Global Health Watch: World Health Summit highlights, UN pandemic declaration, Guinea-Bissau vaccine trial, NIH peer-review changes

Issue 90

October 16, 2026

Challenges and scientific progress took center stage at the World Health Summit in Berlin, the UN adopted a new pandemic preparedness declaration, concerns continue over the proposed US-funded hepatitis B vaccine trial in Guinea-Bissau, and proposed changes to NIH’s scientific peer-review process raise new questions about transparency and political influence over research funding.

World Health Summit Highlights Challenges, Leadership and HIV Cure Progress

In Berlin, the World Health Summit (WHS) brought global health leaders together this week to discuss the future of global health financing, governance, scientific innovation and the growing impact of conflict on health systems. Jirair Ratevosian summarizes WHS and whether global health institutions are keeping pace with a changing world and highlights the featured public discussion with prospective candidates for WHO Director-General, which gave some insight into their priorities for the organization’s future. Sara Jerving of Devex covered the summit, as well, and concluded, “The global health sector can innovate, collaborate, and come up with all the clever solutions it can. But that will continue to fall drastically short when wars continue to rob millions of people of any chance of living healthy lives.” And at the opening of its new HIV cure research center, the Charité medical school and hospital in Berlin publicly named the “second Berlin patient” cured of HIV, Thomas Kahlert.

IMPLICATIONS: The WHS highlighted challenges facing global health institutions amid declining official development assistance (ODA), growing conflicts that are disrupting essential services and increasing calls from countries and communities for greater ownership and accountability. The news of the “second Berlin patient” shows what sustained investment in science can achieve, even as researchers work toward innovations that are effective, safe and accessible to all. 

READ:

UN Adopts Pandemic Preparedness Declaration 

The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Political Declaration on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response on Monday with 153 countries voting for the Declaration and three dissenting – Argentina, Isreal and the United States – and two countries, New Zealand and Paraguay, abstaining. Consensus on the text was not achieved at the September 25 Second High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response (PPPR), and negotiations continue over the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing (PABS) annex to the separate WHO Pandemic Agreement, which would establish how countries sharing pathogens and genetic data benefit from the medical products developed using them.

IMPLICATIONS: The Declaration shows international support for pandemic preparedness, but as Friends of the High-Level Meeting on Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response warn, the Declaration “contains few measurable or time-bound commitments,” and they challenge all Member States “to set ambitious, time-bound targets to ensure that we are truly able to prevent, prepare for, and respond to health emergencies and pandemic threats.” The disagreements over PABS speak to the division over access to vaccines, treatments and diagnostics, with many arguing over whether access should depend on voluntary arrangements or enforceable guarantees of equitable benefit-sharing. WHO and advocates are urging countries to reach an agreement over PABS by May, so the Pandemic Agreement can move forward. US government and other high-income country objections to PABS provisions, along with their failure to support the finalized Declaration, loomed over negotiations. The US government, in particular, used hardline rhetoric in expressing disagreement over the use of WTO waivers and uncompensated technology transfers. It also took divisive ideological positions, rejecting the Declaration’s references to climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights. Moreover, the US government sought to ban international support for “gain-of-function” research. Overall, the experience illustrates the US government’s preference for entering into bilateral agreements rather than multilateral accords, while maintaining domestic oversight of biomedical research and intellectual property. 

READ:

Guinea-Bissau Denies Approving Controversial hepatitis B US-Funded Vaccine Trial 

New reporting raises further concerns about a proposed US-funded hepatitis B vaccine trial in Guinea-Bissau, which has raised significant questions over African public health leadership, ethical research standards and sovereignty. As we reported previously, the proposed trial would delay birth-dose vaccination for thousands of newborns despite overwhelming evidence and WHO guidance that immediate vaccination saves lives. This week, The Guardian reports that Guinea-Bissau’s government denied approving the study, which contradicts claims that researchers had received authorization to proceed. Meanwhile, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is said to have begun efforts to allocate $1.6 million in global health security funding for the trial. 

IMPLICATIONS: The proposed study and questions surrounding its approval continue to raise fundamental concerns about research ethics, national sovereignty, the use of US global health funding and the continued anti-vaccine ideology of US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Delaying access to a proven, effective vaccine could expose newborns to preventable infections. Guinea-Bissau’s rejection of claims that it approved the trial reinforces the importance of country leadership, independent ethical review and protecting research participants, particularly vulnerable populations. 

READ:

NIH Peer Review Proposal Highlights Transparency and Scientific Independence Risks

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) closed its public comment period on proposed changes to its scientific peer-review process, which informs research funding decisions. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA) were among the organizations submitting a comment. The proposed process would replace numerical peer-review scores with three broad categories: “most competitive,” “competitive” and “not discussed.” NIH leadership argues the change would give the agency greater flexibility to consider factors beyond small differences in scores as part of its proposed Unified Funding Strategy. However, scientists and research organizations warn that removing numerical scores from subsequent funding decisions could weaken accountability and make it harder to determine whether grants are awarded based on scientific merit.  

IMPLICATIONS: This proposal is yet another development that raises concerns about transparency and political influence over which studies receive support. NIH’s peer-review system has long been a foundation of independent, merit-based scientific research. Replacing numerical scores with broader categories could give NIH officials greater discretion over funding decisions while reducing the information available to researchers and advisory councils. 

READ:

HIV advocates sound alarm as NIH hits ‘pause’ on new HIV clinical trials

Following last week’s New York Times report on the NIH’s directive that its four HIV clinical trials networks temporarily pause launching new HIV clinical trials amid delays in renewing funding for its HIV research networks, Positively Aware highlights advocates’ growing concerns about the future of HIV research.

Next Wednesday, October 21 at 12:15pm during IDWeek in Washington DC at the Convention Center, join the Save HIV Funding campaign for a rally demanding the US Congress to release federal HIV research funding and for an opportunity to experience the #CutsKill quilt panels.

Read More

What We’re Reading

Resources

Investing in Biomedical Innovation for Health and Economic Growth

This Financial Times webinar will bring together policymakers, funders, researchers, philanthropies and industry leaders to explore how to keep medical innovation moving forward. The conversation will examine how to create the right conditions for future breakthroughs – and deliver clear benefits for patients, health systems, economies and society.

Register Now