Pandemic Center

Without US funding, there has been immediate disruption to controlling the mpox outbreak. Now is the time for global health leaders, philanthropic organisations and other high-income nations to step up and fill the void left by the funding withdrawal.

The viral zoonotic disease mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) has periodically affected African nations since its discovery in 1958.

Historically, it remained confined to specific regions, primarily within central and west Africa. However, the outbreak that began in 2022 marked a significant escalation, with cases spreading beyond usual endemic regions. By mid-2022, the virus had reached multiple continents, prompting the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a public health emergency of international concern in early May, 2022. Unlike previous outbreaks, the 2022-2023 epidemic saw a significant number of cases in Europe and the Americas.

---

Now is the time to continue the momentum towards achieving African vaccine sovereignty. We must work to both increase the continent’s vaccine manufacturing capacity and then develop strategies to promote their uptake.

Five years to the day after the World Health Organization first referred to Covid-19 as a pandemic, the US National Institutes of Health slashed grant funding for projects that aim to understand vaccine hesitancy and promote vaccine uptake. The Covid-19 pandemic and more recent outbreaks of mpox, Marburg and Ebola underline the importance of regionalised vaccine manufacturing to ensure access to vaccines for people in Africa. Yet, without research to inform strategies to improve trust in vaccines and promote their uptake, the gains in manufacturing will not translate to lives saved.

Defunding research that aims to improve vaccine uptake is another historic mistake in what has become a sad litany of health science reversals by the Trump administration. In January 2025, before the funding cuts were announced, leading vaccine researchers from around the world published an article calling for countries to measure the social and behavioural reasons that people choose to get vaccinated or not and to use this information to design approaches to improve vaccine uptake. Heeding this call is now more important than ever to ensure that the vaccines produced in Africa are taken up by those who can benefit from them – otherwise what is the point?

We must work to both increase African vaccine manufacturing capacity and develop strategies to promote their uptake once they are made. Currently, only 1.1% of Africa’s vaccine supply is produced locally. This overdependence on foreign vaccine supplies leaves African people vulnerable. This challenge is heightened by the inequity in access to foreign supplies, a disparity that became especially evident during the Covid-19 pandemic. While the Covid vaccination campaign was the largest and fastest in history, Africa faced significant challenges in access and distribution. By November 2022, almost two years after high-income countries began vaccinating their citizens, only 25% of the people in Africa had been fully vaccinated against Covid-19.

At the beginning of the pandemic, initiatives such as the Covax facility, a global Covid-19 vaccine procurement mechanism, signalled positive steps towards global solidarity for equitable vaccine access. Although this effort was highly commendable, the reality was very different. Gavin Yamey, the director of Duke University’s Center for Policy Impact in Global Health who was involved in the early discussions about Covax, declared that “rich countries behaved worse than anyone’s worst nightmares”. Wealthy countries were first in line to receive vaccines because they were able to place orders for multiple candidates in their early stages of development. Hoarding of these vaccines led to what World Health Organization (WHO) director-general Tedros Ghebreyesus called “vaccine apartheid”, as booster doses of the Covid-19 vaccine were widespread in high-income countries before people in low-income countries had even received a first dose.

Once vaccines are available on the African continent, how can policymakers be sure that the regulatory process for their approval, technical expertise to run clinical trials, and health workforce to administer vaccines are in place to be able to ensure that vaccines reach those who need them? For example, the response to the current mpox public health emergency of international concern has been plagued by delays in authorisation for the vaccine and limited data on the effectiveness of these vaccines in children.

The ongoing challenges with vaccine access in Africa continue to cause preventable loss of life even though it is well established that early access to vaccines in an outbreak can stop a virus in its tracks. Strengthening vaccine manufacturing capacity on the continent will ensure long-term health security across the continent. Promising efforts are already under way that must be supported and expanded, particularly in light of uncertainties surrounding US funding for global health. As of late 2024, there were five African vaccine suppliers in four countries – South Africa (Aspen Pharmacare and Biovac), Senegal (Institut Pasteur de Dakar), Morocco (Marbio) and Egypt (Vacsera) – with scaled facilities that are close to commercialisation. A further 20 suppliers across the continent are in development or awaiting technology transfer.

In 2021, the African Union announced its goal of supporting the African vaccine manufacturing industry to produce more than 60% of the vaccine doses required on the continent by 2040. The Partnerships for African Vaccine Manufacturing was created under the Africa CDC in 2021 to achieve this goal and was expanded in 2024 to include all health products under a new name, the Platform for Harmonized African Health Products Manufacturing. As of June 2024, there are 25 active vaccine projects across the continent. Initiatives such as the WHO’s mRNA technology transfer hub and those supported by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (Cepi) also have been working to increase African vaccine manufacturing, and fostering vaccine sovereignty.

In 2024, major African-led initiatives were launched to accelerate African vaccine manufacturing. The African Vaccine Manufacturing Accelerator received a $1.2-billion investment, through reallocated Covid-19 funds from other country’s governments and philanthropies, to expand vaccine manufacturing on the continent, Afreximbank pledged $2-billion in support of African Health Products Manufacturing, and regulatory bodies from seven African countries signed a memorandum of understanding to promote a strong, harmonised regulatory system on the continent.

Countries including Rwanda are also setting a strong example. Leveraging a tremendous amount of preparation and partnerships with the private sector and global public health organisations such as Cepi, just 10 days after the outbreak was declared, Rwanda implemented clinical trials of the Sabin mpox vaccine.

Achieving self-reliance in vaccine production in Africa is possible. In combination with continued efforts to understand and promote vaccine uptake, we need whole-of-government approaches that support the growth of vaccine manufacturing on the continent. The ministries of health and finance must work together to develop strategic approaches for preferential procurement practices of regionally produced vaccines. There needs to be harmonisation of the regulatory bodies on the continent with the WHO’s prequalification process – an approval process required for vaccines to be bought by UN agencies such as Unicef – so that safe and effective vaccines can reach populations in need and at scale.

Now is the time to continue the momentum towards achieving African vaccine sovereignty. These efforts will save lives if people have the confidence and trust to take them. DM

Margaret Dunne is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Epidemiology; Thokozani Liwewe a medical doctor and global health professional working with the Ministry of Health, Malawi, and a Game Changers Fellow; Alice Im is a research assistant; Andrea Uhlig is a research associate; Carly Gasca is a project director; and Wilmot James is a professor and senior adviser – all at the Pandemic Center in Brown University’s School of Public Health, Providence, Rhode Island.

A disruption of current HIV/Aids mitigation programmes in southern Africa will lead to decreased access to critical treatments and preventive therapies, which will in turn lead to increased mortality and mother-to-child transmission.

For decades, the United States has been a critical player in supporting the response to HIV/Aids in southern Africa. However, recent shifts in US policy as mandated by executive orders from the second Trump administration threaten to disrupt life-saving humanitarian aid programmes, posing profound danger to pan-African public health and economic stability, in addition to global health security.

Southern Africa has long been the epicentre of the global HIV/Aids pandemic, with Botswana, South Africa and neighbouring countries experiencing some of the highest infection rates in the world – in several cases exceeding 20% of the total adult population.

Botswana, for example, has an adult HIV prevalence rate of about 23% (for reference, any country with HIV infection rates above 1% is determined a Generalized HIV Epidemic per the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids); South Africa, the most affected country worldwide by case volume, has an estimated 7.7 million people, people living with HIV/Aids, of which 5.9 million are on antiretroviral therapy.

Dr Wilmot James is a Professor in the School of Public Health, Brown University. He served as a Member of Parliament in South Africa between 2009 and 2017, and Federal Chairperson of the Democratic Alliance (DA) between 2010 and 2016.

For the likes of Trump and Musk, human misfortune appears as if it is mere collateral damage in the longer-term effort to engineer their version of sustainable Western civilisation, on Earth as it will be on Mars.

Nelson Mandela spent 27 years in prison for his beliefs. He emerged with an enduring desire to establish a democratic and free society for all and not just some. He believed that South Africa could only succeed if the assets and talents of everyone including all minority populations were included in a forward-looking historical project for South Africa he called nation-building.

It is with the greatest regret that US President Donald Trump and his helper Elon Musk today seek to undo and shatter the peacemaking efforts of one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century.

Today the world’s most powerful man has struck a bargain with the world’s wealthiest man to bully South Africa into change by energising a small group of disgruntled extremists, destabilising the country’s politics and punishing its people.

South Africa’s Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 is merely a hook by which they launched their efforts, by twisting a law that is not race-based into one that supposedly is, thereby igniting the energies of a South African domestic constituency to join their global cause. In this effort, they join Steve Bannon, widely regarded as the Lenin of the Right.

...

All known life is homochiral. DNA and RNA are made from “right-handed” nucleotides, and proteins are made from “left-handed” amino acids. Driven by curiosity and plausible applications, some researchers had begun work toward creating lifeforms composed entirely of mirror-image biological molecules. Such mirror organisms would constitute a radical departure from known life, and their creation warrants careful consideration. The capability to create mirror life is likely at least a decade away and would require large investments and major technical advances; we thus have an opportunity to consider and preempt risks before they are realized. Here, we draw on an in-depth analysis of current technical barriers, how they might be eroded by technological progress, and what we deem to be unprecedented and largely overlooked risks (1). We call for broader discussion among the global research community, policy-makers, research funders, industry, civil society, and the public to chart an appropriate path forward.

A new threat now looms. In a recent publication in Science, we joined an esteemed list of researchers in raising the alarm about risks of ongoing efforts to create ‘mirror life’. If created, mirror life could lead to the destruction of life, the environment and food systems across the globe, including exacerbating inequities that already exist in low- and middle-income countries.

Every year, more than one million people die from antimicrobial resistance. It is one of the most important global health threats, according to the World Health Organization. This sentiment was echoed at the recent Jeddah Conference, where representatives from more than 57 countries pledged to move towards decisive multilateral action on antimicrobial resistance.

Antimicrobial resistance is also fundamentally a matter of health equity. It disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries: diseases caused by bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics spread more quickly, and are more lethal, in developing countries. At the same time, high-income countries disproportionately contribute to the overconsumption and overproduction of antimicrobial drugs that can cause and exacerbate antimicrobial resistance in the first place.

This pattern of global inequity extends beyond antimicrobial resistance, with the Global South (countries of the developing world) often suffering the consequences of problems predominantly created by the Global North.

A new threat now looms. In a recent publication in Science, we joined an esteemed list of researchers in raising the alarm about risks of ongoing efforts to create “mirror life”. If created, mirror life could lead to the destruction of life, the environment and food systems across the globe, including exacerbating inequities that already exist in low- and middle-income countries. We must ensure that scientists and policymakers from developing countries are included as part of the discussions and leadership about governing mirror life.

Mirror life refers to organisms created with “mirror molecules”. Mirror molecules have the same structure as natural molecules, except they are flipped, like how one’s left hand is a mirrored version of one’s right hand. Proteins are made up of amino acids that are normally found in a “left-handed” form, and DNA is made up of nucleic acids that are normally found in a “right-handed” form. Mirror forms of these molecules, such as right-handed amino acids and left-handed nucleic acids, are rarely used in nature, but can be artificially created in laboratory settings. By putting together mirror proteins, DNA, and other mirror molecules, scientists may be able to create entire mirror lifeforms.

Spread unchecked
We argue in our paper that mirror bacteria (the form of mirror life most likely to be created first) could evade human, plant, and animal immune systems, which have evolved to protect against microbes found in nature. Beyond getting past our immune systems, mirror bacteria also could evade natural predators like viruses that target bacteria (bacteriophages), which would enable mirror bacteria to spread relatively unchecked throughout nature, with potentially devastating effects on the environment and the world’s food systems. A pandemic caused by mirror bacteria would have catastrophic effects worldwide. For these reasons, in our paper, we argue that mirror life should not be created. We call, as well, for broader governance around mirror molecules.

Mirror life may create unprecedented, worldwide risks, and its effects would be felt by all countries. The severity and scope of its impact could be quite unlike anything that has been seen before. Luckily, few laboratories are actively interested in the development of mirror life — and none of them are in developing countries. However, it would be a grave injustice if the discussion of governance around mirror life included only stakeholders in high-income countries, as it is the low- and middle-income countries that could be the most affected if mirror life were ever to be created. Hard as it is to imagine, the proliferation of mirror life, and its devastating consequences on human and animal immune systems, might require isolating bunkers to house humans and their life support systems — an expensive enterprise.

Covid-19 has demonstrated that the effects of novel biological threats hit hardest in the Global South. These countries are less able to provide emergency healthcare to those affected, and if we were to succeed in developing new drugs to counter mirror life, they would probably be amassed and stockpiled by high-income nations. This is the same pattern we’ve seen in practically every pandemic. The 1918 Influenza — which killed up to 50 million people — began spreading in Europe, yet South Africa and India were two of the worst affected countries. A pandemic due to mirror life could be much more disastrous.

It is imperative that those driving the threat from mirror bacteria recognise their responsibilities and actively engage leaders from low- and middle-income countries in the discussions around governance. Ensuring representation of the Global South will enable transparency and accountability. Engaging appropriate global entities to provide oversight and accountability over research into mirror life would be essential to facilitate the protection of all countries.

Countries and organisations in the Global North should work with regulators in developing countries to create governance for any laboratory that develops an interest in working on mirror life in the future. This would also prevent laboratories from dodging regulations by moving their research to developing countries.

Fortunately, scientists who are engaged in the research that would serve as a precursor to the creation of mirror life are cognisant of the risks. The development of mirror life is something that can still be halted. While an entire mirror bacterium could pose a significant threat, the synthesis of specific mirror biomolecules on their own do not pose similar risks — and, in fact, could lead to new medicines.

Oversight
For instance, mirror proteins have been touted as an option for creating drugs to fight HIV, still an ongoing pandemic disproportionately affecting regions such as southern Africa. Innovation in this space needs to be diffused worldwide, so that low- and middle-income countries can benefit just as much as high-income nations. The peaceful and beneficial uses of such precursor research underscore the need to engage experts everywhere in discussions about oversight and to instill a hyper-awareness as to when to stop the research before it becomes dangerous.

With mirror life, the world has the invaluable opportunity to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Practices that have led to antimicrobial resistance are key examples where actions taken by high-income countries can have negative effects in low- and middle-income countries. Similarly, (industrial) practices that have led to climate change have been largely led by countries of the Global North, with disproportionate impacts on the Global South. Air pollution has largely been caused by industrial corporations and high-income nations burning fossil fuels, yet it disproportionately affects low-income communities and causes diseases like lung cancer to become more prevalent in vulnerable populations.

Global action wasn’t taken rapidly enough to prevent the devastating consequences of antimicrobial resistance, climate change, and air pollution. The risks posed by the potential to create mirror life are unparalleled and fall in a class of their own. However, when it comes to mirror life, we have the chance to act wisely — now — and prevent a damaging worldwide impact. Incorporating global perspectives into the governance of mirror life is the only way to ensure we are all safe. DM

Wilmot G. James is a Professor in the Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice and Senior Advisor to the Pandemic Center in the School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. Vaughn S. Cooper is Professor in the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics and a founder of the Center for Evolutionary Biology and Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.