Newsletter Edition #174 [Treaty Talks]
Readers,
The watershed election results in the U.S. last week has redrawn the contours of global health politics potentially making space for less acrimonious engagement on these matters. (At least that is the hope as seen from International Geneva.)
It is therefore an opportune moment to look back at the politicization of science, and the attacks on scientists. In this piece, my colleague Nishant Sirohi reviews the scrutiny of storied scientist-policymaker Anthony Fauci in the U.S.
Not only, he also links the discussion on the gain-of-function research to the ongoing negotiations on the Pathogen Access Benefit Sharing (PABS) system, and its implications for biosecurity. He argues that political theatre is bad for biosecurity. It is essential to have global oversight on transnational scientific research. Currently, oversight remains overwhelmingly national and fragmented.
It is a classic past-meets-future analysis from Sirohi, who has also previously analysed the biosecurity and health intersection for our readers.
In Geneva, countries are focused, and coming to terms with building a functional PABS system. Language on biosecurity specifically, is yet to have been fleshed out in these discussions, but continue to be highly relevant. Hence this piece. We hope you find this topical and useful.
More from us in the coming days. We continue to be onsite at the WHO tracking these negotiations that conclude later this week on the 13th.
Geneva Health Files offers value to our readers who are experts in global health. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive, without institutional support. For six years, we have provided you with the information and tools that directly contribute to your work in the field. We rely on our readers who value news they can use.
By becoming a paying subscriber you make our work possible and help us gather, report and synthesise global health intelligence.
Best,
Priti
Priti Patnaik, Founder & Publisher, Geneva Health Files
Feel free to write to us: genevahealthfiles@gmail.com ; Find us on BlueSky, Instagram and Linkedin.
Presenting our weekly in-depth analysis on global health that captures the big picture and the nuances like no one else does. This is an exclusive edition for our subscribers.
I. ANALYSIS
Beyond Fauci: Gain-of-Function Research and the Biosecurity Governance Gap
By Nishant Sirohi
Can holding one scientist accountable make high-risk biological research safer?
The politically motivated scrutiny of Anthony Fauci comes amid unresolved questions about the origins of COVID-19 and growing concerns over the safety and oversight of research involving dangerous pathogens research. In addition, the unexplained death of a worker at a Russian plague research institute, although not confirmed to involve a laboratory accident or plaque infection, has renewed brought attention to laboratory biosafety and transparency.
Fauci, the highly acclaimed and respected former director of the United States’ National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, faced questioning by Republican lawmakers over the summer in 2026: over US-funded coronavirus research, his congressional testimony, and his interactions with intelligence agencies.
Fauci denies wrongdoing and maintains that the proceedings are politically motivated. The controversy has also reignited debate over whether US-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology constituted gain-of-function research, a question complicated by differing scientific and regulatory definitions. The origins of SARS-CoV-2 remain uncertain: WHO’s 2025 scientific assessment found that the available evidence favours animal-to-human transmission but said a laboratory origin could not be ruled out.
Accountability for high-risk pathogen research is essential. Yet focusing on whether one official misled Congress risks overlooking a more fundamental question: Who determines which experiments are too dangerous to conduct, under what standards, and with what international oversight?
Beyond the Fauci frame
The Republican focus on Fauci risks becoming a political witch hunt by casting him as personally responsible for decision made across funding agencies, research institutions and regulatory bodies.
High-risk biological research involves many actors, including networks of funders, research institutions, ethics and biosafety committees, government agencies, collaborating laboratories, publishers, and scientists – often operating across national jurisdictions. Signalling out Fauci undermines trust in scientists and obscures the more important question: how did these institutions make, review and oversee those decisions?
