The Pasteur Network: A Model for Global Health Cooperation in a Fractured World
We witnessed the erosion of public faith in health systems, in global cooperation, and even in science itself. Hyperindividualism surged. A “survival of the fittest” logic took hold—among individuals and states alike—where survival, whether economic or physical, was often misrepresented as a sign of merit. Today, we continue to feel the political reverberations reshaping the global order and undermining long-standing norms of multilateralism.
In this fractured world, the question at the heart of the Commission’s work—how to prioritize threats, and what to do with that knowledge—becomes even more urgent, especially given that the most vulnerable are always the most impacted. But we must also ask: do we have the systems in place to act on what this Commission’s data tells us?
This is where I want to focus: we need to invest in the connective tissue of health—platforms, networks, and governance mechanisms that enable collective action and promote equity.
Let me offer a concrete example: the Pasteur Network, which I have the privilege of representing.
The Pasteur Network is a global alliance of over 30 institutions across five continents—spanning public health institutes, research centres, universities, and national reference laboratories with about two-thirds of members located in the Global South. It began with Louis Pasteur and the founding of the Institut Pasteur in Paris, but today it is decentralized, diverse, and united by shared values rather than central command. It is also a non-state actor.
Each member institution is deeply rooted in its local context and independently governed. Yet they are linked by a common mission: to improve health through science and service, underpinned by a deep commitment to global solidarity.
This is not a uniform network—its strength lies in its heterogeneity: different languages, funding models, research priorities, and socio-political environments. From Dakar to Seoul, Rio to Phnom Penh, Tunis to Montevideo—these institutions operate in vastly different settings, but are connected by long-standing scientific collaboration and a shared public health mandate.
During COVID-19, the value of this network became undeniable. Institutes shared genomic data, protocols, reagents, and strategies in real time—often more quickly and flexibly than formal multilateral systems. Local diagnostics were developed, variant surveillance launched, and policy guidance adapted to each context. This was possible not because of a top-down mandate, but because of trust and long-established relationships.
Yet the pandemic also exposed the limits of informal cooperation. While trust enabled rapid action by some, others were left behind in the absence of structure. That realization prompted a decision to transform.
Over the past three years, the Network has undergone a major restructuring, including a shift in identity—from the Réseau des Instituts Pasteur to the Pasteur Network—in order to meet the moment and prepare for the future. This transformation is guided by four strategic priorities:
1. Epidemic intelligence and preparedness, with an emphasis on climate-sensitive and emerging threats
2. Research, development, and innovation, particularly in areas overlooked by market incentives and donor attention
3. Knowledge communities and equity, to foster peer learning, inclusive leadership, and broader participation
4. Governance reform, including the creation of a Strategic Advisory Board
Let me pause on that last point.
The Strategic Advisory Board was created as a space for critical reflection, external challenge, and long-term horizon scanning. Chaired by Prof. Peter Piot, the board brings together expertise from science, policy, philanthropy, and innovation. It’s not an oversight body in the traditional sense. It’s a platform for shared intelligence—a structure designed to help the network stay agile, inclusive, and focused on long-term priorities.
This governance evolution has allowed us to address a fundamental challenge: how to make diversity an operational strength, not just a rhetorical one. One of our core beliefs is this: centres of excellence exist all over the world. Innovation is not the exclusive domain of the Global North or any particular income group. Yet excellence is often overlooked—and innovation underfunded—simply because it originates in places with low visibility.
That’s why we are developing new cross-cutting solutions to amplify under-recognized innovation and deepen regional capacity. Let me highlight just a few:
First, we’ve launched the Climate and Health Observatory Accelerator Program, with support from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Institute of Philanthropy. This initiative identifies and supports local innovations at the nexus of climate and health, especially in regions underrepresented in the global innovation ecosystem. One of our initial cross-cutting case studies focuses on dengue—a disease rapidly expanding due to climate change. We are mapping and connecting efforts in Brazil, Vietnam, Senegal, and beyond—enabling mutual learning and policy innovation grounded in context. These lessons could easily go unnoticed without a structure in place for information sharing, strategic reflection, and trust-based collaboration. The program also includes a fellowship for a diverse cohort of young scientists and public health professionals, offering mentorship and training on translating scientific data into policy—not only for ministries of health, but also for finance and foreign affairs.
To those in this room representing philanthropic organizations and development partners: this is exactly the kind of strategic, catalytic investment that can build durable capacity—not only for health emergencies, but for broader development goals, including climate resilience and social cohesion.
Second, we’ve created a Vaccine Manufacturers’ Group within the network. For the first time, public and semi-public vaccine producers across Africa, Asia, and Latin America—institutions with decades of technical experience—are collaborating directly. They are now aligned on shared priorities, including regulatory pathways, clinical trial infrastructure, and manufacturing strategies. The aim is to foster regional autonomy and global interoperability. It’s a quiet revolution in equity, rooted in peer collaboration. While the tangible results may take time, the clearest achievement so far is a shared commitment to working together. In July, the group formally committed to solidarity by agreeing to do just this.
Third, we’ve invested in communities of practice to promote communication and shared learning. These groups are not led by directors or department heads, but by young scientists across the network. This low-cost approach builds trust, promotes knowledge exchange, and challenges misconceptions about where science and innovation take place.
Fourth, we are working to ensure that epidemic data is shared fairly, openly, and with proper credit and ownership. There’s a phrase I return to often: “the greatest inequity is data inequity.” We are developing mechanisms to formalize and sustain the informal sharing of information—while respecting national laws and upholding the highest ethical standards. As many of you know, early epidemic detection is often the hardest part. Even in the case of COVID-19, there is emerging evidence of viral presence in the U.S. as early as November 2019, based on biobanked blood samples. Beyond regulatory complexity and political hesitancy, informal networks among colleagues often enable faster awareness. Our goal is to strengthen and formalize this capacity—anchored in trust and shared values.
We believe these kinds of structured, networked investments offer exceptional returns—not only by averting future crises, but by generating regional public goods and enabling cooperative problem-solving in a multipolar world.
One of the clearest ways to revive global solidarity is to build the architecture that enables it: networks, platforms, and inclusive governance. These structures can also improve efficiency, by leveraging the unique strengths of each actor in a resource-constrained environment.
If we want to accelerate innovation, we must fund not just the products, but the ecosystems that allow innovation to emerge—especially in historically excluded regions. Innovation gaps remain, but they’re also the spaces where this Commission’s forecasts could change most dramatically.
If we want to prepare for demographic and health transitions, we must enable systems to think and act collectively—not only nationally. That requires long-term investment in networks that build trust, sustain dialogue, and move knowledge across borders, languages, disciplines, and cultures.
And if we want to overcome short-termism, we must build models that show the return on investment in collective capacity. Because the impact of a global network like the Pasteur Network isn’t measured only in publications or patents—but in resilience, responsiveness, readiness, and contributions to global public goods.
That’s the infrastructure we need to protect health in the 21st century -- more bridges and new ways to incentivize cooperation.
In closing, we don’t suffer from a lack of threats—as the Commission’s data shows, and as many others continue to identify, including those we cannot yet imagine.
What we suffer from is a lack of aligned, equitable, sustained action. To overcome this, we must invest not just in what we do—but in how we do it, and with whom.
The Pasteur Network is just one example. But it shows that even in a divided world, solidarity is still possible—and that the most transformative breakthroughs of the 21st century may not come from isolated genius, but from organized cooperation, grounded in trust, equity, and a shared commitment to humanity.