In August 2018, Czech Technical University in Prague simultaneously hosted several conferences on AI-related topics: human-level AI, artificial general intelligence, biologically inspired cognitive architectures, and neural-symbolic integration technology. Reports were presented by prominent experts representing global leaders in artificial intelligence: Microsoft, Facebook, DARPA, MIT and Good AI. The reports described the current status of AI developments, identified the problems facing society that have yet to be resolved, and highlighted the threats arising from the further development of this technology. In this review, we will attempt to briefly identify the main problems and threats, as well as the possible ways to counter these threats.
To begin with, let us provide definitions for some of the terms that are commonly used in conjunction with AI in various contexts: weak, or specialized, AI; autonomous AI; adaptive AI; artificial general intelligence (AGI); strong AI; human-level AI; and super-human AI.
Weak, or specialized, AI is represented by all existing solutions without exception and implies the automated solution of one specific task, be it a game of Go or face recognition with CCTV footage. Such systems are incapable of independent learning for the purpose of solving other problems: they can only be reprogrammed by humans to do so.
Autonomous AI implies a system’s ability to function for protracted periods of time without the intervention of a human operator. This could be a solar-powered UAV performing a multi-day flight from Champs-Elysees in Paris to Moscow’s Red Square or back, independently selecting its route and recharging stops while avoiding all sorts of obstacles.
Adaptive AI implies the system’s ability to adapt to new situations and obtain knowledge that it did not possess at the time of its creation. For example, a system originally tasked with conducting conversations in Russian could independently learn new languages and apply this knowledge in conversation if it found itself in a new language environment or if it deliberately studied educational materials on these new languages.
Artificial general intelligence implies adaptability of such a high level that the corresponding system could, given the appropriate training, be used in a wide variety of activities. New knowledge could either be self-taught or learned with the help of an instructor. It is in this same sense that the notion of strong AI is often used in opposition to weak or specialized AI.
Human-level AI implies a level of adaptability comparable to that of a human being, meaning that the system is capable of mastering the same skills as a human and within comparable periods of time.
Super-human AI implies even greater adaptability and learning speeds, allowing the system to masker the knowledge and skills that humans would never be able to.
Fundamental Problems Associated with Creating a Strong AI
Despite the multitude of advances in neuroscience, we still do not know exactly how natural intelligence works. For this same reason, we do not know for sure how to create artificial intelligence (AI). There are a number of known problems that need to be resolved, as well as differing opinions as to how these problems should be prioritized. For example, Ben Goertzel, who heads the OpenCog and SingularityNET, open-source international projects to create artificial intelligence, believes that all the requisite technology for creating an artificial general intelligence has already been developed, and that the only thing necessary is to combine them in a way that would ensure the necessary synergy. Other experts are more sceptical, pointing out that many of the problems that we will discuss below need to be resolved first. Also, expert estimates for when a strong AI may be created vary greatly, from ten or so years to several decades from now.
On the other hand, the emergence of a strong AI is logical in the framework of the general process of evolution as the emergence of molecules from atoms and cells from molecules, the creation of the central nervous system from specialized cells, the emergence of social structure, the development of speech and writing systems and, ultimately, the nascence of information technology. Valentin Turchin demonstrates the logic behind the increasing complexity of information structures and organizational mechanisms in the process of evolution. Unless humanity perishes first, this evolution will be inevitable and will, in the long run, rescue humankind, as only non-biological lifeforms will be able to survive the inevitable end of the Solar System and preserve our civilization’s information code in the Universe.
It is important to realize that the creation of a strong AI does not necessarily require the understanding of how the natural intelligence works, just as the development of a rocket does not necessarily require understanding how a bird flies. Such an AI will certainly be created, sooner or later, in one way or another, and perhaps even in several different ways.
Most experts identify the following fundamental problems that need to be solved before a general or strong AI can be created:
Few-shot learning: systems need to be developed that can learn with the use of a small amount of materials, in contrast to the current deep-learning systems, which require massive amounts of specifically prepared learning materials.
Strong generalization: creating problem recognition technologies allowing for recognizing objects in situations that differ from those in which they were encountered in the learning materials.
Generative learning models: developing learning technologies in which the objects to be memorized are not the features of the object to be recognised, but rather the principles of its formation. This would help in addressing the more profound characteristics of objects, providing for faster learning and stronger generalization.
Structured prediction and learning: developing learning technologies based on the representation of learning objects as multi-layered hierarchical structures, with lower-level elements defining higher level ones. This could prove an alternative solution to the problems of fast learning and strong generalization.
Solving the problem of catastrophic forgetting, which is pertinent to the majority of existing systems: a system originally trained with the use of one class of object and then additionally trained to recognize a new class of objects loses the ability to recognize objects of the original class.
Achieving an incremental learning ability, which implies a system’s ability to gradually accumulate knowledge and perfect its skills without losing the previously obtained knowledge, but rather obtaining new knowledge, with regard to systems intended for interaction in natural languages. Ideally, such a system should pass the so-called Baby Turing Test by demonstrating its ability to gradually master a language from the baby level to the adult level.
Solving the consciousness problem, i.e. coming up with a proven working model for conscious behaviour that ensures effective prediction and deliberate behaviour through the formation of an “internal worldview,” which could be used for seeking optimum behavioural strategies to achieve goals without actually interacting with the real world. This would significantly improve security and the testing of hypotheses while increasing the speed and energy efficiency of such checks, thus enabling a live or artificial system to learn independently within the “virtual reality” of its own consciousness. There are two applied sides to solving the consciousness problem. On the one hand, creating conscious AI systems would increase their efficiency dramatically. On the other hand, such systems would come with both additional risks and ethical problems, seeing as they could, at some point, be equated to the level of self-awareness of human beings, with the ensuing legal consequences.
Potential AI-Related Threats
Even the emergence of autonomous or adaptive AI systems, let alone general or strong AI, is associated with several threats of varying degrees of severity that are relevant today.
The first threat to humans may not necessarily be presented by a strong, general, human-level or super-human AI, as it would be enough to have an autonomous system capable of processing massive amounts of data at high speeds. Such a system could be used as the basis for so-called lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS), the simplest example being drone assassins (3D-printed in large batches or in small numbers).
Second, a threat could be posed by a state (a potential adversary) gaining access to weapons system based on more adaptive, autonomous and general AI with improved reaction times and better predictive ability.
Third, a threat for the entire world would be a situation based on the previous threat, in which several states would enter a new round of the arms race, perfecting the intelligence levels of autonomous weapon systems, as Stanislaw Lem predicted several decades ago.
Fourth, a threat to any party would be presented by any intellectual system (not necessarily a combat system, but one that could have industrial or domestic applications too) with enough autonomy and adaptivity to be capable not only of deliberate activity, but also of autonomous conscious target-setting, which could run counter to the individual and collective goals of humans. Such a system would have far more opportunities to achieve these goals due to its higher operating speeds, greater information processing performance and better predictive ability. Unfortunately, humanity has not yet fully researched or even grasped the scale of this particular threat.
Fifth, society is facing a threat in the form of the transition to a new level in the development of production relations in the capitalist (or totalitarian) society, in which a minority comes to control material production and excludes an overwhelming majority of the population from this sector thanks to ever-growing automation. This may result in greater social stratification, the reduced effectiveness of “social elevators” and an increase in the numbers of people made redundant, with adverse social consequences.
Finally, another potential threat to humanity in general is the increasing autonomy of global data processing, information distribution and decision-making systems growing, since information distribution speeds within such systems, and the scale of their interactions, could result in social phenomena that cannot be predicted based on prior experience and the existing models. For example, the social credit system currently being introduced in China is a unique experiment of truly civilizational scale that could have unpredictable consequences.
The problems of controlling artificial intelligence systems are currently associated, among other things, with the closed nature of the existing applications, which are based on “deep neural networks.” Such applications do not make it possible to validate the correctness of decisions prior to implementation, nor do they allow for an analysis of the solution provided by the machine after the fact. This phenomenon is being addressed by the new science, which explores explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). The process is aided by a renewed interest in integrating the associative (neural) and symbolic (logic-based) approaches to the problem.
Ways to Counter the Threats
It appears absolutely necessary to take the following measures in order to prevent catastrophic scenarios associated with the further development and application of AI technologies.
An international ban on LAWS, as well as the development and introduction of international measures to enforce such a ban.
Governmental backing for research into the aforementioned problems (into “explainable AI ” in particular), the integration of different approaches, and studying the principles of creating target-setting mechanisms for the purpose of developing effective programming and control tools for intellectual systems. Such programming should be based on values rather than rules, and it is targets that need to be controlled, not actions.
Democratizing access to AI technologies and methods, including through re-investing profits from the introduction of intellectual systems into the mass teaching of computing and cognitive technologies, as well as creating open-source AI solutions and devising measures to stimulate existing “closed” AI systems to open their source codes. For example, the Aigents project is aimed at creating AI personal agents for mass users that would operate autonomously and be immune to centralized manipulations.
Intergovernmental regulation of the openness of AI algorithms, operating protocols for data processing and decision-making systems, including the possibility of independent audits by international structures, national agencies and individuals. One initiative in this sense is to create the SingularityNET open-source platform and ecosystem for AI applications.
First published in our partner RIAC
Implementation of virtual reality and the effects in cognitive warfare
With the increasing use of new technologies in warfare situations, virtual reality presents an opportunity for the domain of cognitive warfare. Nowadays, cognitive skills are treated equally as their physical counterparts, seeking to standardize new innovative techniques. Virtual reality (VR) can be used as a tool that can increase the cognitive capabilities of soldiers. As it is understandable in today’s terms, VR impacts the brain directly. That means that our visual organs (eyes) see one object or one surrounding area, but brain cells perceive and react to that differently. VR has been used extensively in new teaching methods because of the increased probability of improving the memory and learning capabilities of students.
Besides its theoretical teaching approach and improvement of learning, VR can be used systematically towards more practical skills. In medicine for example students can have a full medicine lesson on a virtual human being seeing the body projected in 3D, revolutionizing the whole field of medicine. If that can be used in the medical field, theoretically it will be possible to be used in combat situations, projecting a specific battlefield in VR, increasing the chances of successful engagement, and reducing the chance of casualties. Knowing your terrain is equally important as knowing your adversary.
The use of VR will also allow us to experience new domains relating to the physical health of a person. It is argued that VR might provide us with the ability to effectively control pain management. Since VR can stimulate visual senses, then it would be safe to say that this approach can have higher effectiveness in treating chronic pain, depression, or even PTSD. The idea behind this usage is that the brain itself is already powerful enough, yet sometimes when pain overwhelms us we tend to lose effectiveness on some of our senses, such as the visual sense. An agonizing pain can blurry our vision, something that we cannot control; unless of course theoretically, we use VR. The process can consist of different sounds and visual aids that can trick the mind into thinking that it is somewhere that might be the polar opposite of where it is. Technically speaking, the mind would be able to do that simply because it works as a powerful computer, where our pain receptors can override and actually make us think that we are not in such terrible pain.
Although the benefits of VR could be useful for our health we would still need to deal with problems that concern our health when we use a VR set. It is possible that the brain can get overloaded with new information and the new virtual environments. VR poses some problems to some people, regarding the loss of the real environment and creating feelings of nausea or extreme headaches. As a result, new techniques from cognitive psychologists have emerged to provide a solution to the problem. New technologies have appeared that can desaturate colors towards the edge of the headset in order to limit the probability of visual confusion. Besides that, research shows that even the implementation of a virtual nose when someone wears a VR headset can prevent motion sickness, something that our brain does already in reality.
However, when it comes to combatants and the implementation of VR in soldiers, one must think of maybe more effective and fast solutions to eliminate the problems that concern the confusion of the brain. Usage of specific pharmaceuticals might be the key. One example could be Modafinil which has been prescribed in the U.S. since 1998 to treat sleep-related conditions. Researchers believe it can produce the same effects as caffeine. With that being said, the University of Oxford analyzed 24 studies, where participants were asked to complete complex assignments after taking Modafinil and found out that those who took the drug were more accurate, which suggests that it may affect higher cognitive functions.
Although some of its long-term effects are yet to be studied, Modafinil is by far the safest drug that can be used in cognitive situations. Theoretically speaking, if a long exposure to VR can cause headaches and an inability to concentrate, then an appropriate dose of Modafinil can counter the effects of VR. It can be more suitable and useful to use on soldiers, whose cognitive skills are better than civilians, to test the full effect of a mix of virtual technology and pharmaceuticals. VR can be a significant military component and a simulation training program. It can provide new cognitive experiences based on foreign and unknown terrains that might be difficult to be approached in real life. New opportunities arise every day with the technologies, and if anyone wanted to take a significant advantage over adversaries in the cognitive warfare field, then VR would provide a useful tool for military decision-making.
Vaccine Equity and Beyond: Intellectual Property Rights Face a Crucial Test
The debate over intellectual property rights (IPRs), particularly patents, and access to medicine is not new. IPRs are considered to drive innovation by protecting the results of investment-intensive R&D, yet arguably also foster inequitable access to affordable medicines.
In a global public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where countries face acute shortages of life-saving vaccines, should public health be prioritized over economic gain and the international trade rules designed to protect IPRs?
The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), to which all 164 member states of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are a party, establish minimum standards for protecting different forms of IPRs.
In October 2020, India and South Africa – countries with strong generic drug manufacturing infrastructure – invoked WTO rules to seek a temporary waiver of IPRs (patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and industrial designs) on equipment, drugs, and vaccines related to the “prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19.” A waiver would mean that countries could locally produce equipment and vaccines without permission from holders of IPRs. This step would serve to eliminate the monopolistic nature of IPRs that give exclusive rights to the holder of IPRs and enable them to impose procedural licensing constraints.
Brazil, Japan, the European Union (EU), and the United States (US) initially rejected the waiver proposal. That stance changed with the rise of new COVID-19 mutations and the associated increase in deaths, with several countries facing a public health crisis due to vaccine supply shortages. The position of many states began shifting in favor of the India-South Africa proposal, which now has the backing of 62 WTO members, with the US declaring support for the intent of the temporary waiver to secure “better access, more manufacturing capability, more shots in arms.” Several international bodies, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have voiced support.
Some countries disagree about the specific IPRs to be waived or the mechanisms by which IPRs should be made available. The EU submitted a proposal to use TRIPS flexibilities such as compulsory licensing, while others advocate for voluntary licensing. The TRIPS Council is conducting meetings to prepare an amended proposal to the General Council (the WTO’s highest-level decision-making body in Geneva) by the end of July 2021.
The crisis in India illustrates the urgency of the situation. India produces and supplies Covishield, licensed by AstraZeneca; and Covaxin, which is yet to be included on the WHO’s Emergency Use Listing (EUL). Due to the devastating public health crisis, India halted its export of vaccines and caused a disruption in the global vaccine supply, even to the COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX) program. In the meantime, the world’s poorest nations lack sufficient, critical vaccine supplies.
International law recognizes some flexibility in public health emergencies. An example would be the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health in 2001, which, while maintaining the commitments, stresses the need for TRIPS to be part of the wider national and international action to address public health problems. Consistent with that, the body of international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), protects the right to the highest attainable standard of health.
But as we race against time, the current IPR framework may not allow for the swift response required. It is the rigorous requirements before a vaccine is considered safe to use under Emergency Use Authorizations and procedural delays which illuminate why IPR waivers on already approved vaccines are needed. Capitalizing on the EUL’s approved vaccines that have proven efficacy to date and easing IPR restrictions will aid in the timely supply and access of vaccines.
A TRIPS waiver may not solve the global vaccine shortage. In fact, some argue that the shortages are not an inherent flaw in the IP regime, considering other supply chain disruptions that persist, such as the ones disrupting microchips, pipette tips, and furniture. However, given that patent licensing gives a company a monopoly on vaccine commercialization, other companies with manufacturing capacity cannot produce the vaccine to scale up production and meet supply demands.
Neither does a temporary waiver mean that pharmaceutical companies cannot monetize their work. States should work with pharmaceuticals in setting up compensation and insurance schemes to ensure adequate remuneration.
At the College of Law at Hamad Bin Khalifa University, our aim is to address today’s legal challenges with a future-oriented view. We see COVID-19 as a case study in how we respond to imminent and existential threats. As global warming alters the balance of our ecosystem, threats will cascade in a way that is hard to predict. When unpredictable health emergencies emerge, it will be human ingenuity that helps us overcome them. Even the global IP regime, as a legal system that regulates ideas, is being tested, and should be agile enough to respond in time, like the scientists who sprang into action and worked tirelessly to develop the vaccines that will soon bring back a semblance of normal life as we know it.
Sputnik V in the International Arena
Over a year since the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the COVID-19 outbreak a pandemic in March 2020, the disease is far from under control. Although global case rates on the whole have declined, 15 countries remain near or at the peak of their infection curve. Even countries well below their peak daily infection rates – such as the United Kingdom and Morocco – recently have witnessed an uptick in cases. Just this summer, the virus’ global death toll surpassed 4 million. Fortunately, scientists’ efforts to develop vaccines against COVID-19 have been fruitful: 16 vaccines have been either authorized for emergency use or fully approved. Russia’s Sputnik V is one of the most effective of them, yet one of the most controversial as well.
An important tool in humankind’s fight against the pandemic, Sputnik V is being overlooked by western powers on political grounds.
Sputnik V: controversy and advantages
Much of the controversy surrounding the Gamaleya Institute’s vaccine in western media and political discourse stems from the details surrounding Sputnik V’s approval. Russia’s Ministry of Health issued a registration certificate for the vaccine on August 11, 2020, thus making Sputnik V the world’s first vaccine to be granted regulatory approval for use against COVID-19. Instead of igniting international celebration, this development was met largely with skepticism as many considered the move premature. Typically, vaccines undergo extensive Phase 3 trials before government authorization for use. Sputnik V’s Phase 3 trials, however, did not begin until September 2020, after the vaccine had been registered. Since then, the Russian Ministry of Health’s unorthodox approach to approving the vaccine has been weaponized against Sputnik V.
Western media has also repeatedly called into question Sputnik V’s efficacy and safety. A study in the respected, peer-reviewed medical journal the Lancet, however, found that Sputnik V has an efficacy rate of 91.6% and is low-risk. Although a group of scientists raised concerns about the study’s integrity citing lack of transparency, no major scientific studies demonstrating that Sputnik V’s efficacy is significantly lower than reported have been published to date. Respected western media sources, such as the New York Times and the BBC, cite the Lancet’s figure when reporting on Sputnik V’s efficacy. Meanwhile, a report by the Argentinian Ministry of Health found that Sputnik V is one of the safest vaccines widely used in Argentina. As summarized in the Lancet: “the development of the Sputnik V vaccine has been criticised for unseemly haste, corner cutting, and an absence of transparency. But the outcome reported here is clear and the scientific principle of vaccination is demonstrated, which means another vaccine can now join the fight to reduce the incidence of COVID-19.”
Regardless of such controversy, the vaccine has several key advantages – namely its efficacy, affordability, and transportability. Sputnik V is one of only three vaccines globally with an efficacy of over 90% – the other two being Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. Running at less than $10 per dose on international markets, Sputnik V is the cheapest vaccine in this efficacy range. For comparison, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine runs between $14.50 and $20.00 on international markets, while Moderna’s vaccine sells for between $18.00 and $33.00 a dose. Sputnik V is also much easier to transport than its U.S./German counterparts. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines must be stored at -70.0°C and -20.0°C respectively, whereas Sputnik V must be kept at a temperature range from 2 to 8°C, meaning that it can be stored in conventional refrigerators. This makes delivering the vaccine notably easier, especially to remote areas. Thus, Sputnik V is poised to make an important contribution to the global inoculation campaign.
Hurdles and victories in the international arena
Russia’s frontrunner vaccine has experienced a mix of hurdles and victories in the international arena. The biggest hurdles are regulatory in nature. For example, one major obstacle preventing the vaccine’s distribution is that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) – the EU agency responsible for authorizing and evaluating medicines – has not yet approved Sputnik V. The EMA is still undergoing its rolling revue of the vaccine, and it appears that approval is unlikely to be granted until September at the earliest. Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi recently raised the possibility that Sputnik may never get the EMA’s approval, casting further doubt on the vaccine’s future in Europe. The EMA’s regulatory hesitancy towards Sputnik V has prevented major EU players, such as Germany and France, from buying millions of doses of the vaccine.
Sputnik V similarly has not yet been cleared for Emergency Use Listing by the WHO. The UN agency found production violations at the Sputnik V manufacturing site in Ufa during a June examination. Although the WHO’s concerns have since been addressed according to Russian Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, the incident has further put on hold the Russian Direct Investment Fund’s (RDIF) commitment to supply the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund with 220 million doses of Sputnik V. In a similar vein, the RDIF applied for Sputnik V to participate in COVID-19 vaccine access program COVAX earlier this year. Discussions with the Vaccine Alliance Gavi regarding Sputnik V’s inclusion in the COVAX Facility’s Portfolio of COVID-19 vaccines, however, are still ongoing.
Although Sputnik V’s lack of EMA and WHO approval has hampered its international rollout, the ongoing authorization process has not eliminated the vaccine’s global relevance. In fact, the Russian vaccine is currently authorized for emergency use in nearly 70 countries and being used in 45. Two EU member states, Hungary and Slovakia, even have begun inoculating their citizens with Sputnik V without a greenlight from the EMA. Meanwhile, India and Turkey have ordered 250 million and 50 million doses of the vaccine, respectively. One thing is clear: Sputnik V is in high demand internationally despite the regulatory hurdles and controversies it faces. Trust in the Russian vaccine also remains markedly high notwithstanding these challenges. A poll conducted by British market research firm YouGov during February and March of this year found that, of participants who had a preference, 54.0% trusted Russia to produce a vaccine and 33.2% preferred to be vaccinated with Sputnik V. According to the survey, Russia and the United States are tied for the most trusted vaccine producing country, and Sputnik V is the second most preferred vaccine after Pfizer-BioNTech, which 36.6% of respondents favored. The survey featured respondents from the following 9 countries, collectively accounting for 25% of the global population: India; Brazil; Mexico; the Philippines; Vietnam; Argentina; Algeria; the UAE; and Serbia.
Sputnik V has been particularly successful in Latin America, a core region of the United States’ sphere of influence. Repeated polling has shown that Sputnik V enjoys high levels of confidence in Latin American countries, especially Argentina and Peru. The Russian vaccine got an early start in the region when on December 29, 2020, Argentina became the first Latin American country to administer the Sputnik V vaccine to its citizens. Mexico followed suit on February 24 and Nicaragua on March 2, 2021. To the surprise of many observers, on June 4 Brazil joined the list of countries that have approved Sputnik V.
Unfortunately, alongside the success Sputnik V has experienced in Latin America, the vaccine has also encountered a substantial challenge: supply shortages. Both Mexico and Argentina are currently facing shortages of Sputnik V’s second dose – and the problem is not confined to the region. Luckily, Russia’s strategy for eliminating supply shortages not only promises to see more people vaccinated, but also provides an opportunity for Russia to collaborate with its international partners: the country will manufacture vaccines abroad. Starting in July, 5 to 6 million doses of Sputnik V are set to be produced outside of Russia per month. Manufacturing countries include India, South Korea, and Brazil. The Argentine laboratory Richmond produced its first half million doses on June 18. The data sharing and collaboration necessary to manufacture Sputnik V abroad have the potential to increase Russia’s soft power in partner countries.
The other major players
It is crucial to note that Russia’s Sputnik V is only one piece in the puzzle of fighting COVID-19. Although an in-depth review of every country’s current approach to vaccine policy is beyond the scope of this article, a brief overview of the major vaccine providers’ – the United States, the United Kingdom, and China – global vaccine distribution is in store.
Unlike Russia, whose approach to vaccine distribution has been global facing since Sputnik V’s development, the United States initially favored domestic distribution and stockpiling of American vaccines. The Biden Administration has since turned course. The U.S. recently pledged to share 80 million U.S. vaccine doses by the end of June and to purchase 500 million additional doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for lower-income countries over the next year. Pfizer-BioNTech is currently being distributed in 105 countries, Moderna in 55, and Johnson&Johnson in 27.
The United Kingdom’s Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is currently being used in 178 countries, making it the most widely-used COVID-19 vaccine to date. Although evidence that the vaccine is linked to blood clots put a rut in its distribution, the vaccine is performing well internationally. Meanwhile, China’s Sinopharm-Beijing and Sinovac vaccines are being used in 40 and 32 countries, respectively. China has favored international distribution of its vaccines since the beginning of the pandemic and has shipped more vaccines abroad than any other country. The vaccines referenced in this article – among others – have collectively led to 22.2% of the world’s population having received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.
Western, especially American, media has portrayed Sputnik V in an overwhelmingly negative light. The Russian vaccine is represented more as a political tool than a health solution. Hiccups in the road to Sputnik V distribution are cited as evidence that the vaccine is not to be trusted. This approach to Sputnik V is fundamentally flawed. Regulation and safety inspections are crucial to safe vaccination efforts; finger-pointing and name-calling are not. Ultimately, vaccination should take precedence over politics. Alongside other vaccines, Sputnik V will propel us into a post-pandemic world.
Above all else, Sputnik V is a highly efficacious vaccine against COVID-19. When Sputnik V successfully performs its function – safely preventing vaccinated people from contracting and dying from the virus – a growth in vaccinated individuals’ trust of Russia will organically follow. This happy side effect undoubtedly has the potential to promote Russia’s image abroad and increase the country’s soft power. But even if Russia’s political gains from Sputnik V turn out to be small, humankind’s gains in lives saved will be immeasurable.
From our partner RIAC
A question mark on FATF’s credibility
While addressing a political gathering, India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishanker made a startling lapsus de langue “We have been...
UNSC calls for ‘immediate reversal’ of Turkish and Turkish Cypriot decision on Varosha
The Security Council said in a statement released on Friday that settling any part of the abandoned Cypriot suburb of Varosha, “by people other than...
Biden Revises US Sanctions Policy
In the United States, a revision of the sanctions policy is in full swing. Joe Biden’s administration strives to make sanctions instruments more effective in achieving his...
Unleashing India’s True Potential
As India strives to unleash its true potential to rise as a global powerhouse, it is tasked with a series...
Demand for Investigation of COVID-19 gained momentum
Human history is full of natural disasters like Earthquakes, Floods, Fires, Vacanos, Drought, Famine, Pandemic, etc. Some of them were...
Power without Soft Power: China’s Outreach to Central Asia
The People’s Republic of China has become increasingly interested in the Central Asian countries—Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan—for both...
Sea Breeze 2021: U.S. is worryingly heading closer to conflict with Russia in the Black Sea
On July 10th, the 2021 iteration of the joint military exercise, Sea Breeze, concluded in the Black Sea. This exercise,...
Economy2 days ago
Entrepreneurialism & Digitalization: Recovery of Midsize Business Economies
Middle East2 days ago
Greater Middle East may force China to project military power sooner rather than later
Americas3 days ago
Maximizing Biden’s Plan to Combat Corruption and Promote Good Governance in Central America
Middle East2 days ago
Chinese FM Wraps Up his Visit to Egypt
Europe2 days ago
Belarus divorces from the Eastern Partnership: A new challenge for the EU Neighborhood Policy
Europe3 days ago
Anti-Macron protests underline classism, as corona protesters and gilets jaune join forces
Intelligence1 day ago
USA and Australia Worry About Cyber Attacks from China Amidst Pegasus Spyware
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Latvia developed new tasks for NATO soldiers