A/HRC/20/26 30. States should ensure that the benefits of science are physically available and economically affordable on a non-discrimination basis. 31. The non-discrimination obligation demands eliminating both de jure and de facto barriers. In particular, positive steps must be taken for marginalized populations, such as people living in poverty and persons with disabilities, as well as the elderly,27 women and children,28 to ensure non-discriminatory access to scientific information, processes and products. Specific measures encompass eliciting the priority needs of such populations through a consultative process and facilitating targeted research by both public and private sector institutions. 32. As indicated in their responses to the questionnaire, some States have taken steps in this respect. For example, Uruguay encourages research with a high social impact and has established participatory mechanisms for identifying needs. Mauritius has established research groups to address priority issues, including with regard to food, water and building research capacity.29 Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur was informed that Burkina Faso has addressed issues concerning food security, suitable rice varieties and the environment, science and technology solutions to poverty, and water management, particularly in the context of raising cattle.30 Specific research is also being conducted in the area of Aboriginal health, rare diseases including those affecting unique ethnic groups, diseases associated with the elderly and the disabled.31 33. Incentives and purposive funding are being used to promote appropriate research; this includes “innovation prizes” in developed and developing countries to address societal needs, especially in the areas of health, food and the environment. Preceded by a consultative process, prizes expand opportunities for smaller innovators that would otherwise have no access to funding, and can bring together government, the private sector and philanthropic interests.32 34. Affordability is crucial and may require delinking research and development costs from product prices, as proposed by the World Health Organization in its global strategy and plan of action on public health, innovation and intellectual property. 33 The proposed innovative models enhance broad and affordable access, especially when they exclude time-limited legal monopolies that have the ultimate effect of increasing product prices. These could be applied to other areas as well. Intellectual property protection and product prices can also be delinked through innovation inducement prizes that reserve a percentage of prize monies for individuals and institutions ready to share knowledge, materials and technologies for product development. When combined with open-source dividend reward programmes, this encourages collaboration rather than competition.34 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 10 human biosecurity: private interests, policy dilemmas and the calibration of public health law”, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 629-642, 512. See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 6, para. 42. See, for example: UNESCO, Girls in Science and Technology Education: A Study on Access, Participation, and Performance of Girls in Nepal (2005); See also Spain. See Knowledge Ecology International, Selected Innovation Prizes and Reward Programs, KEI Research Note 2008:1, available from http://keionline.org/miscdocs/research_notes/kei_rn_2008_1.pdf. For example, in Canada, Spain and Greece. See National Research Council, Innovation Inducement Prizes at the National Science Foundation, Washington D.C., National Academies Press, 2007. See resolutions WHA 61.21 and 63.28. See http://healthresearchpolicy.org/content/open-source-dividend-prizes.