A/HRC/26/19 18. Finally, one delegation expressed the view that States had an obligation to balance scientific freedom with the interests of society when cultural factors were at play. According to the delegation, scientists, likewise, had a duty to both the community and the State. D. Interdependence between the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications and other human rights 19. Peter Beyer (WHO), Jose Luis Vivero Pol (Université catholique de Louvain) and Jose Maria Batanero (ITU) discussed the relationship between the right to science and the right to health, the right to food and the rights of persons with disabilities. The panel was moderated by Rio Hada (OHCHR). 20. In his presentation, Mr. Beyer focused on the relationship between articles 12 and 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, framing the discussion, in part, around innovation and access to medicines. More specifically, he noted that there was a shifting burden of disease with respect to non-communicable diseases, in that cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer were now not only major health challenges in developed countries, but also in the developing world. To address those challenges, new medical technologies were required, existing products must be adapted and access to both guaranteed. The issue of access, however, was extremely complex and raised important questions, including whether the price of medicines should reflect their value to shareholders or to society, whether essential medicines were public assets and whether the price should be set by the inventor or the market. States must balance their respective obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights so as to ensure that the inventor derived a benefit from his work and that the patient enjoyed access to affordable medicines as part of the right to health. In the current system, the innovator set the price and recovered his investment in research, development and marketing through the price of the product. That required a substantial investment and was not without risk. Consequently, the member States of the World Health Organization had turned their attention to examining new innovation models in areas where intellectual property norms were unworkable, with the debate focused on models which separate research and development costs from the price of the final product in order to ensure the improved affordability of medicines. 21. Mr. Vivero Pol noted that science was a public asset and that the realization of human rights was indispensable for facilitating access to science. In discussing the interdependence between the right to science and other human rights, such as the right to food, a key consideration was the purpose to which science was put. With regard to the right to food, the essential elements of the right were regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belonged, and which ensured a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life, free of fear. Scientific know-how in this domain was drawn from the agricultural expertise developed by national institutions, traditional agricultural knowledge and food safety considerations, among other sources. Mr. Vivero Pol argued for broad-based and inclusive consultation with a view to ensuring that poor and marginalized populations had access to innovation in agriculture as well as its benefits. With the same objective, governments should invest more in and improve the quality of agricultural research, increase access to scientific research and disseminate scientific knowledge relevant to all stages of food production and consumption. 22. Mr. Batanero noted that, although human rights treaties did not recognize a distinct and specific right to communicate, they did guarantee and protect many dimensions of 7