Citation, extracts and comments from me below...
ITATION: Managing the impact of AI on both human health and planetary health requires new forms of governance
BMJ 2026; 392 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r2606 (Published 07 January 2026)
Cite this as: BMJ 2026;392:r2606
Ilona Kickbusch, director
EXTRACTS
We need to reimagine global governance. In public health, we now accept that human and planetary wellbeing are inseparable. The climate crisis, biodiversity loss, pollution, pandemics, and inequity are not isolated challenges — they are symptoms of one interlinked system under strain. The institutions that once protected global health and stability now struggle to keep pace with this complexity. The urgent demands to bring together the planetary and the global health agenda are an expression of this need for change. Yet we must go further as we better understand and define “the planetary” and create new frameworks of governance, knowledge, and actions...
AI is increasingly part (and to some extent a driver) of the living socio-ecological system... At present there is no structure in place that ensures this rapid technological innovation is accountable. Indeed, it could, as is the explicit goal of many AI leaders, transform the very concept of being human.
Action on AI and the planetary crisis needs an ethical and systems based lens for governance, that emphasises socio-ecological wellbeing, long term and intergenerational impacts, and includes equity and justice as preconditions for sustainability. Both the planetary crisis and AI transcend national borders and require multilateral norms. However, our existing system of global governance is not set up for this...
At the same time, it will be necessary to explore whether AI could become the nervous system of a resilient Earth, if designed within planetary boundaries and as a public good: sensing, predicting, and regenerating rather than exploiting and extracting natural and human resources.
The situation might be serious enough to propose that the World Health Organization change its role and its constitution. It was created to promote “the highest attainable standard of health” for all peoples. But in the 21st century, the determinants of health lie predominantly with the planetary crisis and AI development. This requires a body that integrates ecological, social, and economic dimensions of wellbeing. Its purpose: to safeguard the conditions that make health possible on a thriving planet increasingly subject to historic technological disruption as experienced with AI. Thinking of the WHO as a “ministry for planetary health” would face political, financial, and sovereignty barriers, but could also create momentum and pragmatic entry points to move forward.
A “planetary health and AI taskforce” established by the WHO could explore the shifts that are necessary, which could include:
expanding the mandate from disease control to safeguarding human experience and the systems that support planetary life
measuring success by using wellbeing and resilience indicators, not just mortality and GDP
embedding “do no harm to the Earth and its peoples” as a core ethical principle in all planetary health policies...
Individuals who have developed new technologies, such as Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the world wide web), propose robust governance of AI as a way forward. Others argue that AI governance should not merely be “a reactive, punitive, status-quo-defending enterprise, but rather the expression of an expansive, proactive vision for technology—to advance human flourishing.”... The United Nations AI advisory body issued its final report on Governing AI for Humanity in 2024.14 The UN has now launched two AI governance bodies: the Global Dialogue on AI Governance and the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. The new architecture is intended to usher in a more inclusive form of international governance for AI. Health must be a key partner in all these developments. In view of the impact on humanity, health should be a driver of AI governance. There is still time, writes Tim Berners-Lee, “to build technology to promote the dignity of our fragile species on this isolated globe. We can do it, all of us, everyone, together.”
COMMENT (NPW): I have long appreciated Ilona Kickbusch's contributions to global health. But I struggle to understand the proposition that 'the World Health Organization change its role and its constitution'. I cannot see why there is a need to change the current role of WHO which is to promote the highest attainable standard of health for all people. This is the central tenet on which all else depends. Yes, artificial intelligence and planetary health are profoundly linked with our collective health and our future as a species. But WHO cannot be expected to take on these existential challenges. Rather, we need to focus on how to strengthen WHO's central role in promoting health as part of a stronger multilateral architecture - currently threatened by the so-called "leader of the free world".
For me it is more constructive to look at ways to strengthen WHO's current remit, in particular its stated role to 'extend to all peoples the benefits of medical, psychological and related knowledge [that] is essential to the fullest attainment of health'. Furthermore, this specific challenge, which is so readily achievable if only WHO would take the lead [see: https://www.hifa.org/projects/hifa-official-relations-who ], will also help address the existential threats of artificial intelligence and climate change.
What do you think?
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org