The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Release patents on vaccines?

2021-05-08T11:17:56.289Z


It is necessary to follow processes that are already guaranteed as safe and respecting intellectual property and, therefore, the incentive for innovation


Vaccination in a health center in Aragon GOVERNMENT OF ARAGÓN / Europa Press

"Extraordinary situations require extraordinary measures." With this phrase, the United States trade representative has announced her support for the temporary release of patents for covid vaccines within the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The problem is that not only extraordinary measures are required, but also that they work. Saving lives is of course more important than any business benefit, but the ultimate goal is not to suppress that benefit, but to maximize global vaccine production. The question is whether patent release is the best way to achieve this and, if not, what is the alternative.

Releasing patents, even temporarily, may not guarantee a short-term increase in production for three reasons. First, because a list of ingredients is not enough to produce vaccines. In a vaccine, the product is the process. And, in addition, a complex process: it is useless to achieve a messenger RNA if the appropriate lipids are not produced later to maintain it or its stabilization fails. Each phase is key, and one mistake ruins everything. If it were easy, pharmaceutical giants like Sanofi or Merck would not have failed to produce their own vaccine. In addition, mass production requires sophisticated supply logistics with many scarce raw materials in a global value chain.

Second, because to produce a vaccine,

know-how

and safety are crucial, and these are not transmitted so easily. Do we force engineers from Pfizer, Moderna or AstraZeneca to travel to other companies to teach them? Do we inoculate vaccines from new producers without subjecting them to lengthy clinical studies just because they are based on a manufacturing method that appears to work? In light of what happened with the AstraZeneca or Janssen vaccines, is that the best way for the public to maintain their confidence in vaccination?

And third, because the pandemic is not over.

There will be new dangerous mutations, there will be other threats, and in order to cope with them, innovation must be encouraged.

It is true that governments have contributed financially to this research, but in part.

And also that in emergency situations you have to be flexible with the rules of the game.

But let's not lose sight of the medium term and the incentives: if receiving public funds loses all the benefits of research, who will accept them in the future?

And this argument is valid for all innovations.

More information

  • What does the suspension of patents on vaccines imply?

    Keys to a historic US movement

  • Brussels is willing to discuss the release of patents for vaccines, but sees it more urgent to allow their export

But then what alternative is there? Because doing nothing is not an option, and global vaccination must be a top priority. The Director General of the WTO, Nigerian Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, defends a third way: negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to facilitate the licensing of vaccines to all companies capable of producing them, but following processes already guaranteed as safe and respecting intellectual property (and, therefore, the incentive for innovation). Of course, the pharmaceutical companies will have to be pressured if these licenses are not made at reasonable prices or if they are unjustifiably obstructed. And the US position may be, at heart, a credible way to establish that pressure. In parallel, it is essential to reform the productive capacities of many countries and, above all,provide more funds for poorer countries to have access to concessional vaccines by expanding the covax initiative.

It is curious that the United States, having banned the export of vaccines and accumulating large unused surpluses, now appears as the leader in flexibility with patents and the use of the WTO. And while the European Union, which has been much more generous and has never stopped exporting (including traditional US partners such as Israel or Canada), which has supported the covax initiative from the beginning and has always defended the WTO, may now appear as the bad guy, who only agrees to reluctantly discuss the issue.

The European Union must make it clear that vaccination is a global public good and that no effort should be spared to accelerate it. But, at the same time, you must avoid undermining the incentive for innovation, which is key in a knowledge economy like the one you are trying to support through the Recovery Fund. This can be done in a multilateral negotiating framework that does not exclude pharmaceutical companies (whose profits, on the other hand, must be reasonably taxed). The Union has the power and legitimacy to lobby and achieve reasonable prices for vaccines and their manufacturing licenses, as well as to provide resources to accelerate their worldwide acquisition and distribution. But it must be explained well.What it cannot afford now is to be accused of blocking a substantial increase in production in the short term, when it is quite possible that the forced release of patents will not guarantee it.

Enrique Feás

and

Federico Steinberg

are researchers at the Elcano Royal Institute.

Source: elparis

All news articles on 2021-05-08

You may like

Trends 24h

News/Politics 2024-03-28T06:04:53.137Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.