[Ip-health] Independent: Coronavirus vaccine: US Chamber of Commerce calls for more transparency from big pharma over licensing deals

Thiru Balasubramaniam thiru at keionline.org
Fri Jun 12 03:46:23 PDT 2020


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-vaccine-us-chamber-commerce-covid-19-trials-astrazeneca-johnson-sanofi-a9558926.html

Coronavirus vaccine: US Chamber of Commerce calls for more transparency
from big pharma over licensing deals

Finer details surrounding recent agreements struck between pharmaceutical
giants and governments remain absent

Samuel Lovett @samueljlovett
Friday 12 June 2020 08:34

The US Chamber of Commerce, the largest lobbying group in America and the
leading voice for corporate power in Washington, has suggested that more
transparency is needed surrounding the Covid-19 vaccine deals that are
being struck between pharmaceutical firms and governments.

More than 150 vaccine candidates are currently being developed across the
world, with numerous industry collaborations between the private and public
sectors serving to bolster these efforts.

A handful of these candidates have already entered into human clinical
trials, raising hope that a viable vaccine could be made available by the
end of the year.

Pharmaceutical giants such as AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Sanofi are
among those leading the race to develop a form of immunisation against
Covid-19, and have each promised to make billions of doses available
globally on a non-for-profit basis if their vaccines prove effective.

At the same time, these companies, which have received billions in public
money from governments, have already entered into a number of agreements
committing them to the production of millions of doses for their investors.

Last month, the UK government announced a £65.5m deal with AstraZeneca,
which was earlier granted the licensing for the promising Oxford University
vaccine, that will see the firm deliver a total of 100 million doses for
people in Britain.

In a similar move, the Trump administration has committed £969m in funding
to the company in return for 300 million doses, the first of which could be
available for American citizens as early as October.

AzstraZeneca and Serum Institute of India, one of the largest manufacturers
in the world, have also reached a multimillion licensing agreement to
supply one billion doses to middle and low income countries, including
India.

However, the finer details surrounding these deals remain absent. Earlier
this month, health campaigners demanded that the pharmaceutical sector
release the full terms of the licensing agreements, including production
costs, prices (both during the pandemic and once it is declared over) and
full disclosure of public investment.

The US Chamber of Commerce, which has spent more than $1.6bn on lobbying
the federal government over the past two decades, has seemingly echoed
these calls for heightened transparency as America’s leading
pharmaceuticals step up efforts to develop a vaccine.

“This is a unique situation and I feel comfortable saying that a higher
level of transparency is warranted, especially given the unusual public
sector contribution to some of the efforts that are ongoing,” Patrick
Kilbride, a senior vice president of the US Chamber’s Global Innovation
Policy Centre (GIPC), told The Independent.

“As a citizen, I would certainly expect to understand how a government was
working with different players and private industry to deliver a vaccine or
a therapy.

“The short answer is yes [more transparency is needed]. But we don’t have a
clear-cut US Chamber position on that.”

However, the US Chamber stopped short of supporting demands for
pharmaceuticals to relinquish patent and intellectual property (IP) rights,
arguing that they should not simply be perceived as a “reward or bonus”
that follows a discovery.

“Our experience working with our members is that the real effective IP
comes long before companies are a granted a patent or trademark,” he said.

“It’s the system itself, the reliability of the system, the enforceability
of the rights that enables the company to make long-term, high-risk
investments over many years.

“It creates a platform where these companies can say ‘let’s try this and
this’.”

Mr Kilbride acknowledged that while some companies had already indicated
they do not intend to make a profit off their potential vaccines, other
firms were unable to make similar commitments.

“What’s important is that government is not rushed to judgement, that they
don’t create a preemptive mechanism that waives rights through this crisis,
but that they really consider circumstances and take it on a case-by-case
basis.”

Numerous firms have already dismissed an initiative set up by the World
Health Organisation (WHO), called the Covid-19 Technology Access Pool
(C-TAP), which encourages governments and pharmaceutical groups to share
data, IP and manufacturing know-how.

So far, 37 countries including Norway, the Netherlands and Mexico have
signed up to C-TAP, but Dr Albert Bourla, chief executive of Pfizer,
described the scheme as “nonsense”.

“At this point of time it’s also dangerous,” he said earlier this month.
“There’s a giant effort right now happening to find a solution. The risks
we are taking [represent] billions of dollars and the chances of developing
something are still not very good.”

AstraZeneca’s chief executive, Pascal Soriot, said: “I think IP is a
fundamental part of our industry and if you don’t protect IP, then
essentially there is no incentive for anybody to innovate.”

Despite such resistance from the industry, the pandemic has already brought
the private and public sectors together in a way not previously seen, the
US Chamber said.

“There’s this enormous and unprecedented mobilisation of R& D by business,
and to a certain extent added to by government and various other
non-governmental organisations,” Robert Grant, director of international
policy at the GIPC, told The Independent.

“So many of the companies are working together in partnership both with the
government and one another to share intelligence, research, licensing and
so on so forth. It really is a considerable collective effort that is
typically much less common in non-crisis times. The spectre of this
monopolist charging exorbitant prices is a bit of phantom.”

Mr Kilbride also acknowledged the dangerous prospect of governments
scrambling to secure their own populations’ vaccine and treatment needs,
instead of prioritising global efforts to fight Covid-19, as has already
been seen with the advance purchase orders made by countries.

“You certainly have seen some of that nationalism emerge from certain
governments, including our own,” he said. “But the business community
though is truly global. Companies that we represent research, manufacture
and distribute everywhere in the world.

“I think they realise that in the very immediate term avoiding supply chain
disruption is absolutely critical to being able to deliver the solutions
that all of us want. A collaborative approach to the production and
distribution of those products is absolutely essential.

“Vaccine nationalism is definitely not the answer.”

-- 
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International
41 22 791 6727
thiru at keionline.org


More information about the Ip-health mailing list