Harming Intellectual Property Protections Would Jeopardize Vaccine Progress
The biggest effort in the history of medicine is underway to eradicate the COVID-19 pandemic. The human and economic toll has been devastating, and governments have had few tools to defend their populations. That’s why it’s important to recognize the remarkable progress scientists have made to discover, and deliver, safe and effective vaccines and treatments. This triumph of ingenuity is a testament to the power of intellectual property (IP) protections, which have supercharged the abilities of our brightest scientific minds and most innovative companies.
As the pandemic began, activists made repeated calls for businesses to suspend IP protections, claiming they would impede R&D into vaccines and treatments. Today, even as innovators have provided us with several safe and effective vaccines, the same groups are again calling for the suspension of IP protections. Now, they’re suggesting the move would improve manufacturing and distribution, particularly to developing nations — and they’ve codified that suggestion into a proposal under consideration at the World Trade Organization. They’re wrong again.
And the stakes remain high: This proposal, if passed, will significantly impede our ability to vaccinate the world. The CEO of India’s Serum Institute said as much recently. And the evidence backs him up.
IP is the bedrock upon which today’s COVID-19 vaccines have been built. The timeline for COVID-19 vaccine development has been nothing short of miraculous — and would have been impossible absent the decades of research investment it built upon. IP gives ideas economic value. Without that legal foundation, private investment in breakthrough innovation simply isn’t viable.
Consider messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, the basis for two of the first vaccines approved by rigorous international regulators. Scientists discovered in 1961 that mRNA could be used to “reprogram” cells to battle disease. From that genesis, BioNTech and Moderna spent millions of dollars over the course of a decade conducting research — without knowing they would be able to recoup their costs. They took on such a risky venture, because they knew their ideas had value and wouldn’t be stolen once that value came to light.
IP means more partnerships and manufacturing. A claim frequently heard at the beginning of the pandemic was that IP is a barrier to collaboration and knowledge-sharing, but the biopharmaceutical community has made it clear that that’s not the case. The Pfizer-BioNTech partnership is one high profile example, recently extended to include help on manufacturing from Novartis. Other partnerships have been solidified between Bayer and CureVac, Moderna and Lonza, Novavax and Baxter. AstraZeneca is teaming up with the Serum Institute in India and more than 15 others around the world. Collectively, these efforts will drive the manufacture of at least 2 billion doses by the end of 2021.
All this experience goes to show that increasing capacity works best when: One, the vaccine developer shares their expertise and technical know-how with partner manufacturing organizations through licensing agreements, and two, the vaccine developer or their licensing partners invest in upgrades or adaptations to manufacturing facilities
These are the keys to scaling up — not forced technology transfer, like the WTO proposal argues. Not to mention, even if governments began forcing technology transfers, experts estimate that there are only 5 or 6 manufacturers with adequate infrastructure to deliver COVID-19 vaccines at the pace, scale, and quality needed. And even those manufacturers still must unpack the drug formula in question, address logistical and payment challenges, and adjust their production strategy. In short, “waiving IP” would add significant additional complexity to an already incredibly complex manufacturing and supply chain challenge.
It is essential that governments focus on genuine obstacles to access to COVID-19 vaccines and therapies — and they must avoid political, ideologically motivated, and ultimately counter-productive distractions, like overriding IP protections. They should tackle problems like: supply chain weaknesses; transport and storage logistics; trade barriers and regulatory bottlenecks; lacking health infrastructure; and vaccine hesitancy. They should look to solutions like COVAX.
We have made remarkable progress in a very short period, and we’re on track to defeat this pandemic, but upending the IP system — the platform that enabled the development of pandemic solutions in the first place — will only diminish our global response.
Robert Grant is senior director for International Affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Innovation Policy Center.
