United Kingdom

Time for pharma giants to be the heroes, not the villains

However, before everyone gets carried away it is important to realise that the announcement is, at this stage, largely symbolic. 

The initial measure was proposed at the World Trade Organisation by India and South Africa back in October. The US has now said it will participate in those talks but they could well drag on for many more months. Even if passed by the WTO, the whole thing could easily get bogged down in a morass of litigation.

What’s more, WTO rules already allow countries to waive patents in a public health emergency and issue “compulsory licenses” for the necessary drugs. Countries can define for themselves what constitutes an emergency. It is hard to see what a patent waiver would achieve that the rules don’t already allow for. 

There’s also a strong argument that the main impediment to a global roll-out of jabs is not intellectual property but manufacturing know-how. Just because you have the recipe for something doesn’t mean you can make it. 

Indeed, even AstraZeneca, which until very recently had quite limited experience in viral vector vaccine development, has had its fair share of production issues (much to the EU’s ire). The Pfizer and Moderna jabs are both based on mRNA, a new form of vaccine that is incredibly difficult to both make and distribute. 

Then there is the pharmaceutical industry’s most forceful argument: that any patent waiver would set a dangerous precedent and would deter companies from making future investments in drug discovery in the knowledge that their intellectual property could be confiscated at the whim of global governments.

Why, then, has the US made this move? Because symbolism is important. As Joe Biden’s top trade adviser Katherine Tai said: “The extraordinary circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.”

For starters, the decision is a clear repudiation of the Trump era. Protectionism is out and multilateralism is back; the walled MAGA fortress is being pulled down and replaced with Ronald Regan’s “shining city upon a hill”. It is acknowledgement that intellectual property rights may be important but pale somewhat compared to the human and economic disaster of failing to contain a global pandemic. 

But the motivation may be as strategic as it is humanitarian. Today’s hyper-connected supply chains mean that the global economy is not going to fully recover until Covid has been suppressed across most of the world. In recent days there have, for example, been signs that the huge wave of infections in India is hurting the shipping industry, as the country is one of the main sources of sea crew. 

There are longer term diplomatic considerations at stake too. While the developed world has mostly been hoarding vaccines, China and Russia have been attempting to fill the vacuum in South America, Africa, and large swathes of Asia by either sending supplies of their vaccines or licensing countries to make them. The US is doubtless keen to curtail this soft power play or at least respond in kind.

This initiative will also show that the WTO, which has taken quite a beating in recent years, is indeed a forum that can broker compromise. In fact, if the drug companies could ignore their immediate concerns they might realise that surrendering a little ground now might help revive the main supranational body for policing global patents in the future. 

Might the US announcement also be something of a bluff or feint? Maybe the waiver is not really necessary and will never come to pass. But the move will put pressure on the drug companies to be more flexible in agreeing to licensing and technology transfer requests from poorer countries. 

If it’s true that a waiver would set a dangerous precedent and disincentivise future research, it’s now down to the drug companies to head off the threat at the pass (or at least get it rebranded as a “temporary moratorium”) by being as accommodating as possible. Plus, this way they get to cast themselves as the heroes rather than the villains.

In 2001, the year after 2.4m people in sub-Saharan Africa had died from the effects of Aids, 42 drug companies sued South Africa for ignoring patents on anti-HIV medicines. Arguably, the pharmaceutical industry is still dealing with the PR fallout from that decision to this day. 

Time for the drug companies to take a leaf out of the Biden administration's playbook and get a bit more strategic. 

There are few more contentious and confounding moral issues in the modern world than drug patents. It's hard to think of another area where commercial logic so frequently butts heads with societal need and capitalism can pose such ethical angst. 

Despite the strong views it evokes, the issue is far from binary; your perspective can flip 180 degrees depending on the context and the timeframe over which you try to balance the pros and cons. If you have the ability to cure a disease, how can you withhold it from those in need?

Then again, if the drugmakers don’t have the ability to protect their intellectual property and recoup their often vast and risky investments, where’s the incentive to develop that know-how in the first place? 

While it may make us uncomfortable that companies are profiting from misery, the alternative could well be far more misery. What best serves humanity now might well be detrimental in the longer run. And then a pandemic sweeps across the world, killing people in their millions and bringing the global economy to a juddering halt. Does that tip the balance? 

On Wednesday night, the US said that it would support a temporary waiver of Covid vaccine patents that would allow any pharmaceutical manufacturer in the world to make “copycat” drugs. In theory this would allow poorer countries to ramp up their production of Covid jabs in an attempt to defeat the pandemic. 

This is obviously an enormous moment. The US has long been one of the most stalwart defenders of intellectual property rights on the world stage.

The announcement will heap pressure on the UK, the EU and others to follow suit and has already prompted fury from drugmakers, many of which have suffered sharp share price falls. 

Football news:

Smertin recalls Euro 2004: he almost fought in the joints, defended against the young Cristiano and understood the excitement of the Bridge
Gareth Southgate: We shouldn't be football snobs. In matches with top teams, diversity is important
Leonid Slutsky: I am still sure that the Finnish national team is the outsider of our group. They were very lucky against Denmark
I'm not a racist! Arnautovic apologized for insulting the players of the national team of North Macedonia
Gary Lineker: Mbappe is a world-class star, he will replace Ronaldo, but not Messi. Leo does things that others are not capable of
The Spanish fan has been going to the matches of the national team since 1979. He came to the Euro with the famous drum (he could have lost it during the lockdown)
Ronaldo removed the sponsored Coca-Cola at a press conference. Cristiano is strongly against sugar - does not even advertise it