8 ms·

Oxford pledged to donate rights to their Covid Vaccine, then sold them to pharma

136 points by kakoni 6y ago

sfsylvester 6y ago
I almost can't believe this is true. What possible reason could the Foundation urge such a destructive course of action on something that is so vital for humanity.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  > Some see the Gates Foundation, a heavy funder of Gavi, CEPI and many other vaccine projects, as supporting traditional patent rights for pharma companies. > “[Bill] Gates has staked out this outsized role in the vaccine world,” Love said. “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.”
- AndyMcConachie 6y ago
  I think the answer is money. Lots and lots of money.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Because the Gates Foundation is classic philanthropy: launder reputation of rich people and uphold the norms that allowed them to get rich in the first place.
- dageshi 6y ago
  Speed was the most important thing? Teaming up with a large drug company was the fastest way to determine if the drug was safe, effective and get it manufactured.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  Funny how little humanity invests in things that are vital for it. If something important is only invested in by monopolists, humanity has been caught with its pants down.
scotty79 6y ago
> Gates [...] “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity" Ok. That makes me change my opinion of old Bill Gates by 180deg. He is just as evil as when he was ruthless software businessman.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  And it doesn't even need to be evil: the wealthiest people will have so much status quo / survivorship bias that even if they do mean well, they're probably gonna screw up. Though yes in this case yes Bill Gates is a known-asshole from before, and I don't see any good evidence he changed. I agree.
  - ta988 6y ago
    Absolutely, wealth give the opportunity to handle single handedly things that should be collective decisions. One example, tax rebates for donations, that is forcing government to pay for a rich person ideologies. Doesnt mean that poor people cannot be assholes either, they just have less power (and less organization which could counter balance indivudual power)
- happyweasel 6y ago
  He is right, our whole society is based on that principle.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    So why majority of the most impactful invetions were done for taxpayers money not money acquired by restricting access to IP?
- Tenoke 6y ago
  At worst he is deluded or overstates the benefits and understates the negatives of the IP system but 'evil' is clearly a massive exaggeration given that he clearly does try to do good rather than hold this view to profit personally.
k12sosse 6y ago
The man who doesn't know the price of a sandwich just sold us out
scrollaway 6y ago
This is the key quote i can find in the article. Correct me if I missed something but I can't find evidence in this article that the Gates foundation pushed for exclusivity, but rather they pushed for getting the vaccine actually distributed. And all the comments about Gates' views on IP are third party. (Not that I don't believe them what with his past at MS but it doesn't make me think he pushed for exclusivity in any way) > Oxford backed off from its open-license pledge after the Gates Foundation urged it to find a big-company partner to get its vaccine to market. > “We went to Oxford and said, Hey, you’re doing brilliant work,” Bill Gates told reporters on June 3, a transcript shows. “But … you really need to team up.” The comments were first reported by Bloomberg. AstraZeneca may not have been a good choice either in the end. They're falling way behind their targets and are causing vaccine shortages right now. https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/150975/belgium-to-receive-less-than-half-of-expected-astrazeneca-vaccines/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/150975/b...
wiradikusuma 6y ago
It does not compute. "I (the govt) will give you (the pharma) billions for free if you work on a vaccine. If you fail, no worries. If you're successful, you can sell it however you want." It's like the opposite of VC. Can anyone explain such logic and why it's still in place?
- mola 6y ago
  Because vaccines are not good business for pharma companies (single dose, no return customers) but it is very good for society at large (and specifically for the economy) So government, which represents the public good invest the money so this will happen. But free market fanatics like gates cannot allow any solution which "does not compute" from that (your) perspective.
  - jacknews 6y ago
    I think selling 7bn of anything, is going to be profitable.
- scrollaway 6y ago
  It's a huge incentive to work on a product that is good for society, but not good for business.
  - guscost 6y ago
    “Good for society” is a con, and you fell for it. These companies (and/or their investors) squashed[0] a project to find other possible COVID-19 vaccines through human challenge trials. These companies do nothing to increase general health awareness, instead advertising “magic pill for X” directly to consumers. These companies finance a TV news industry that does nothing but harm to public health. They are as much to blame as any other player in this mess, and now they’re making billions selling a pathetic half-solution. It’s disgusting. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-coronavirus-speedy-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-co...
choeger 6y ago
And again we learn that IP rights are causing more bad than good. Especially in the case of mRNA we are effectively talking about software patents.
ABeeSea 6y ago
The article has one throw away line supporting the headline and then a lot of fluff. The WSJ journal article has a lot more background on the various parties behind this and the financial incentives. www.wsj.com/amp/articles/oxford-developed-covid-vaccine-then-scholars-clashed-over-money-11603300412 >One longtime Oxford donor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was assisting with Covid-19 efforts globally. In March, Prof. Bell says Trevor Mundel, head of the foundation’s global-health program, told him, “You guys need a partner.” >Prof. Bell says he told Profs. Gilbert and Hill that they had a conflict of interest in any talks between Oxford and potential partners, because of their ownership stake in Vaccitech. > Prof. Bell also didn’t want Vaccitech at the negotiating table, and considered it inconceivable that the company, with just a few dozen staff, could help coordinate a global vaccine rollout. > After 10 days of talks, AstraZeneca agreed to commit to global distribution that wouldn’t favor any one country or region. It also agreed to provide the vaccine at cost during the pandemic, or at least until next summer, pending terms they were still hashing out. U.K. government officials worked on a deal to pay up-front for doses. > Details of Oxford’s agreement with AstraZeneca are private. But a company spokesman said it guarantees to sell at no profit the roughly 3 billion doses for which it already has agreements in place. >The big drugmaker offered a sweetener: It said that as long as Vaccitech signed over its Covid-19 vaccine rights to Oxford to enable an exclusive license, AstraZeneca in turn promised to explore ways to collaborate with the small biotech firm, according to an agreement signed by Dr. Pangalos. The nonbinding agreement cited “AstraZeneca’s potential participation in Vaccitech’s proposed Series B financing.” > “The university didn’t enter this discussion with the idea of making a ton of money,” Prof. Bell says. But it didn’t want to be naïve, either: “Let’s say [the vaccine] becomes a seasonal coronavirus vaccine, and it sells a billion dollars a year. For us to be sitting there and making no money looks pretty dumb.”
- mjw1007 6y ago
  Reading the WSJ article, it's not at all clear what the benefit (to anyone) is of the university spinning out a small for-profit company like Vaccitech. As I understand it, the theory is that such a company will be able to commercially exploit research in a way a university couldn't. But if in practice commercially exploiting research means selling the rights to a global firm like AstraZeneca, it seems to me that nothing was gained.
AbrahamParangi 6y ago
As much as I’m sure Gates is a cutthroat bastard, I’m sure this was about distribution. Without IP exclusivity there’s no incentive for pharma distribution.
- Imnimo 6y ago
  Salk's polio vaccine was successfully distributed despite not being patented. If there was no incentive without exclusivity, how was that accomplished?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    Salk's polio vaccine wasn't distributed at cost price, was rolled out over years rather than months, and quality control issues meant thousands of vaccines with improperly inactivated virus actually caused polio in patients. Things have changed since then.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      Do you happen to know where I could read more about the logistics of the polio vaccine?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        I haven't read any detailed treatment of the subject but the book described here sounds like it would give you a very good overview of the issues and regulatory consequences [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  My god, pure ideology /Zizek The incentive is in the form of cash money from governments. Nobody is asserting the Pharma companies should build and run a manufacturing pipeline for free.
throwaway2245 6y ago
The HN headline has been editorialized to emphasise Bill Gates's contribution, when this was a decision of the University of Oxford.
dylan62 6y ago
Note that the Astrazeneca share price is about the same now as it was before the pandemic. So if there is some fortune to be made out of the vaccine, it seems the stock market has not yet noticed.
- foepys 6y ago
  Biontech and Moderna apparently are the only pharma companies with a higher stock price. But this is probably unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccine and more related to the mRNA process.
sk5t 6y ago
Sources? This article seems light on evidence and long on drawing conclusions.
Tenoke 6y ago
It's important to note that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is 5-10 times cheaper than all other vaccines which is overlooked here[0]. This is clearly not some quick profit grab, and there are likely good reasons behind it, some of which are hinted at. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minister-accidentally-tweets-eus-covid-vaccine-price-list https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minist...
yread 6y ago
I don't understand why is this bad? AZ is selling vaccines at cost, 20 times cheaper than moderna (which this article for some reason keeps mentioning) and they licensed (or just gave away?) it to generic manufacturers in India and elsewhere to produce cheaply (which the article does not mention?)
orange_tee 6y ago
It is my belief that society should not be dependent on the goodwill of free entities, and free entities should not be pressured to do "good" even when it goes against their interests. I do not hold it against them that they decided to profit out of their opportunity. Why shouldn't they?
- aiisjustanif 6y ago
  They could do that if they want, but they said they wouldn’t. Still hypocritical. Ultimately society should be dependent on taxation not philanthropy. One is guaranteed.
tschellenbach 6y ago
This is a terrible piece of writing. It claims here that Gates is evil since he recommended Oxford partner up with AstraZeneca. There is no analysis whatsoever about that why that might have been a good idea. Here's one, the companies with the production capacity might not want to produce something they don't own... (actually the article says as much if you scroll all the way to the bottom) Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem. Another one: "this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government". If I'm negotiating with a freelance developer and need help tomorrow, do you think it makes sense to haggle on price? I definitely wouldn't.
- croes 6y ago
  In a global pandemic with lots of people dying a company doesn't want to produce a vaccine they don't own, sounds pretty evil to me and to urge Oxford to sell their research instead of donating it isn't any better. So it remains, the wealthy can afford their healthcare, the poor dependent on "kind" donors and the rest is fucked. Seems to me like Gates didn't want to lose his leverage.
  - open-source-ux 6y ago
    That's not entirely fair. The other view: Oxford University pairs with a company with the global logistics and manufacturing capability to create billions of vaccine in record time. I much prefer the idea of a royalty-free vaccine open to all, but I also understand the more practical route of working with a company if it means faster delivery where time is of the essence. The article posted here purposefully omits the cost price of the Oxford vaccine which is approximately £3 ($5). Even if AstraZeneca were to add a profit margin of a few dollars to the cost price (e.g. bring the cost to $10) that would still be cheaper than the vaccines from Biotech/Pfizer and Moderna. Also, Oxford has always insited that they wanted to create a vaccine that would be as cheap as possible to manufacture so it would be affordable to treat people around the world.
guscost 6y ago
Remember this is the same pharma industry that: - Squashed support for COVID-19 human challenge trials[0], claiming it was “too risky” while standing to profit enormously from their own brand-new MRNA vaccines - Did less than nothing to promote general immune health, spread awareness of ubiquitous seasonal Vitamin D deficiency at high latitudes, etc - Just got a back-scratch from the new administration, which canceled an order to increase price transparency for insulin and EpiPens The system is completely broken, from top to bottom. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-coronavirus-speedy-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-co...
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > - Did less than nothing to promote general immune health, spread awareness of ubiquitous seasonal Vitamin D deficiency at high latitudes, etc Is this the pharma industries job?
Apreche 6y ago
Eminent Domain
underdeserver 6y ago
People in this thread are denouncing the involvement of a commercial company as "evil", all the while forgetting that handling the logistics and assembly-line required for mass producing hundreds of millions of doses made of very specific biological compounds is not something a university is equipped to do.
- underdeserver 6y ago
  Also, the cost of the vaccine is, for every high-income state, so vastly lower than the lost income in tax / domestic product that all countries can easily subsidize it. Also, there is COVAX which already purchased nearly 3 billion doses for poorer countries[1]. So until you can show me that this partnership caused direct harm to people, and that the risk of this taking more time than it has is small, I call BS. [1] https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashboard https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashbo...
- aiisjustanif 6y ago
  That’s not the point. It’s still hypocritical, you can donate the IP still and still mass distribute it.
- anigbrowl 6y ago
  Not true.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Many universities actually do, and many more governments too.
Proven 6y ago
Why should I care, it wasn't my property and it's not like I have to pay anyway. Their property, their decision.
sgt101 6y ago
Note that in the article prices for $37 a dose are given for the other vaccines, but no price for the Oxford vaccine is provided - I believe that it's $4 a dose. Why the journalist couldn't provide that information I don't know.
nemo44x 6y ago
I find it difficult to complain about “the way things are” when this system has allowed us to develop and manufacture multiple effective vaccines in record time. Where is the problem? Without government funding to spur research quickly then fewer companies would risk it and those that did find an effective vaccine would sell them for whatever the market would pay - which is a lot more than what they are going for now. By funding the research the governments at least have a claim of hoarding the vaccine rather than letting market participants bid on it. And this would mean millions of not-rich people wouldn’t get it for a long time. At least now it’s based on need and not ability to pay to protect your life and is actually available.
mhb 6y ago
Maybe it would be fruitful to understand why there were 20 companies making vaccines for the US in the 1970s and only 4 now.
- dashodges 6y ago
  This business trend extends well beyond pharmaceuticals/vaccine makers (see the auto industry). As an industry matures it also tends to consolidate. There are many economic factors that drive this and we shouldn't assume foul play. https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve
- pas 6y ago
  Making as in manufacturing should be separated from R&D anyway. And basically Big Pharma is mostly about manufacturing and risk management (investing in trials, marketing, PR).
pelasaco 6y ago
any reference to "A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course."?
- helmsb 6y ago
  The closest I could find was a reference in the WSJ that said that Gates told them they needed a manufacturing partner which makes sense if you want to get vaccines manufactured and in people’s arms. Doesn’t seem like a nefarious acknowledgement to me at least. www.wsj.com/amp/articles/oxford-developed-covid-vaccine-then-scholars-clashed-over-money-11603300412
  - pelasaco 6y ago
    true. Sounds like reasonable to me.

136 points by kakoni 6y ago

I almost can't believe this is true. What possible reason could the Foundation urge such a destructive course of action on something that is so vital for humanity.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> Some see the Gates Foundation, a heavy funder of Gavi, CEPI and many other vaccine projects, as supporting traditional patent rights for pharma companies. > “[Bill] Gates has staked out this outsized role in the vaccine world,” Love said. “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity.”
AndyMcConachie 6y ago
I think the answer is money. Lots and lots of money.
Ericson2314 6y ago
Because the Gates Foundation is classic philanthropy: launder reputation of rich people and uphold the norms that allowed them to get rich in the first place.
dageshi 6y ago
Speed was the most important thing? Teaming up with a large drug company was the fastest way to determine if the drug was safe, effective and get it manufactured.
Chris2048 6y ago
Funny how little humanity invests in things that are vital for it. If something important is only invested in by monopolists, humanity has been caught with its pants down.

scotty79 6y ago

> Gates [...] “He has an ideological belief that the intellectual property system is a wonderful mechanism that is necessary for innovation and prosperity" Ok. That makes me change my opinion of old Bill Gates by 180deg. He is just as evil as when he was ruthless software businessman.

Ericson2314 6y ago
And it doesn't even need to be evil: the wealthiest people will have so much status quo / survivorship bias that even if they do mean well, they're probably gonna screw up. Though yes in this case yes Bill Gates is a known-asshole from before, and I don't see any good evidence he changed. I agree.
- ta988 6y ago
  Absolutely, wealth give the opportunity to handle single handedly things that should be collective decisions. One example, tax rebates for donations, that is forcing government to pay for a rich person ideologies. Doesnt mean that poor people cannot be assholes either, they just have less power (and less organization which could counter balance indivudual power)
happyweasel 6y ago
He is right, our whole society is based on that principle.
- scotty79 6y ago
  So why majority of the most impactful invetions were done for taxpayers money not money acquired by restricting access to IP?
Tenoke 6y ago
At worst he is deluded or overstates the benefits and understates the negatives of the IP system but 'evil' is clearly a massive exaggeration given that he clearly does try to do good rather than hold this view to profit personally.

k12sosse 6y ago

The man who doesn't know the price of a sandwich just sold us out

scrollaway 6y ago

This is the key quote i can find in the article. Correct me if I missed something but I can't find evidence in this article that the Gates foundation pushed for exclusivity, but rather they pushed for getting the vaccine actually distributed. And all the comments about Gates' views on IP are third party. (Not that I don't believe them what with his past at MS but it doesn't make me think he pushed for exclusivity in any way) > Oxford backed off from its open-license pledge after the Gates Foundation urged it to find a big-company partner to get its vaccine to market. > “We went to Oxford and said, Hey, you’re doing brilliant work,” Bill Gates told reporters on June 3, a transcript shows. “But … you really need to team up.” The comments were first reported by Bloomberg. AstraZeneca may not have been a good choice either in the end. They're falling way behind their targets and are causing vaccine shortages right now. https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/150975/belgium-to-receive-less-than-half-of-expected-astrazeneca-vaccines/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/news/belgium-all-news/150975/b...

wiradikusuma 6y ago

It does not compute. "I (the govt) will give you (the pharma) billions for free if you work on a vaccine. If you fail, no worries. If you're successful, you can sell it however you want." It's like the opposite of VC. Can anyone explain such logic and why it's still in place?

mola 6y ago
Because vaccines are not good business for pharma companies (single dose, no return customers) but it is very good for society at large (and specifically for the economy) So government, which represents the public good invest the money so this will happen. But free market fanatics like gates cannot allow any solution which "does not compute" from that (your) perspective.
- jacknews 6y ago
  I think selling 7bn of anything, is going to be profitable.
scrollaway 6y ago
It's a huge incentive to work on a product that is good for society, but not good for business.
- guscost 6y ago
  “Good for society” is a con, and you fell for it. These companies (and/or their investors) squashed[0] a project to find other possible COVID-19 vaccines through human challenge trials. These companies do nothing to increase general health awareness, instead advertising “magic pill for X” directly to consumers. These companies finance a TV news industry that does nothing but harm to public health. They are as much to blame as any other player in this mess, and now they’re making billions selling a pathetic half-solution. It’s disgusting. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-coronavirus-speedy-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-co...

choeger 6y ago

And again we learn that IP rights are causing more bad than good. Especially in the case of mRNA we are effectively talking about software patents.

ABeeSea 6y ago

The article has one throw away line supporting the headline and then a lot of fluff. The WSJ journal article has a lot more background on the various parties behind this and the financial incentives. www.wsj.com/amp/articles/oxford-developed-covid-vaccine-then-scholars-clashed-over-money-11603300412 >One longtime Oxford donor, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, was assisting with Covid-19 efforts globally. In March, Prof. Bell says Trevor Mundel, head of the foundation’s global-health program, told him, “You guys need a partner.” >Prof. Bell says he told Profs. Gilbert and Hill that they had a conflict of interest in any talks between Oxford and potential partners, because of their ownership stake in Vaccitech. > Prof. Bell also didn’t want Vaccitech at the negotiating table, and considered it inconceivable that the company, with just a few dozen staff, could help coordinate a global vaccine rollout. > After 10 days of talks, AstraZeneca agreed to commit to global distribution that wouldn’t favor any one country or region. It also agreed to provide the vaccine at cost during the pandemic, or at least until next summer, pending terms they were still hashing out. U.K. government officials worked on a deal to pay up-front for doses. > Details of Oxford’s agreement with AstraZeneca are private. But a company spokesman said it guarantees to sell at no profit the roughly 3 billion doses for which it already has agreements in place. >The big drugmaker offered a sweetener: It said that as long as Vaccitech signed over its Covid-19 vaccine rights to Oxford to enable an exclusive license, AstraZeneca in turn promised to explore ways to collaborate with the small biotech firm, according to an agreement signed by Dr. Pangalos. The nonbinding agreement cited “AstraZeneca’s potential participation in Vaccitech’s proposed Series B financing.” > “The university didn’t enter this discussion with the idea of making a ton of money,” Prof. Bell says. But it didn’t want to be naïve, either: “Let’s say [the vaccine] becomes a seasonal coronavirus vaccine, and it sells a billion dollars a year. For us to be sitting there and making no money looks pretty dumb.”

mjw1007 6y ago
Reading the WSJ article, it's not at all clear what the benefit (to anyone) is of the university spinning out a small for-profit company like Vaccitech. As I understand it, the theory is that such a company will be able to commercially exploit research in a way a university couldn't. But if in practice commercially exploiting research means selling the rights to a global firm like AstraZeneca, it seems to me that nothing was gained.

AbrahamParangi 6y ago

As much as I’m sure Gates is a cutthroat bastard, I’m sure this was about distribution. Without IP exclusivity there’s no incentive for pharma distribution.

Imnimo 6y ago
Salk's polio vaccine was successfully distributed despite not being patented. If there was no incentive without exclusivity, how was that accomplished?
- notahacker 6y ago
  Salk's polio vaccine wasn't distributed at cost price, was rolled out over years rather than months, and quality control issues meant thousands of vaccines with improperly inactivated virus actually caused polio in patients. Things have changed since then.
  - elliekelly 6y ago
    Do you happen to know where I could read more about the logistics of the polio vaccine?
    - notahacker 6y ago
      I haven't read any detailed treatment of the subject but the book described here sounds like it would give you a very good overview of the issues and regulatory consequences [1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383764/
anigbrowl 6y ago
My god, pure ideology /Zizek The incentive is in the form of cash money from governments. Nobody is asserting the Pharma companies should build and run a manufacturing pipeline for free.

throwaway2245 6y ago

The HN headline has been editorialized to emphasise Bill Gates's contribution, when this was a decision of the University of Oxford.

dylan62 6y ago

Note that the Astrazeneca share price is about the same now as it was before the pandemic. So if there is some fortune to be made out of the vaccine, it seems the stock market has not yet noticed.

foepys 6y ago
Biontech and Moderna apparently are the only pharma companies with a higher stock price. But this is probably unrelated to the COVID-19 vaccine and more related to the mRNA process.

sk5t 6y ago

Sources? This article seems light on evidence and long on drawing conclusions.

Tenoke 6y ago

It's important to note that the Oxford/AZ vaccine is 5-10 times cheaper than all other vaccines which is overlooked here[0]. This is clearly not some quick profit grab, and there are likely good reasons behind it, some of which are hinted at. 0. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minister-accidentally-tweets-eus-covid-vaccine-price-list https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/18/belgian-minist...

yread 6y ago

I don't understand why is this bad? AZ is selling vaccines at cost, 20 times cheaper than moderna (which this article for some reason keeps mentioning) and they licensed (or just gave away?) it to generic manufacturers in India and elsewhere to produce cheaply (which the article does not mention?)

orange_tee 6y ago

It is my belief that society should not be dependent on the goodwill of free entities, and free entities should not be pressured to do "good" even when it goes against their interests. I do not hold it against them that they decided to profit out of their opportunity. Why shouldn't they?

aiisjustanif 6y ago
They could do that if they want, but they said they wouldn’t. Still hypocritical. Ultimately society should be dependent on taxation not philanthropy. One is guaranteed.

tschellenbach 6y ago

This is a terrible piece of writing. It claims here that Gates is evil since he recommended Oxford partner up with AstraZeneca. There is no analysis whatsoever about that why that might have been a good idea. Here's one, the companies with the production capacity might not want to produce something they don't own... (actually the article says as much if you scroll all the way to the bottom) Also just assuming that someone who donates billions is evil without any research whatsoever is just lazy clickbait journalism. Next it talks about how businesses profit from this. While true it's also totally misses the point. The economist wrote an article on how the world is vastly underspending on solving this problem. Another one: "this should have expected better negotiation on the part of the U.S. government". If I'm negotiating with a freelance developer and need help tomorrow, do you think it makes sense to haggle on price? I definitely wouldn't.

croes 6y ago
In a global pandemic with lots of people dying a company doesn't want to produce a vaccine they don't own, sounds pretty evil to me and to urge Oxford to sell their research instead of donating it isn't any better. So it remains, the wealthy can afford their healthcare, the poor dependent on "kind" donors and the rest is fucked. Seems to me like Gates didn't want to lose his leverage.
- open-source-ux 6y ago
  That's not entirely fair. The other view: Oxford University pairs with a company with the global logistics and manufacturing capability to create billions of vaccine in record time. I much prefer the idea of a royalty-free vaccine open to all, but I also understand the more practical route of working with a company if it means faster delivery where time is of the essence. The article posted here purposefully omits the cost price of the Oxford vaccine which is approximately £3 ($5). Even if AstraZeneca were to add a profit margin of a few dollars to the cost price (e.g. bring the cost to $10) that would still be cheaper than the vaccines from Biotech/Pfizer and Moderna. Also, Oxford has always insited that they wanted to create a vaccine that would be as cheap as possible to manufacture so it would be affordable to treat people around the world.

guscost 6y ago

Remember this is the same pharma industry that: - Squashed support for COVID-19 human challenge trials[0], claiming it was “too risky” while standing to profit enormously from their own brand-new MRNA vaccines - Did less than nothing to promote general immune health, spread awareness of ubiquitous seasonal Vitamin D deficiency at high latitudes, etc - Just got a back-scratch from the new administration, which canceled an order to increase price transparency for insulin and EpiPens The system is completely broken, from top to bottom. [0] https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-coronavirus-speedy-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/23/challenge-trials-live-co...

Chris2048 6y ago
> - Did less than nothing to promote general immune health, spread awareness of ubiquitous seasonal Vitamin D deficiency at high latitudes, etc Is this the pharma industries job?

Apreche 6y ago

Eminent Domain

underdeserver 6y ago

People in this thread are denouncing the involvement of a commercial company as "evil", all the while forgetting that handling the logistics and assembly-line required for mass producing hundreds of millions of doses made of very specific biological compounds is not something a university is equipped to do.

underdeserver 6y ago
Also, the cost of the vaccine is, for every high-income state, so vastly lower than the lost income in tax / domestic product that all countries can easily subsidize it. Also, there is COVAX which already purchased nearly 3 billion doses for poorer countries[1]. So until you can show me that this partnership caused direct harm to people, and that the risk of this taking more time than it has is small, I call BS. [1] https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashboard https://www.unicef.org/supply/covid-19-vaccine-market-dashbo...
aiisjustanif 6y ago
That’s not the point. It’s still hypocritical, you can donate the IP still and still mass distribute it.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Not true.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Many universities actually do, and many more governments too.

Proven 6y ago

Why should I care, it wasn't my property and it's not like I have to pay anyway. Their property, their decision.

sgt101 6y ago

Note that in the article prices for $37 a dose are given for the other vaccines, but no price for the Oxford vaccine is provided - I believe that it's $4 a dose. Why the journalist couldn't provide that information I don't know.

nemo44x 6y ago

I find it difficult to complain about “the way things are” when this system has allowed us to develop and manufacture multiple effective vaccines in record time. Where is the problem? Without government funding to spur research quickly then fewer companies would risk it and those that did find an effective vaccine would sell them for whatever the market would pay - which is a lot more than what they are going for now. By funding the research the governments at least have a claim of hoarding the vaccine rather than letting market participants bid on it. And this would mean millions of not-rich people wouldn’t get it for a long time. At least now it’s based on need and not ability to pay to protect your life and is actually available.

mhb 6y ago

Maybe it would be fruitful to understand why there were 20 companies making vaccines for the US in the 1970s and only 4 now.

dashodges 6y ago
This business trend extends well beyond pharmaceuticals/vaccine makers (see the auto industry). As an industry matures it also tends to consolidate. There are many economic factors that drive this and we shouldn't assume foul play. https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve https://hbr.org/2002/12/the-consolidation-curve
pas 6y ago
Making as in manufacturing should be separated from R&D anyway. And basically Big Pharma is mostly about manufacturing and risk management (investing in trials, marketing, PR).

pelasaco 6y ago

any reference to "A few weeks later, Oxford—urged on by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—reversed course."?

helmsb 6y ago
The closest I could find was a reference in the WSJ that said that Gates told them they needed a manufacturing partner which makes sense if you want to get vaccines manufactured and in people’s arms. Doesn’t seem like a nefarious acknowledgement to me at least. www.wsj.com/amp/articles/oxford-developed-covid-vaccine-then-scholars-clashed-over-money-11603300412
- pelasaco 6y ago
  true. Sounds like reasonable to me.