13 ms·
WHO asks South African startup to replicate Moderna's mRNA vaccine
- spoonjim 5y agoWhy not just buy out Moderna’s IP? Give them what they would make on this, $10 billion or $20 billion or whatever, and take the IP by eminent domain. Would still be a bargain.
- vadfa 5y agoGive them $10 billion and spread the cost over those who get vaccinated.
- rp1 5y agoModerna is currently worth over 100B, purely based on their IP. It would be a lot of money to buy them out.
- spoonjim 5y agoYes but you'd only buy out the Covid-19 IP, not the whole company. And $100B is a small part of what we've spent fighting this pandemic.
- rp1 5y agoI don’t think you can separate the COVID IP from their other IP as all of their IP is based on manufacturing lipid nanoparticle delivery vessels. If you took this IP, this rest wouldn’t be worth very much.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> As to why WHO has chosen to try to copy Moderna rather than the other mRNA COVID vaccine, which is made by Pfizer BioNTech, Friede says the choice was practical. "Moderna has reiterated on several occasions that they will not enforce their intellectual property during the pandemic," says Friede. In other words, a manufacturer probably won't face a lawsuit for producing a vaccine that's virtually identical to Moderna's. Wow. What an ass move. I'm not a fan of unlimited IP rights when it comes to something like a vaccine, but the WHO weaponizing a company's goodwill like this against sort of reeks.
- blacksmith_tb 5y agoHmm, I guess my instinct is just the opposite, it's shocking that anyone in the world should be denied the information needed to produce their own vaccines. Even without the larger discussion of IP, is there any doubt that Moderna and Pfizer have recouped their costs many, many times over already?
- creato 5y agoHow many Modernas and Pfizers tried this and failed? The expected value of work like this should be greater than one on average, not just close to one among the successful attempts.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- munk-a 5y agoI know Canada, at least, committed to buying vaccine doses really early on in the development by multiple companies - I think that even the failed vaccine development programs were in effect pretty heavily subsidized by governments across the world.
- thatguy0900 5y agoAt some point making money shouldnt be the focus. Thus was a global pandemic.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- darkarmani 5y agoWe want a robust economy around novel vaccine creation. What company would prioritize this kind of vaccine research that is high risk/high reward if you take away the reward? You are changing the bet from double or nothing to "maybe a little bit" or nothing.
- jsisto 5y agoWasn't Moderna funded by taxpayer money? If so shouldn't they be obligated to share the recipe?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- asadlionpk 5y agoThat wasn't part of the deal.
- redisman 5y agoSocialized losses, private gains
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThis approach was tried in the past century, and what ends up happening is a bunch of IP paperwork but no one willing to do the work. It’s an interesting tragedy of the commons in terms of the game theory. Otherwise, the person that figures out the hard work of scale up is the only one that doesn’t benefit, because the only winner is the fast follower. Governments don’t work nights and weekend to scale industrial supply chains (hint: because they can print money).
- yboris 5y agoAn promising approach to solving these problems comes from Health Impact Fund which aims to "Delink the price of drugs from the cost of research." https://healthimpactfund.org/en/ https://healthimpactfund.org/en/
- thatguy0900 5y agoGovernments were willing to drop billions on this. Is that really not enough? How much would they need as a one time payment to be worth it?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
- fasteddie31003 5y agoThere are probably tons of trade secrets that go into mRNA vaccine tech. It's fair game if you can figure them out they are not patented.
- mrRandomGuy 5y agoA company that got a massive transfusion of US taxpayer cash to help them do X suddenly deciding to screw over the very people who funded them? Where have I heard this before....
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThe genetic sequence is in this 400 page patent (lol): https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10702600.pdf https://www.modernatx.com/sites/default/files/US10702600.pdf Moderna has released the sequence. The ‘recipe’ is how to actually make it at scale without denaturing everything. This is what takes the billions of R&D investment and kills most research programs (also called the ‘valley of death’ in innovation group research).
- dljsjr 5y agoIt’s not the sequencing that’s the issue. The article even says that one of the hardest things to crack is the lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanism.
- ampdepolymerase 5y agoThe micelles are easily worth a biotech unicorn. Of course they aren't going to be public.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoProbably can’t simply decouple micelles with the sequence it is trying to deliver. Maybe if you could…
- q1w2 5y ago...and that isn't restricted to this vaccine, and is a major chunk of their IP. If the WHO/UN/whomever wants to make that general technology public, they should buy it from them. In the interim, Moderna has said it would help anyone manufacture the covid vaccine. What the WHO is asking for goes well beyond that. OP's article is just an anti-pharma hit piece.
- gpm 5y agoThe fact that this is necessary, should invalidate any patent protection that Moderna (and Pfizer) have on the vaccine. Patents are supposed to work as a quid quo pro, you disclose the invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly. If it takes significant work to reverse engineer the invention, that quid quo pro hasn't been met, the patent should be considered invalid. If Moderna and Pfizer want to protect the vaccine via trade secrets, from an intellectual property that's fine, but they shouldn't have any government defence against reverse engineering. (Note: Talking in moral terms here, there is some legal support for the argument, at least in Canada (not sure about the US), but I wouldn't suggest that I could predict which way the case would go without a lot more information. For an example case along these lines from Canada, see: https://www.pharmainbrief.com/2017/08/fca-upholds-gilead-victory-invalidating-idenix-patent-relating-to-anti-hcv-compounds/ https://www.pharmainbrief.com/2017/08/fca-upholds-gilead-vic...)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mlyle 5y ago> If it takes significant work to reverse engineer the invention, that quid quo pro hasn't been met, the patent should be considered invalid. So, company A patents something and discloses how to make it. It's an enabling patent, best-mode, etc. Company A then makes significant further improvements needed to make the thing at scale. You're saying they should have to disclose this subsequent work?
- gpm 5y agoTaking this article at face value, the company has not disclosed how to make the thing at all, not just how to make it at scale. I would not suggest that the most efficient way to make it must be disclosed (if you want to patent the finished good but not the efficient manufacturing process), just a way.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> the company has not disclosed how to make the thing at all, not just how to make it at scale They’ve also not patented everything, choosing to retain some of the most sensitive techniques as trade secrets. If this persists, we’ll see more pharmaceutical companies taking a Muskian approach to patents.
- hikerclimber1 5y agoBad. Hopefully Moderna ceo dies of a heart attack.
- 1cvmask 5y agoFor those who might remember. During the Presidency of George W Bush, there were calls on removing the patents of Bayer's anthrax drug Cipro during the anthrax scare: German drugs company Bayer, which makes the anti-anthrax treatment Cipro, has backed moves by the US government to promote rival antibiotics for the disease. The decision, which sent the company's shares down 2%, takes the heat off the US government, which has faced calls to over-ride Bayer's patent by permitting rival companies to make cheaper versions of Cipro. Concern has grown about the availability of treatments, as fears of an anthrax epidemic sweep America. A spokeswoman for Bayer, which plans to step up its production to 200m tablets over the next three months - enough to treat 10-12m people - said the company supported the relabelling of the antibiotic doxycycline as a treatment for all forms of anthrax. "We support this because of the threat to public health," she said. "It has nothing to do with our patent." https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.businessofresearch https://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/oct/23/anthrax.bus...
- h2odragon 5y agoFor several years afterward, lefotver Cipro tablets were the go-to antibiotic for veterinary use. I was told it was dirt cheap and had temporarily displaced amoxicillin.
- nomercy400 5y agoI wouldn't be surprised if writing the DNA part of the or any vaccin was the easy part, and that the growing, delivery and packaging parts are the hard parts. These hard parts can be reused for other vaccins, so Moderna would likely want to reuse those.
- viktorcode 5y agoI think choosing Moderna vaccine is a poor idea. There's no logistical capability to deliver something requiring specialised cold storage in poor countries. Africa and Middle East eventually will be filled with vaccines requiring nothing more than a fridge to store, and are cheaper to produce. To see WHO spending money on an impractical moonshot is mind boggling.
- NoGravitas 5y agoYeah; there are three vaccines developed in Cuba and two from China that meet that ease of distribution requirement, and Cuba, at least, has agreed to do technology transfer to countries that want to produce it. It's hard to find a good motivation for WHO here.
- tunnuz 5y agoThis (Moderna being secretive about a life-saving drug in a time like this) makes me so fucking angry. People's greed has no limit.
- folli 5y agoI mean even if you 'crack the recipe': The required facilities to actually produce the vaccine (incl. all the upstream suppliers and sub-contractors and logistics etc.) will not pop up overnight.
- bsanr 5y agoDepending on what part of Africa you want to talk about, they already have robust drug manufacture and transport lines in place. Ebola'll do that to you. The issue isn't the stand-up capacity so much as, well, the recipe for COVID-related manufacturing specifically. While we're on the subject: https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2020/07/22/covid-19-remdesivir-aids-africa-cameron-nutt-wilfredo-matias-robert-bonacci-meredith-kernan https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2020/07/22/covid-19-remdesi...
- folli 5y agoNot sure I agree, the drug manufacturing is not equal drug manufacturing. Production of a small molecule therapeutic (e.g. Remdesivir) requires very different capabilities of biotherapeutic manufacturing (e.g. antibodies). mRNA manufacturing is a different beast alltogether.
- bsanr 5y agoAFAIK, the main issue is transport, not manufacturing capability. The reason the latter is so tightly controlled is because it's not difficult once the process is known. And African countries are experienced in the former.
- T3RMINATED 5y agoWE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER FOLKS!
- Johnny555 5y agoThis kind of negates the argument that the drug companies shouldn't release the vaccine recipe because no one but the drug companies are sophisticated enough to manufacture the vaccine safely. If other companies can reverse engineer it, then surely they're capable of manufacturing it.
- nimbius 5y ago"Friede says Moderna is at least in talks with the WHO. And he remains hopeful the company will ultimately agree to provide some kind of tech transfer." Likely because Moderna realizes South Africa is not the United States. a far greater percentage of resources would absolutely be dedicated in the public interest to replicating the drug and completely reverse-engineering it; its only a matter of time. companies like Moderna cant blanket NDA entire educational institutions as they study this, and pipeline the results directly into quantifiable quarterly revenue. there is a much more tangible demand for transparency. Moderna will likely make a round of offers and counter offers depending on how molecularly obscure the drug is based on South Africa's progress. Skilled and talented South African (and international) chemists and biologists who can demonstrate a sufficiently advanced progress may be in fact rewarded by Moderna simply walking away from the negotiations out of a concern there would be no meaningful ingress of cash for whatever they could offer. Either way, as the article states this isnt about Covid its about Malaria and other infectious diseases that can be cured through the same novel approach. diseases for which a cure just isnt in the financial interest of western Pharma giants.
- vadfa 5y agoSouth African*
- gautamdivgi 5y agoThis seems like a complete distraction to me. Moderna's vaccine needs to be frozen between -50C to -15C for long term storage and can be stored refrigerated for up to 30 days [1]. What WHO vaccine dependent country is the WHO targeting with this? A lot of the refrigeration requirements rule out places with poor infrastructure. It just seems like a generics making power play. 1. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/moderna/downloads/storage-summary.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/modern...
- apendleton 5y agoIndeed, it seems like the mRNA vaccines got tons of traction because of a combination of high efficacy and first-mover advantage, but protein subunit vaccines like Novavax's (which unfortunately has taken forever to get to market) seem to be comparably efficacious, don't have the crazy cold-chain requirements, and depend on technologies that are much more broadly understood (adjuvanted protein subunit vaccines for other diseases are already available as generics manufactured in developing-world facilities). It seems like something like that would be a better reverse-engineering starting point.
- selcuka 5y agoI believe it's the future potential of mRNA vaccines that makes it a more valuable target. They can also be used against other, non-viral diseases, such as cancer.
- orangepurple 5y agoDry ice can be used to provide cooling and is relatively available or can be made available without too much difficulty so the drugs can stay cold in insulated transport 24 hours.
- gautamdivgi 5y agoThat’s literally the first thing the cdc guidance says not to do - do not place on dry ice.
- Barrin92 5y agoThis seems to be an ongoing theme when it comes to development and aid discussions. Countries seem to be willing to fork over some vaccines or some money but when it comes to actually creating the means for these countries to build up their own infrastructure and supply chains and to truly diminish their dependence you'll see the Moderna's and our governments start to flinch
- danielovichdk 5y agoTime for a Moderna employee to spill the beans. In secret of course.
- ryeights 5y agoI’ve always wondered why we don’t see this type of corporate sabotage more often. We have the technology to leak documents anonymously, so all it would take is one mid-level employee that is capable of finding another place to work if the company tanks…
- danielovichdk 5y agoNo medicine should be patented. It's wrong on all levels.
- jimbob45 5y agoIsn't this what we criticize China for doing though? The alternative here would be that Moderna gets to operate within (ostensibly Africa?) doing business with them. Instead, Africa wants more favorable business terms so they make an end-around run to steal the IP from Moderna however they can. It's even worse that this is WHO-sanctioned IP theft. It's just like China wanting more favorable terms with US companies leading them to steal US IP to make their own companies instead.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- tyrfing 5y agoThis isn't really about the COVID-19 vaccine. Moderna and company want to keep their secret sauce secret, because the mRNA technology is incredibly valuable for future vaccines. In fact, FTA: > Friede says it makes sense to set up more manufacturers of mRNA vaccines in particular because the technology appears so effective against COVID — and because it shows promise against other diseases including malaria and tuberculosis. A primary goal of this is production of future vaccines using mRNA technology. There's a reason we're talking about Moderna and Pfizer, not J&J and Sinovac.
- q1w2 5y agoThe general technology here is a big part of the company's asset value. If the WHO/UN/EU/etc wants to make it public, they should buy it from Moderna, not twist their arm to hand it over. We need to reward tech creators, not punish them.
- cryptica 5y agoAccording to one conspiracy theory, it contains nano-particles which assemble themselves into some kind of alien structure. According to another conspiracy theory, it contains graphene nanoparticles which self-assemble themselves into a spider-looking nanobot. LOL.
- FirstLvR 5y agothis is common practice, lets NOT talk about Zolgensma from infamous Novartis https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/expensive-drug-world-saves-life-child-rare-disease-77773581 https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/expensive-drug-world-... capitalism is wrong, this is the way farma get profits
- nabaraz 5y agoI think this is a misleading headline. Recipe isn't a big thing here but the delivery mechanism of nano particles. Products like Coke and WD40 are known for their secret recipes but recipes are out in the public. The difficulty is in knowing amount of ingredients, preparation method etc.
- paul7986 5y agoAh so has there been enough time to show which commercially backed vaccine is the best? Is it Moderna?
- plandis 5y ago> Moderna has reiterated on several occasions that they will not enforce their intellectual property during the pandemic," says Friede. In other words, a manufacturer probably won't face a lawsuit for producing a vaccine that's virtually identical to Moderna's. > Also, says Friede, compared to Pfizer's vaccine, there just happens to be a lot more information in the public domain about how Moderna's vaccine is made. You want to know how to guarantee companies won’t be so generous in the future? What’s the benefit of being fairly open if it literally just means you will lose out compared to your competitors?
- samaman 5y agoIf they wanted African supply of an mRNA vaccine, why didn't they just use The Odin's completely open recipe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-25/one-biohacker-s-improbable-bid-to-make-a-diy-covid-19-vaccine https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-25/one-bioha..., which was based on the Moderna vaccine. But, why would they want such a vaccine in Africa in the first place? The storage would be impossible anywhere outside of really rich medical facilities, and even that is not necessarily feasible. Why not go with funding vaccines by HDT bio, which have made mRNA vaccines but with metal particles in the outer lipid layer to allow for storage at fridge temps https://pipelinereview.com/index.php/2020090175739/Vaccines/HDT-BIO-Receives-NIH-Contract-to-Advance-Novel-RNA/LION-COVID-19-Vaccine-Into-Clinical-Trials.html https://pipelinereview.com/index.php/2020090175739/Vaccines/... or something else?
- _djo_ 5y agoAfrica is not as poor, or as lacking in infrastructure, as you might think. A number of countries already have, or can set up, the cold chain requirements. Indeed, South Africa (which is where this company is based) has safely administered millions of Pfizer doses as part of its vaccine rollout. Only the most rural areas are where a more stable vaccine like the J&J one needs to be used.