1) Very interesting @FT piece by Louise Richardson, Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University, confirming *Oxford does not support the TRIPS IP waiver*.
Notably, while praising AZ, Richardson condemns other (unnamed) pharma companies for deriving ‘enormous profits’ from the pandemic.
Notably, while praising AZ, Richardson condemns other (unnamed) pharma companies for deriving ‘enormous profits’ from the pandemic.
2) Richardson also says these other (unnamed) pharma companies should share their vaccines, means & infrastructure.
She notes (with good cause) that Ox/AZ have acted more ethically than others - Ox/AZ is by far the largest contributor to COVAX.
She notes (with good cause) that Ox/AZ have acted more ethically than others - Ox/AZ is by far the largest contributor to COVAX.
3) Richardson argues the TRIPS IP waiver is not a panacea
(NB - this is also apparent to those who support the waiver - we argue it is part of a wider proposal/package to build up pharma capacity in LMICs)
(NB - this is also apparent to those who support the waiver - we argue it is part of a wider proposal/package to build up pharma capacity in LMICs)
4) Richardson confirms Oxford could have licensed the vaccine tech openly to all in spring 2020 but instead sought a commercial partner - AZ - so that Oxford could retain its IP.
Why?
(Answer: to leave open future commercial revenue options and... Vaccitech)
Why?
(Answer: to leave open future commercial revenue options and... Vaccitech)
5) Vaccitech is unmentioned in this article.
Vaccitech is the Oxford spin-out company that helped develop the vaccine, raising its profile significantly.
Just last month, Vaccitech held an IPO on the US NASDAQ exchange, raising more than $100m.
reuters.com/technology/vac…
Vaccitech is the Oxford spin-out company that helped develop the vaccine, raising its profile significantly.
Just last month, Vaccitech held an IPO on the US NASDAQ exchange, raising more than $100m.
reuters.com/technology/vac…
6) Ox/AZ certainly deserve great credit for developing a viable vaccine & for acting more ethically than other providers.
Richardson is right to criticise the other companies & argue they must do more to boost production & distribution in the global south.
Richardson is right to criticise the other companies & argue they must do more to boost production & distribution in the global south.
7) But... in the end Oxford is retaining the IP for commercial purposes & has leveraged this as part of Vaccitech’s $100m IPO.
I do not think retaining IP for commercial ends is what should happen in the case of a public university’s publicly-funded project amidst a pandemic
I do not think retaining IP for commercial ends is what should happen in the case of a public university’s publicly-funded project amidst a pandemic
8) I have previously argued Oxford should support the TRIPS waiver & license more openly (e.g. the bilateral AZ-Serum deal has restrictions & lacks transparency).
Ultimately, as Richardson states, Oxford Uni has decided *not* to support the waiver.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/0…
Ultimately, as Richardson states, Oxford Uni has decided *not* to support the waiver.
blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2021/0…
10) In related news, Ox/AZ’s main partner, Serum Institute of India, has made a statement today that it ‘hopes’ - but is unable to guarantee - to provide further COVAX doses by end of 2021.
Over-reliance on a single provider has led to unbearable tragedy for the global south.
Over-reliance on a single provider has led to unbearable tragedy for the global south.
11) Hard to overstate the catastrophe of relying almost solely on the Serum Institute to provide for COVAX:
'Strive Masiyiwa, African Union special envoy on vaccines, said on Tuesday that he was “beyond anger” with the Indian manufacturer.'
ft.com/content/63fbbb…
'Strive Masiyiwa, African Union special envoy on vaccines, said on Tuesday that he was “beyond anger” with the Indian manufacturer.'
ft.com/content/63fbbb…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
