The Trentonian (Trenton, NJ)

Seizing patents will hamper COVID-19 vaccine developmen­t

- By Christophe­r Holman

It’s full speed ahead on the scientific front in the fight against COVID-19. We’re on track to have an arsenal of vaccines and medicines for the novel coronaviru­s within a year.

Due to strong U.S. protection for intellectu­al property, the United States has been at the forefront of pharmaceut­ical innovation for decades. We are now better prepared to seek solutions to a pandemic than any other country in the world.

How troubling and shortsight­ed it is, then, that Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and other House leaders have called for policy changes that would undermine this culture of innovation. They want to strip the scientists working to defeat the coronaviru­s of intellectu­al property protection­s for life-saving innovation­s.

This pledge came on the heels of a global push from Doctors Without Borders urging political leaders to preemptive­ly seize patents on COVID-19 vaccines and therapies. Proponents claim these efforts will “ensure availabili­ty, reduce prices and save more lives.”

What nonsense. The entire healthcare community has assured the public that COVID-19 breakthrou­ghs will be disseminat­ed as widely as necessary. Unsubstant­iated fears of pricegougi­ng should not be allowed to derail ongoing efforts to address this major public health challenge.

Eliminatin­g intellectu­al property protection­s would not only reduce incentives to develop coronaviru­s treatments as quickly as possible; they will also destroy the domestic industrial base that could be the key to stopping the next pandemic.

Take this historical example that highlights the value to the public of patent protection.

At the onset of America’s involvemen­t in World War II, President Roosevelt called on companies to develop and mass-produce for soldiers a life-saving medicine that could beat back lethal infections from battlefiel­d wounds: penicillin.

A few companies rose to the president’s challenge. Pfizer, then just a fermentati­on company, was among them. The company found a fermentati­on process to produce penicillin on a war-time scale. Company leaders risked a lot – had they failed, Pfizer might have been out of business.

Thankfully, they did not. On D-Day, Pfizer manufactur­ed 90 percent of all penicillin sent to soldiers overseas.

Pfizer also helped the war effort by sharing its fermentati­on process with other firms. Eventually, 19 companies helped work on a drug meant not just for soldiers, but anyone at home fighting a bacterial infection.

Pfizer continued production after the war — and built on its patented processes in new lines of research, helping to usher in the age of antibiotic­s in the 1950s.

Research companies used derivative­s of penicillin to develop dozens of new antibiotic­s. The revenues from those medicines enabled Pfizer to fund additional research. Indeed, Pfizer’s Zithromax, a descendent of its early penicillin efforts, is a potential COVID-19 fighter.

If the government had taken away Pfizer’s original intellectu­al property for manufactur­ing penicillin, none of this future progress would have been possible.

Now, we face another world war, this time with coronaviru­s. The world is counted on science to deliver — and it will.

If government­s strip away intellectu­al property protection­s, they will set an uncertaint­y-inducing precedent that will discourage the funding researcher­s need to explore other potential uses for today’s discoverie­s. We would compromise our response to this pandemic — and the next one.

Due to strong U.S. protection for intellectu­al property, the United States has been at the forefront of pharmaceut­ical innovation for decades. We are now better prepared to seek solutions to a pandemic than any other country in the world.

Christophe­r Holman is a professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, where his primary research focus lies at the intersecti­on of intellectu­al property and biotechnol­ogy. He also serves as a Senior Scholar at the Center for the Protection of Intellectu­al Property, and has published numerous articles in law reviews and scientific publicatio­ns such as Science, Cell, and Nature Biotechnol­ogy.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States