JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's return to
the pandemic here and abroad.

President Biden has given the
initial go-ahead for the U.S.
to waive patent rights on COVID

vaccines, in an effort to boost production
internationally for countries in need.

But there are real questions
over how effective these moves
would be, what else is needed,

and when this would translate
into more shots in arms.

William Brangham focuses on
that part of the story tonight.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Judy, the
response by some European countries
today on this patent question

hinted at some of those
very complications.

The president of the European
Commission, for example, would
not commit a bloc of European

countries to waiving these
patent protections. But that's
not the only concern here.

Let's explore more of this with
Rachel Silverman. She's a policy
fellow at the Center For Global

Development.

Rachel Silverman, great to have you on the
"NewsHour."

What was your reaction when
the Biden administration made
this announcement yesterday?

RACHEL SILVERMAN, Center For
Global Development: Well,
great to be here this evening.

So, my reaction is that I'm
very encouraged that the Biden
administration, with this move,

is signaling its willingness
and eagerness to take bold
action, that it understands the

scope of the challenge before us, that it
is treating this as the number one global

issue, diplomatic issue,
security issue that needs to be
solved, and is signaling that

it's willing to make moves that
might upset the apple cart,
that break out of old paradigms

and that show real ambition.

I do think this move itself is
probably largely symbolic in
this respect. It will be quite

a long time before WTO members
agree on a patent waiver, if
they agree at all. I think,

probably the practical effect of that
patent waiver will be fairly marginal.

But I am optimistic that this
signals a more proactive role
for the Biden administration

in entering the fray and
really solving this problem
on behalf of the entire world.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, if waiving
these -- this intellectual
property isn't the most effective

route, what would you argue is the
most urgent thing we ought to be doing?

RACHEL SILVERMAN: So, I think
we need to be thinking much
more ambitiously about the scale

of resources we're willing to
put in to scale up vaccines.

I think we're still thinking very
small. The U.S.' contribution
to COVAX is $4 billion.

That is welcome, but it is
not enough to vaccinate...

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: COVAX being
the global vaccine supply.

RACHEL SILVERMAN: Yes. Yes, exactly.

It's not enough to vaccinate
the world. And the United States
has produced these vaccines.

We are very fortunate that most people in
the United States now have the ability to

access these vaccines. That's not true in
most low-and middle-income countries.

And what could help is a lot
more money. There's not enough
money in the system to purchase

vaccines on behalf of everyone
in the world, to provide the
commercial certainty to industry

that it should be continuing
to scale up its production.

There needs to be much more
money in the system, financing
a much more ambitious version of

what it will take to vaccinate
the world in short order.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean,
supporters of this move argue
that there has already been a lot

of money, including taxpayer
money, put into the development
of these vaccines, and that

we are in a crisis, and these nations need
to speed this process, and so this is the

obligation of the companies,
that they need to give these up.

RACHEL SILVERMAN: Well, I
certainly agree that we are in
a crisis and we need to speed

this entire process up. There
is no time to delay whatsoever.

And that's exactly my concern,
is that what's the most
practical way forward? If we look

at the TRIPS waiver, I think
it will probably go ahead. It
will be fine. But it will take

quite a bit of time to negotiate.
There are still complicated
issues around technology

transfer, giving companies in low-
and middle-income companies the
recipes, the proprietary knowledge,

the cell lines needed to
do this, that will not come
automatically, even with a patent

waiver.

But what we can do in the short
and the medium term is to put
more money into the system

to pull through more manufacturing
capacity, to create the
incentives that say, build it,

and we will pay for it, and
we will vaccinate the world.

I think it's a mistake to put
this onus of all of this on
the pharmaceutical companies.

Yes, they receive taxpayer money.
Yes, taxpayers and the public,
we need these vaccines, and

we need them to be equitably shared,
and we have a stake in doing so.

But they are companies. They are
private companies. We are the
global community. We are the United

States government. And we need to take the
leadership role in making this happen, not

just expecting pharma to do it on
our behalf, without our intervention.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I want to ask you about
another argument that the industry makes,

which is, if they go about
developing these vaccines, and
then we swoop in and break their

intellectual property, their
patents for those vaccines, that
this sets a terrible precedent

going forward.

Do you share that concern?

RACHEL SILVERMAN: I think it's
somewhat overstated. But the
reason I think it's overstated is

because, again, I think the effect of this
patent waiver will be quite marginal.

That said, the part I do agree
with them on is that we definitely
do want to send a signal

to the market that you will be rewarded if
you solve the most important issues facing

humanity. What we don't want
is a situation where all of the
private pharmaceutical companies

decide, you know what, it's
not worth our while to tackle
the big problems. We'd rather

find the next Botox, just work
on cosmetic treatments or things
we can sell to rich people

for a lot of money, and they
will never bother us about
giving it free to poor people.

That is obviously not an optimal
solution. We have a lot of
problems to solve. We have

malaria. We have T.B.. We have
HIV. There is no vaccine. There's
treatment, but no vaccine.

We do pharma focused on solving
the world's most important
problems. I think the effect

of the waiver will be fairly
marginal in this respect. But
I would like it see a focus on

incentives to produce what matters,
that you will be rewarded with
if you do, and not penalized

because what you produced is so important.

But that doesn't mean hoarding
on -- hoarding the supply. That
doesn't mean it's OK to not

vaccinate the entire world. It's not. And
we can do both at once.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right,
Rachel Silverman at the Center
For Global Development, thank

you very much for being here.

RACHEL SILVERMAN: Thank you.