1 00:00:00,220 --> 00:00:04,210 JUDY WOODRUFF: Let's return to the pandemic here and abroad. 2 00:00:04,210 --> 00:00:09,210 President Biden has given the initial go-ahead for the U.S. to waive patent rights on COVID 3 00:00:09,680 --> 00:00:14,670 vaccines, in an effort to boost production internationally for countries in need. 4 00:00:14,670 --> 00:00:19,670 But there are real questions over how effective these moves would be, what else is needed, 5 00:00:20,039 --> 00:00:23,810 and when this would translate into more shots in arms. 6 00:00:23,810 --> 00:00:26,689 William Brangham focuses on that part of the story tonight. 7 00:00:26,689 --> 00:00:31,689 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Judy, the response by some European countries today on this patent question 8 00:00:32,009 --> 00:00:34,910 hinted at some of those very complications. 9 00:00:34,910 --> 00:00:39,270 The president of the European Commission, for example, would not commit a bloc of European 10 00:00:39,270 --> 00:00:44,270 countries to waiving these patent protections. But that's not the only concern here. 11 00:00:44,760 --> 00:00:49,760 Let's explore more of this with Rachel Silverman. She's a policy fellow at the Center For Global 12 00:00:49,940 --> 00:00:50,960 Development. 13 00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:53,320 Rachel Silverman, great to have you on the "NewsHour." 14 00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:56,610 What was your reaction when the Biden administration made this announcement yesterday? 15 00:00:56,610 --> 00:00:59,670 RACHEL SILVERMAN, Center For Global Development: Well, great to be here this evening. 16 00:00:59,670 --> 00:01:04,670 So, my reaction is that I'm very encouraged that the Biden administration, with this move, 17 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:10,000 is signaling its willingness and eagerness to take bold action, that it understands the 18 00:01:10,940 --> 00:01:15,670 scope of the challenge before us, that it is treating this as the number one global 19 00:01:15,670 --> 00:01:20,260 issue, diplomatic issue, security issue that needs to be solved, and is signaling that 20 00:01:20,260 --> 00:01:25,260 it's willing to make moves that might upset the apple cart, that break out of old paradigms 21 00:01:26,250 --> 00:01:28,210 and that show real ambition. 22 00:01:28,210 --> 00:01:33,210 I do think this move itself is probably largely symbolic in this respect. It will be quite 23 00:01:34,190 --> 00:01:39,190 a long time before WTO members agree on a patent waiver, if they agree at all. I think, 24 00:01:40,930 --> 00:01:45,440 probably the practical effect of that patent waiver will be fairly marginal. 25 00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:50,440 But I am optimistic that this signals a more proactive role for the Biden administration 26 00:01:51,729 --> 00:01:56,729 in entering the fray and really solving this problem on behalf of the entire world. 27 00:01:56,990 --> 00:02:01,640 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, if waiving these -- this intellectual property isn't the most effective 28 00:02:01,640 --> 00:02:05,290 route, what would you argue is the most urgent thing we ought to be doing? 29 00:02:05,290 --> 00:02:10,149 RACHEL SILVERMAN: So, I think we need to be thinking much more ambitiously about the scale 30 00:02:10,149 --> 00:02:14,720 of resources we're willing to put in to scale up vaccines. 31 00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:19,720 I think we're still thinking very small. The U.S.' contribution to COVAX is $4 billion. 32 00:02:21,080 --> 00:02:23,420 That is welcome, but it is not enough to vaccinate... 33 00:02:23,420 --> 00:02:25,920 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: COVAX being the global vaccine supply. 34 00:02:25,920 --> 00:02:30,099 RACHEL SILVERMAN: Yes. Yes, exactly. 35 00:02:30,099 --> 00:02:35,099 It's not enough to vaccinate the world. And the United States has produced these vaccines. 36 00:02:35,459 --> 00:02:39,810 We are very fortunate that most people in the United States now have the ability to 37 00:02:39,810 --> 00:02:44,550 access these vaccines. That's not true in most low-and middle-income countries. 38 00:02:44,550 --> 00:02:49,550 And what could help is a lot more money. There's not enough money in the system to purchase 39 00:02:49,580 --> 00:02:54,580 vaccines on behalf of everyone in the world, to provide the commercial certainty to industry 40 00:02:55,720 --> 00:02:59,989 that it should be continuing to scale up its production. 41 00:02:59,989 --> 00:03:04,989 There needs to be much more money in the system, financing a much more ambitious version of 42 00:03:05,580 --> 00:03:08,260 what it will take to vaccinate the world in short order. 43 00:03:08,260 --> 00:03:12,390 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, supporters of this move argue that there has already been a lot 44 00:03:12,390 --> 00:03:17,390 of money, including taxpayer money, put into the development of these vaccines, and that 45 00:03:17,760 --> 00:03:22,760 we are in a crisis, and these nations need to speed this process, and so this is the 46 00:03:24,130 --> 00:03:26,740 obligation of the companies, that they need to give these up. 47 00:03:26,740 --> 00:03:30,989 RACHEL SILVERMAN: Well, I certainly agree that we are in a crisis and we need to speed 48 00:03:30,989 --> 00:03:35,920 this entire process up. There is no time to delay whatsoever. 49 00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:40,910 And that's exactly my concern, is that what's the most practical way forward? If we look 50 00:03:40,910 --> 00:03:45,910 at the TRIPS waiver, I think it will probably go ahead. It will be fine. But it will take 51 00:03:46,480 --> 00:03:51,420 quite a bit of time to negotiate. There are still complicated issues around technology 52 00:03:51,420 --> 00:03:56,420 transfer, giving companies in low- and middle-income companies the recipes, the proprietary knowledge, 53 00:03:58,050 --> 00:04:02,440 the cell lines needed to do this, that will not come automatically, even with a patent 54 00:04:02,440 --> 00:04:03,440 waiver. 55 00:04:03,440 --> 00:04:08,440 But what we can do in the short and the medium term is to put more money into the system 56 00:04:08,830 --> 00:04:13,830 to pull through more manufacturing capacity, to create the incentives that say, build it, 57 00:04:16,030 --> 00:04:19,359 and we will pay for it, and we will vaccinate the world. 58 00:04:19,359 --> 00:04:24,260 I think it's a mistake to put this onus of all of this on the pharmaceutical companies. 59 00:04:24,260 --> 00:04:29,260 Yes, they receive taxpayer money. Yes, taxpayers and the public, we need these vaccines, and 60 00:04:30,169 --> 00:04:33,810 we need them to be equitably shared, and we have a stake in doing so. 61 00:04:33,810 --> 00:04:38,810 But they are companies. They are private companies. We are the global community. We are the United 62 00:04:40,180 --> 00:04:44,390 States government. And we need to take the leadership role in making this happen, not 63 00:04:44,390 --> 00:04:47,850 just expecting pharma to do it on our behalf, without our intervention. 64 00:04:47,850 --> 00:04:52,000 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I want to ask you about another argument that the industry makes, 65 00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:56,449 which is, if they go about developing these vaccines, and then we swoop in and break their 66 00:04:56,449 --> 00:05:01,449 intellectual property, their patents for those vaccines, that this sets a terrible precedent 67 00:05:01,760 --> 00:05:03,380 going forward. 68 00:05:03,380 --> 00:05:04,970 Do you share that concern? 69 00:05:04,970 --> 00:05:09,970 RACHEL SILVERMAN: I think it's somewhat overstated. But the reason I think it's overstated is 70 00:05:10,080 --> 00:05:15,080 because, again, I think the effect of this patent waiver will be quite marginal. 71 00:05:17,440 --> 00:05:21,760 That said, the part I do agree with them on is that we definitely do want to send a signal 72 00:05:21,760 --> 00:05:26,760 to the market that you will be rewarded if you solve the most important issues facing 73 00:05:27,110 --> 00:05:32,110 humanity. What we don't want is a situation where all of the private pharmaceutical companies 74 00:05:32,940 --> 00:05:37,940 decide, you know what, it's not worth our while to tackle the big problems. We'd rather 75 00:05:37,949 --> 00:05:42,940 find the next Botox, just work on cosmetic treatments or things we can sell to rich people 76 00:05:42,940 --> 00:05:47,639 for a lot of money, and they will never bother us about giving it free to poor people. 77 00:05:47,639 --> 00:05:52,639 That is obviously not an optimal solution. We have a lot of problems to solve. We have 78 00:05:52,810 --> 00:05:57,810 malaria. We have T.B.. We have HIV. There is no vaccine. There's treatment, but no vaccine. 79 00:05:59,370 --> 00:06:04,199 We do pharma focused on solving the world's most important problems. I think the effect 80 00:06:04,199 --> 00:06:09,199 of the waiver will be fairly marginal in this respect. But I would like it see a focus on 81 00:06:10,460 --> 00:06:15,460 incentives to produce what matters, that you will be rewarded with if you do, and not penalized 82 00:06:16,580 --> 00:06:18,730 because what you produced is so important. 83 00:06:18,730 --> 00:06:23,170 But that doesn't mean hoarding on -- hoarding the supply. That doesn't mean it's OK to not 84 00:06:23,170 --> 00:06:27,139 vaccinate the entire world. It's not. And we can do both at once. 85 00:06:27,139 --> 00:06:30,481 WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Rachel Silverman at the Center For Global Development, thank 86 00:06:30,481 --> 00:06:31,919 you very much for being here. 87 00:06:31,919 --> 00:06:33,150 RACHEL SILVERMAN: Thank you.