<p>The proposal to effect a temporary waiver of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of Covid-19 vaccines is a major move, being widely discussed, to address the severe shortage of vaccines in most parts of the world. India and South Africa had made this proposal in October last year to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The suggestion was for relaxation of certain provisions of the TRIPS agreement to facilitate large-scale production of vaccines without attracting penalties for IPR violations. The proposal has gained some momentum now with the support of the US and a number of other countries. But the European Union (EU) is divided on the matter and some other developed countries are opposing it. The EU, which is home to many pharmaceutical firms, has agreed to discuss the matter but its most prominent member, Germany, has expressed major reservations. </p>.<p>While there is progress in covering large sections of population in the rich world, vaccination has badly lagged in others, including India which is a major vaccine producer. Waiver of patents will help increase production of vaccines because manufacturers will be able to produce them without constraints. If an IPR waiver is allowed, those who have manufacturing capability can produce generic Covid vaccines. The cost of production will also be low. This will help many poor and developing countries to get access to vaccines. But not surprisingly, big pharmaceutical companies have advanced many arguments against the proposal. They claim that an IPR waiver will not help because it will take a long time to ramp up production and that it will discourage innovation and enterprise on the part of companies which have invested heavily in the vaccine development process. They also argue that shortage of raw materials and components will constrain production, and that better distribution and supply management of vaccines will ensure that those who are deprived of vaccines now will get them. </p>.<p>These are obstructionist arguments intended to keep their grip on production and to continue to earn the huge profits they are earning now. Much of the vaccine development has come from publicly funded basic science research and it is wrong to claim that the companies have full rights to their products. Even if the IPR regulations are relaxed, these companies will have made big profits. The pandemic is a threat to humanity and the WTO rules allow relaxation "in exceptional circumstances’’. The present situation of vaccine inequity should not continue not only for ethical reasons but because "no one is safe till everyone is safe’’. Other possibilities like voluntary licensing arrangements or a compromise proposal on relaxation may also be pursued. But if ever there is a case for an IPR waiver it is for the Covid vaccines. </p>
<p>The proposal to effect a temporary waiver of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of Covid-19 vaccines is a major move, being widely discussed, to address the severe shortage of vaccines in most parts of the world. India and South Africa had made this proposal in October last year to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The suggestion was for relaxation of certain provisions of the TRIPS agreement to facilitate large-scale production of vaccines without attracting penalties for IPR violations. The proposal has gained some momentum now with the support of the US and a number of other countries. But the European Union (EU) is divided on the matter and some other developed countries are opposing it. The EU, which is home to many pharmaceutical firms, has agreed to discuss the matter but its most prominent member, Germany, has expressed major reservations. </p>.<p>While there is progress in covering large sections of population in the rich world, vaccination has badly lagged in others, including India which is a major vaccine producer. Waiver of patents will help increase production of vaccines because manufacturers will be able to produce them without constraints. If an IPR waiver is allowed, those who have manufacturing capability can produce generic Covid vaccines. The cost of production will also be low. This will help many poor and developing countries to get access to vaccines. But not surprisingly, big pharmaceutical companies have advanced many arguments against the proposal. They claim that an IPR waiver will not help because it will take a long time to ramp up production and that it will discourage innovation and enterprise on the part of companies which have invested heavily in the vaccine development process. They also argue that shortage of raw materials and components will constrain production, and that better distribution and supply management of vaccines will ensure that those who are deprived of vaccines now will get them. </p>.<p>These are obstructionist arguments intended to keep their grip on production and to continue to earn the huge profits they are earning now. Much of the vaccine development has come from publicly funded basic science research and it is wrong to claim that the companies have full rights to their products. Even if the IPR regulations are relaxed, these companies will have made big profits. The pandemic is a threat to humanity and the WTO rules allow relaxation "in exceptional circumstances’’. The present situation of vaccine inequity should not continue not only for ethical reasons but because "no one is safe till everyone is safe’’. Other possibilities like voluntary licensing arrangements or a compromise proposal on relaxation may also be pursued. But if ever there is a case for an IPR waiver it is for the Covid vaccines. </p>
