key: cord-0776103-fiz9pqms authors: Druedahl, Louise C.; Minssen, Timo; Nicholson Price, W. title: Collaboration in Times of Crisis: A Study on COVID-19 Vaccine R&D Partnerships date: 2021-09-02 journal: Vaccine DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.08.101 sha: 34715f308fe5e573ad11f1088b2640189d2e22ed doc_id: 776103 cord_uid: fiz9pqms Collaboration is central for initiatives and efforts in the race to fight COVID-19, with particular focus on fostering rapid development of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines. We investigated the types of partnerships that have emerged during the pandemic to develop these products. Using the World Health Organization’s list of COVID-19 vaccine developments, we found nearly one third of all vaccine candidates were developed by partnerships, which tended to use next-gen vaccine platforms more than solo efforts. These partnerships vary substantially between materials-transfer partnerships and knowledge-sharing partnerships. The difference is important: The type of sharing between partners not only shapes the collaboration, but also bears implications for knowledge and technology development in the field and more broadly. Policies promoting fair and effective collaboration and knowledge-sharing are key for public health to avoid stumbling blocks for vaccine development, deployment, and equitable access, both for COVID-19 and expected future pandemics. Global leaders have recognized that collaboration and open science are essential to the medical and technological fight against COVID-19, as they have been with other grand global public health challenges, including climate change and antimicrobial resistance [1] [2] [3] . The call to promote collaboration has been backed-up by powerful stakeholders 4 and promising initiatives, such as unprecedented worldwide data-sharing 5 -including the genetic sequence of the COVID-19 virus 6 ; unconventional partnerships 7 ; and initiatives for sharing know-how, intellectual property and technologies 8 . One of the most important areas for collaboration, but also international competition, is the race to develop safe and effective vaccines for COVID-19. Vaccine development collaborations may involve partnerships between private entities, public entities, or hybrids such as public-private partnerships (PPPs). PPPs typically include both private for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, share efforts and benefits, and are committed to social value and improved health 9 . They have played a particularly important role during the COVID-19 crisis 4, [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] . PPPs have previously been used to steer up vaccine development and production or to supply developing countries in critical areas 11,14-18 . While a global pandemic presents different conditions, ambitions, and financial incentives than efforts against neglected regional or rare diseases 19 , prior collaboration experience should inform our understanding of collaborations during the COVID-19 pandemic and moving forward 20 . While substantial prior effort has considered the make-up of collaborations, the style of the collaboration is also crucial. In particular, the type of sharing between partners not only shapes the collaboration but also bears implications for knowledge and technology development in the field and more broadly. We consider two different modes of collaboration: sharing of knowledge and technological expertise (abbreviated "knowledge sharing") and transfer of materials, technical infrastructure & IP rights (abbreviated "materials transfer"). In the first, the two partners share complementary expertise and information in an ongoing process, collaborating to develop technology and-crucially-increasing the future knowledge and capabilities of each partner. In the second, collaboration follows a model of serial innovation steps: one partner pursues early innovative steps, and then transfers the resulting materials, technical infrastructure, and intellectual property to another partner to pursue further steps. The most classic academic/industrial collaborations follow this model; academic partners typically provide know-how and contributions in early clinical development, partnering with private entities in later development stages to test drug candidates and bring products to market 21 . To be sure, these modes are overly simplified, and line-drawing is nontrivial. Other relevant factors include the existence of market power, the identity of collaboration participants, the equitable distribution of resulting products, and thorny topics in national and international law such as know-how disclosure, compulsory licensing, IP waivers, antitrust law and prizing issues. Policy interventions in collaborative dynamics could fruitfully increase the welfare gains from innovation. An initial step in understanding collaborative complexity is characterizing the basic landscape. We aimed to investigate the types of partnerships that have emerged during the pandemic to develop COVID-19 vaccines and to identify relevant factors that characterize these partnerships. Our results suggest an opportunity for policymakers to help shift the collaborative landscape-which is robustto increase the potential for knowledge-sharing, the development of fundamental insight, and the adequate production of resulting technological goods, both in this pandemic and the next 22, 23 . We collected the list of COVID-19 vaccines in clinical and preclinical development registered (whole-inactivated virus; live-attenuated virus; protein subunit; or virus-like particle) or next generation (viral vector; DNA; RNA; Antigen-presenting cells) using the definitions by van Riel and De Wit 25 . All vaccine partnerships were investigated using Internet searches for texts describing each partnership from publicly available sources (such as press releases). For 12 such vaccines, the available text descriptions were too sparse for further analysis and thus these partnerships were excluded. Third, we conducted a deductive document analysis 26 of the text extracts to investigate whether each partnership could be characterized as partnership involved in either "knowledge sharing" or "materials transfer". We identified 93 partnerships with ≥2 entities and 190 single entities developing COVID-19 vaccines registered by the WHO. Of the 81 partnerships we deductively analyzed, we found that 71 had a company partner. Further, we found that 46 (56.8 %) were involved in "materials transfer" and 35 (43.2 %) in "knowledge sharing". An example of a "materials transfer" partnership was the collaboration between the University of Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. Oxford and its spinout company Vaccitech jointly own a proprietary platform for vaccine development. After creating a vaccine candidate, they sought a commercial partner for seeking regulatory approvals and supply agreements-an example of serial innovation between partners. The exclusive agreement with AstraZeneca included further development of the vaccine as well as large-scale manufacturing and distribution of the final vaccine. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] An example of a "knowledge sharing" partnership was the collaboration between the Table 1 presents an overview of partnership composition and collaboration style. Half of all partnerships involving academics (51 %) were "knowledge sharing" partnerships, compared to 43 % of industry-only partnerships and only 26 % of partnerships involving a government entity. There was no clear relationship between the use of classic versus next-generation vaccine platforms and the type of collaboration ("knowledge sharing" versus "materials transfer") ( Table 2 ). Partnerships were slightly more likely to use next-generation platforms than solo efforts ( Table 2 ). Third, and following suit, we observe that among the participants in partnerships, those involving academic entities were more likely to include knowledge transfer, rather than just material transfer. Knowledge development and sharing by academics is useful but somewhat expected. It is discouraging that in a space where rapid innovation and understanding are both crucial, government and industry players are fairly unlikely (26% and 43%, respectively) to share and deepen underlying knowledge stocks. We also note that of those relationships involving knowledge transfer, some focus Our study, while comprehensive in addressing all WHO-registered efforts, was limited by the mixed availability of partnership agreements. Many were publicly unavailable, leading to reliance on, e.g., press releases rather than contracts. Partnerships with insufficient information were excluded from analysis. This limitation reflects a broader policy challenge: intellectual property and licensing deals are frequently so opaque as to obscure both policy and governmental analysis. Greater transparency would help understand what is actually on the table and what needs to be done. Given the positive social externalities that may arise from sharing knowledge, such as greater fundamental understanding, increased cumulative innovation, and the ability to avoid demonstrably unproductive development pathways 40 , policymakers should consider interventions to incentivize partnerships that involve such broader knowledge sharing, rather than merely materials transfer for serial innovation. Knowledge-sharing is particularly important for ancillary technology such as manufacturing methods. Setting aside contentious questions about the proper scope of monopolies for underlying products like vaccines or therapeutics, those monopolies, whatever their scope, should be governed by the explicit terms of patents or regulator-managed exclusivity-not the back-door reality that no one else has the knowledge necessary to manufacture a product otherwise available for competitor entry 40, 41 . Sharing of any relevant knowledge, including fundamental knowledge, pertinent product-specific information, or ancillary technology, could lead to quicker vaccine development times and to enable sufficient global vaccine production to the benefit of public health 1, 42, 43 . The most straightforward tools to enhance such knowledge-sharing involve incentives such as public acknowledgement or simply money. In this context, government contracts, especially advance purchase orders, have been essential to de-risk up-front investments in vaccine development and capacity-building. Those contracts, both today and in the future, should include robust knowledgesharing requirements 43 . Ideally, knowledge-sharing incentives or requirements would reach beyond the entities involved, but as an interim step, requiring knowledge-sharing between engaged parties would at least begin to create knowledge externalities. More drastic steps could include knowledgesharing mandates tied to regulatory approval for products 44 . Of course, requirements cannot be too draconian, at the risk of decreasing innovation incentives too much on the front end 45 . Other means to facilitate knowledge-sharing include interoperable legal and technical infrastructures. Pools for IP and technology access 8 may be particularly relevant for pandemic responses, though they have received little voluntary update in the COVID-19 context. Last but not least, it is important to note that collaborations and the selective sharing of commercially sensitive information between direct competitors and companies operating at different levels of the value-and supply-chain might disrupt competition in markets with long-term effects. Antitrust and competition authorities will therefore have to strike a delicate balance between upholding antitrust law, and the need to effectively collaborate in the fight against the pandemic. The WHO lists 70 diseases with pandemic outbreak potential 21 , so while it is relatively late in the game for new requirements in the COVID-19 pandemic, it is especially important that preparedness for future pandemics take into account policies for promoting fair and effective collaboration and knowledge sharing while the lessons of COVID-19 are still fresh. As it becomes clear that the failure to do so has created a global stumbling block for COVID-19 vaccine development, deployment, and equitable access 48, 49 , it is time to ensure that future collaborations are better equipped and better incentivized to share their knowledge. Author Contributions: LCD contributed to the design of the study; collected, coded, analyzed and interpreted the data; and contributed to the drafting and editing of the manuscript. TM and WNP contributed to the design and interpretation of the study and to the drafting and editing of the manuscript. All authors have approved the submitted version. COVID-19 shows why united action is needed for more robust international health architecture Open science takes on the coronavirus pandemic Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research Safer Together-Unlocking the Power of Partnerships against COVID-19 Covid-19: How unprecedented data sharing has led to faster-than-ever outbreak research. Horizon The EU Research and Innovation Magazine To recover faster from Covid-19, open up: Managerial implications from an open innovation perspective Editor's note. Scientists and industry are dashing to make more ventilators. The Economist (2020) Accessed: 12th May 12. European Commission. Coronavirus research and innovation World Health Organization. The Access to COVID-19 Tools (ACT) Accelerator A sociological economy of HIV/AIDS vaccine partnerships: Case studies from Africa and India The Euvichol story -Development and licensure of a safe, effective and affordable oral cholera vaccine through global public private partnerships Vaccine partnerships to tackle neglected diseases Vaccine Diplomacy': Historical Perspectives and Future Directions How Scientists Could Stop the Next Pandemic Before It Starts 14 Lessons for the Next Pandemic World Health Organization. The COVID-19 candidate vaccine landscape and tracker Next-generation vaccine platforms for COVID-19 Document analysis Could university patents stand in the way of universal global access to a COVID-19 vaccine? Oxford tech transfer chief: 'It's been the most intense year Accessed: 12th May 2021) 30. University of Oxford. Oxford University announces landmark partnership with AstraZeneca for the development and potential large-scale distribution of COVID-19 vaccine candidate AstraZeneca and Oxford University announce landmark agreement for COVID-19 vaccine Form F-1 registration statement BioNTech SE Form 10-K Pfizer Inc. Commission file number 1-3619 Pfizer and BioNTech to Co-Develop Potential COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Further Details on Collaboration to Accelerate Global COVID-19 Vaccine Development Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Further Details on Collaboration to Accelerate Global COVID-19 Vaccine Development Increasing Access to Diagnostics Through Technology Transfer and Local Production Constructing Interdisciplinary Collaboration: The Oncofertility Consortium as an Emerging Knowledge Commons Request for Prototype Proposals (RPP) 20-11, Objective PRE-20-11 for 'COVID-19 Pandemic -Large Scale Vaccine Manufacturing Demonstration Manufacturing barriers to biologics competition and innovation How logically impossible patents block biosimilars Global Vaccine Crisis Sends Ominous Signal for Fighting Climate Change Knowledge transfer for large-scale vaccine manufacturing. Science (80-. ) What lurks in the shadows of the openness hyperbole for biopharmaceuticals? Are trade secrets delaying biosimilars? Science (80-. ) Joint antitrust statement regarding COVID-19 Temporary Framework for assessing antitrust issues related to business cooperation in response to situations of urgency stemming from the current COVID-19 outbreak Combination prevention for COVID-19. Science (80-. ) Covid-19: A call for global vaccine equity Innovation Law, a scientifically independent research program supported by the Novo Nordisk Foundation (grant NNF17SA0027784). We thank Kim Parry for research assistance. The authors declare no competing interest. TM is a member of the IP advisory board of the Danish biotech company Christian Hansen A/S, but the company had no role in the design or conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. ☐ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.☒The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests:The authors declare no competing interest. TM is a member of the IP advisory board of the Danish biotech company Christian Hansen A/S, but the company had no role in the design or conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.