Crisis Innovation Policy from World War II to COVID-19

Abstract

We thank Josh Lerner, Scott Stern, Ken Shadlen, Sherry Glied, and participants at the 2021 NBER EIPE workshop for helpful comments. We also thank Harvard Business School and the NBER Innovation Policy grant (2016) for financial support. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1951470. All errors are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications.

An elephant in the glasshouse? Trade-offs between acceleration and transformation in COVID-19 vaccine innovation policies

“…Many countries articulated missions for creating a COVID-19 vaccine. Already in February 2020 the White House Coronavirus Task Force called for a ‘Manhattan Project’ for vaccines ( Gross and Sampat, 2022 ) and the US later invested heavily in Operation Warp Speed with a clear goal to produce and deliver 300 million doses of vaccines within 6 months. Countries such as the UK, Canada, Korea and China, the European Union and organizations like the WHO and CEPI all announced programs – which they often referred to as missions – to support the creation of a COVID-19 vaccine within a pressing timeframe (for an overview of programs, see Geulette (2020) , UK Department for Business (2020) and European Commission (2020) ).…”

Doubling Down: Will Large Increases in the NIH Budget Promote More Meaningful Medical Innovation?

“…(There are precedents for public sector biomedical research funding in applied biomedical research activities, including in COVIDd-19 vaccine development and during World War II, but these represent the exception not the rule; neither of these specific efforts was primarily via the NIH.) 12 I and others have also argued for experimentation with more NIH funding for late-stage and applied research. 13 Economists and science policymakers historically have made the case for public funding of basic research using a "market failure'' rationale: the gap between private and social value of the research.…”