Structural violence and the biomedical innovation system: what responsibility do universities have in ensuring access to health technologies?

Keestra, Sarai

doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004916

Cited by 6 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…53 To recognise the public contributions and risk-taking in the R&D of the ChAdOx technology on which the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine relies, the benefits of this research should be shared fairly and equitably with the global population. 39 54 55 As the ChAdOx vaccine platform is potentially applicable to many more global health challenges beyond the COVID-19, including emerging infectious diseases and pathogens of pandemic potential other than SARS-CoV-2, its mode of technology transfer is of global public health relevance with potential impact for equitable access and affordability of vaccines for other diseases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who funded the research behind the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.ResultsWe identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.ConclusionOur study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%–99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who funded the research behind the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior to the pandemic, seven universities in the UK had implemented an essential medicines policy or committed to the principles of socially responsible licensing, including University College London, Imperial College London and the Universities of Oxford, Dundee, Bristol, and Edinburgh. These policies included measures such as refraining from prosecuting patent applications in developing countries and using non-exclusive licenses in ways that promote access (Gotham et al, 2016 (Keestra, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering the unique position of universities in the biomedical innovation ecosystem, situated between upstream publicly funded R&D and often downstream private sector marketisation, universities have both the opportunity and responsibility to determine the conditions of technology transfer (Keestra, 2021). This has especially been important in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, in which public research institutions and public funding played a prominent role.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, concerns remain regarding global equitable access to health technologies that have been developed at UK universities using significant public funding (Cross et al, 2021;Keestra, 2021;McDonagh, 2021;Pepperrell et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most instances, by transferring the exclusive rights to use intellectual property (IP) around a health innovation to the private sector in the form of an exclusive license, the university relinquishes its influence over the subsequent development and marketization, and thereby the ability to ensure affordability and accessibility downstream (Chokshi 2006;Keestra 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

University patenting and licensing practices in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic

Keestra

Rodgers

Osborne

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universities play a vital role in developing health technologies to address the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the measures the top 35 UK universities receiving most Medical Research Council funding have taken to ensure global equitable access to health technologies in technology transfer. In October 2020 we sent Freedom Of Information requests and analysed universities' websites, to (i.) assess institutional strategies on the patenting and licensing of COVID-19-related health technologies, (ii.) identify all COVID-19-related health technologies licensed or patented, and (iii.) record whether universities engaged with the Open-COVID pledge, COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), or Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) COVID-19 licensing guidelines. Except for the Universities of Oxford and Edinburgh, UK universities have not updated their institutional strategies during the pandemic. Nine universities licensed 22 COVID-19 health technologies. Imperial College London disclosed 10 patents relevant to COVID-19. No UK universities participate in the Open-COVID Pledge or C-TAP, but discussions are ongoing. The University of Bristol signed up to the AUTM guidelines. Despite several COVID-19 health technologies being developed by UK universities, our findings suggest minimal engagement with measures that may promote equitable access. We suggest that universities review their technology transfer policies and implement global equitable access strategies for COVID-19 health technologies.

show abstract