The Trouble with a Nobel for mRNA COVID Vaccines

Why in News?

• The 2023 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine has been awarded to Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman for developing the mRNA vaccine technology.
• The prizes acknowledge work that has created benefits for all mankind, but if it was examined strictly about holding scientific accomplishments, the subset of mRNA vaccines used during the COVID-19 pandemic may not meet the standards.

mRNA Vaccine

• Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a type of single-stranded RNA involved in protein synthesis. mRNA is made from a DNA template during the process of transcription.
• mRNA vaccines work by introducing a piece of mRNA that corresponds to a viral protein, usually a small piece of a protein found on the virus’s outer membrane.
• By using this mRNA, cells can produce the viral protein. As part of a normal immune response, the immune system recognizes that the protein is foreign and produces specialized proteins called antibodies.
• Antibodies help protect the body against infection by recognizing individual viruses or other pathogens, attaching to them, and marking the pathogens for destruction.
• Once produced, antibodies remain in the body, even after the body has rid itself of the pathogen, so that the immune system can quickly respond if exposed again.

The Trouble with a Nobel for mRNA Vaccines

• Scientists Put Money over Moral
  • Kariko and Dr. Weissman began working together on the mRNA platform at the University of Pennsylvania in the late 1990s.
  • The University licensed its patents to mRNA RiboTherapeutics, which sublicensed them to CellScript, which sublicensed them to Moderna and BioNTech for $75 million each.
  • Karikó joined BioNTech as senior vice-president in 2013, and the company enlisted Pfizer to develop its mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 in 2020.
• Extensive Research at the Expense of Public Funds
  • Much of the knowledge that supports most new drugs and vaccines is done at the expense of governments and public funds.
  • This stage of drug development is riskier and more time-consuming, as scientists uncover potential biomolecular targets within the body on which a drug could work to treat a specific ailment, followed by the identification of suitable chemical candidates.
  • The cost and time estimates of this phase are $1billion-$2.5 billion and several decades, respectively.
• Subsequent Commercialisation of Research by Private Companies
  • Companies subsequently commoditise and commercialise this research, earning in millions in profits, typically at the expense of the same people whose taxes funded the fundamental research.
  • For example, once Moderna and Pfizer began producing their mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, they wanted to make sure they had more than enough for themselves before allowing manufacturers to export them to the rest of the world.
  • Their use in other countries (including India) was also complicated by protracted negotiations over pricing and liability.

The COVAX Programme and Problems Faced by It

• COVAX Programme
  • COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access, abbreviated as COVAX, was a worldwide initiative aimed at equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines directed by the GAVI vaccine alliance.
  • It was one of the four pillars of the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, an initiative begun in 2020 by the WHO, the European Commission, and the government of France as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • COVAX coordinated international resources to enable low-to-middle-income countries equitable access to COVID-19 tests, therapies, and vaccines.
  • UNICEF was the key delivery partner, leveraging its experience as the largest single vaccine buyer in the world and working on the procurement of COVID-19 vaccine doses, as well as logistics, country readiness and in-country delivery.
  • By 19 October 2020, 184 countries had joined COVAX.
• Problems Faced by COVAX Programme
  • COVAX programme fell far short of its targets. India, Russia, and China exported billions of doses of their vaccines.
  • But their efforts were also affected by concerns that manufacturing capacity had been overestimated in India’s case and over quality in Russia’s and China’s.
  • There were reports of several countries in Africa having to throw away lakhs of vaccine doses because they had been exported too close to their expiry dates.

The Corbevax Programme: A Counter Example of Dr Karikó’s Path

• Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine (Houston), etc., developed protein sub-unit vaccine - Corbevax.
• It was then licensed to India’s Biological E for manufacturing, without patenting it.
• In February 2022, a Texas politician wrote a letter nominating the vaccine’s developers for a Nobel Prize for Peace for their work to develop and distribute a low-cost COVID-19 vaccine to people of the world without patent limitation.
• Kenya’s Ambassador to the United Nations commended the developers for providing much needed ethical and scientific leadership to the world.

Conclusion

• Scientists should not be blamed for trying to profit from their work. However, the mRNA vaccination tale during the COVID-19 pandemic just challenged their selflessness.
• During the pandemic, the technology could have helped everyone, but it did not.
• So, history should remember what actually happened during the pandemic and what the 2023 Medicine Nobel claims happened differently.

Q1) What is the difference between mRNA and traditional vaccines?

mRNA vaccines are a relatively new type of vaccine. They contain genetic material, or mRNA, that tells the body how to make a protein. This protein causes an immune response, which teaches the body how to protect itself from a specific virus. In contrast, traditional vaccines use weakened or dead microbes, or pieces of them, to stimulate immunity.

Q2) What was the discovery made by Dr Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman?

Karikó and Weissman observed that dendritic cells identify in vitro transcribed mRNA as foreign, activating them and causing the release of inflammatory signals. They questioned why this mRNA was considered foreign, unlike mRNA from mammalian cells, which didn't trigger the same response. This led them to realise that there must be distinct properties separating the two mRNA types.

Source: The Hindu