So much is talked about pharma giants making ‘a kill’ in the pandemic ‘tsunami’. Is it immoral? Who is competent to decide what is morality in the first place? Anybody could have done the needed research and found the elixir! It is a free world. At the beginning of the game itself it is known the winner would take it all. They have won and get their fair return for their success. Period.
There is shrill cry that though the pharma companies have got state funding for the research, the price of the vaccines which are products of the research, is disproportionately high. But, after all, the state also knows it is betting on a winning horse; it has in fact tied (unethically) all the supplies on priority exclusively for its own use. Any other tags could also have been tied to the recipient of the grant.. but having agreed, now crying foul is anarchism.
One would then argue that in any State sponsored research, the fruits of the efforts should accrue to the society since it is public money. But, ethically, to promote research state should fund such researches in public interest without tying the funding for its own benefit. After all the knowledge generated is not the exclusive domain of the state but of the scientists whose free will play a major role. Even then, the state in its wisdom desires to stake a claim, it is free to incorporate such a clause in the contract while awarding the grant. If not, there is no binding. Play as per rules of the game – don’t change rules retrospectively just because you are empowered! But be a referee and ensure fair playing field.
Should in all state funded research programs, state must have a share? Can the public rightfully demand a stake always in the product, even without such a contractual binding? It is akin to binding all the students graduated as subordinates to the state as they have indirectly got the state funding! What would be the responsibility of those who graduate with state scholarship? To what extent are they subordinate to the state?
This sort of allegations of exploitation, making huge profits and demands to cut down the price, throttle motivation to innovate in scientific arena where the success rates are low and opportunity costs are the norms! Who pays for failed research anyway? If the vaccines had fizzled out, would the market even whisper? No way….
Compared to the US model of Pfizer, Moderna funding or UK’s Astra Zeneca for that matter, is far different from that of India’s handholding strategy at every step of the development of vaccine: Covaxin is a Codeveloped product with the public-private cooperation. Covishield production capacity was funded with advance purchase agreements. These models largely helped in keeping the prices in check and affordable. The agreements are transparent compared to that of Pfizer’s! Why the west succumbed to the conditions of contract, the terms were kept secret, could be due to the eagerness of securing the scarce supplies on priority, ‘at any cost’, in common parlance. Now, on looking back, the west might contemplate on the unnecessary urgency and the trap it fell into. But that is a different story altogether. They have missed the bus!
Arm twisting the companies at this point of time, citing their profit margins, is unethical. At best, you take it or leave it at your peril. These strategies get support only with those having ‘collectivist’ mindset: only a few would toil to generate knowledge and wealth while every one in the society would share equally. This communist philosophy cannot sustain.
Don’t expect a free lunch without a sweat!





