I'm sure I read that it was an early condition added by Oxford Uni, before gov.uk were even taking covid seriously. I can't remember if that's what broke the first attempted deal with Merck.
AZ’s profits rise to $7.4bn as main business ‘remains strong’ Feb 21).
AZ (and partners worldwide) will be producing three billion doses worldwide in 2021 (@ $3(?) per dose).
This Cherwell article gives an insight into the Oxford Uni to Merck > AZ considerations. Once the pandemic is over, there will be money to be made by AZ and a significant funding stream (6% of profits) coming back into the university (aiui) to go into medical research. Besides manufacturing location issues the stumbling blocks for link up with Merck were these:
1) Oxford closed talks with the pharmaceutical company Merck after concerns that it could not provide the vaccine to poorer countries.
2) Merck offered Oxford only 1% in royalties. (
Wall Street Journal)
The article notes that that Oxford could have funded an awful lot of medical research if it had kept the rights to penicillin last century.
Edited extract:
Sir John Bell, Regius professor of medicine at Oxford, said that if Oxford did not have a stake in the vaccine, “people are going to come back and say, ‘Oh my God, another British university inventing something worth a ton of money, and guess what, they gave it away for free’.”
“The University didn’t enter this discussion with the idea of making a ton of money. Let’s say [the vaccine] becomes a seasonal coronavirus vaccine, and it sells a billion dollars a year. For us to be sitting there and making no money looks pretty dumb.”
Oxford University said in April (once AZ agreement signed): “As well as providing UK access as early as possible if the vaccine candidate is successful, Astra Zeneca will work with global partners on the international distribution of the vaccine, particularly working to make it available and accessible for low and medium income countries.”
