Nov 6, 2021 12:29 AM
(This post was last modified: Nov 6, 2021 03:09 AM by C C.)
Perils of censorship on full display in Florida University fiasco
https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/pe...ty-fiasco/
UPDATE (11/5): In what looks like a win for academic freedom, it appears that the University of Florida is reversing its decision and will allow its professors to serve as expert witnesses in voting rights litigation. Read the letter from the university president (here).
INTRO: The firestorm continues to rage at the University of Florida (UF) over its decision to bar three of its professors from testifying in a voting rights lawsuit – a furor fueled in part by the university’s conflicting and ridiculous attempts to explain its rationale and cover its tracks.
The professors, political scientists with expertise and standing on voting rights, provided a powerful response to the university’s efforts to silence them, citing their mission – and the mission of a publicly-funded university – to serve the people of Florida and the public good, not the political agenda of elected officials. University professors across the country with diverse views on voting rights and other election issues quickly decried the university’s actions, called on it to reverse its decision and to allow the three faculty members to offer their expert testimony in the case.
And then we hear that this is not the first time UF has barred professors from testifying as expert witnesses in cases that challenge policies of the state’s sitting governor, Ron DeSantis (see here, here, here).
[...] In Florida, we’ve seen this anti-science rhetoric play out on COVID-19, with an executive order and laws that fly in the face of science-based public health measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. Just this week, the governor vowed to fight OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard on vaccination and testing. Following the university’s voting rights logic, could the university suppress the ability of its public health and infectious disease experts from speaking out on the impact of these policy actions on the health of Floridians? (MORE - missing details)
How Trump’s deal with Moderna hampers the global vaccine effort
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/05...ort-519771
INTRO: As the coronavirus tore through the U.S. in August 2020, Trump administration officials, desperate for a vaccine, cut a generous deal with a tiny company that had received extensive aid from the federal government.
The pharmaceutical firm, Moderna, had already gotten a jump on designing a Covid-19 vaccine thanks to a partnership with the National Institutes of Health. Propelled by government scientists, it developed a promising candidate within weeks. And fueled by nearly $1 billion in federal funds for research and development, the company was closer than ever to delivering on the first drug of its decadelong existence. The deal the administration was proposing now would add another $1.5 billion to Moderna’s haul in exchange for up to 500 million doses of the vaccine — giving the U.S. first rights to a shot made possible by its own taxpayers.
But beyond that, the government asked for little in return. Moderna got full ownership of the lucrative technology critical to the vaccine’s success, despite its reliance on years of NIH research. The company would face no obligation to share those details with the U.S. — even as it reaped profits from vaccinating millions of Americans.
Perhaps most significantly at the time, the agreement came with a catch for the government: No doses delivered to the U.S. could be shared with the rest of the world — a restriction that cleared the way for Moderna to negotiate its own prices to sell its vaccine on the international market, four people with knowledge of the provision told POLITICO.
The pact transformed Moderna. A company that once struggled to attract investors, it's since been valued as high as $140 billion. Stéphane Bancel, its CEO, is a multibillionaire, while three others with ties to Moderna rank among the 400 richest people in the country.
Yet as vaccines rolled out at home and the government’s priorities shifted to vaccinating the world — the only way to truly end the pandemic and prevent new variants from roiling the U.S. — the deal the Trump administration negotiated with Moderna has become a key stumbling block in the global fight against Covid-19.
Armed with the generous language in its contract, the company has refused to grant access to its technology to vaccine manufacturers serving the developing world and at multiple points resisted pleas to increase aid to the neediest countries, angering critics who say the Trump administration should have driven a tougher bargain with Moderna when it had the chance... (MORE)
- - - - - -
With respect to Moderna's business self-interests that they would have pursued in government negotiations during any administrative era, is there really reason to bother highlighting a connection to Trump all these months later, other than that they still hope for the automatic attention his name gave a specific issue? I.e., it's kind of backhandedly admitting the commercial value and propagandist loss of such a high-profile, controversy generating enemy.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/pe...ty-fiasco/
UPDATE (11/5): In what looks like a win for academic freedom, it appears that the University of Florida is reversing its decision and will allow its professors to serve as expert witnesses in voting rights litigation. Read the letter from the university president (here).
INTRO: The firestorm continues to rage at the University of Florida (UF) over its decision to bar three of its professors from testifying in a voting rights lawsuit – a furor fueled in part by the university’s conflicting and ridiculous attempts to explain its rationale and cover its tracks.
The professors, political scientists with expertise and standing on voting rights, provided a powerful response to the university’s efforts to silence them, citing their mission – and the mission of a publicly-funded university – to serve the people of Florida and the public good, not the political agenda of elected officials. University professors across the country with diverse views on voting rights and other election issues quickly decried the university’s actions, called on it to reverse its decision and to allow the three faculty members to offer their expert testimony in the case.
And then we hear that this is not the first time UF has barred professors from testifying as expert witnesses in cases that challenge policies of the state’s sitting governor, Ron DeSantis (see here, here, here).
[...] In Florida, we’ve seen this anti-science rhetoric play out on COVID-19, with an executive order and laws that fly in the face of science-based public health measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. Just this week, the governor vowed to fight OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard on vaccination and testing. Following the university’s voting rights logic, could the university suppress the ability of its public health and infectious disease experts from speaking out on the impact of these policy actions on the health of Floridians? (MORE - missing details)
How Trump’s deal with Moderna hampers the global vaccine effort
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/05...ort-519771
INTRO: As the coronavirus tore through the U.S. in August 2020, Trump administration officials, desperate for a vaccine, cut a generous deal with a tiny company that had received extensive aid from the federal government.
The pharmaceutical firm, Moderna, had already gotten a jump on designing a Covid-19 vaccine thanks to a partnership with the National Institutes of Health. Propelled by government scientists, it developed a promising candidate within weeks. And fueled by nearly $1 billion in federal funds for research and development, the company was closer than ever to delivering on the first drug of its decadelong existence. The deal the administration was proposing now would add another $1.5 billion to Moderna’s haul in exchange for up to 500 million doses of the vaccine — giving the U.S. first rights to a shot made possible by its own taxpayers.
But beyond that, the government asked for little in return. Moderna got full ownership of the lucrative technology critical to the vaccine’s success, despite its reliance on years of NIH research. The company would face no obligation to share those details with the U.S. — even as it reaped profits from vaccinating millions of Americans.
Perhaps most significantly at the time, the agreement came with a catch for the government: No doses delivered to the U.S. could be shared with the rest of the world — a restriction that cleared the way for Moderna to negotiate its own prices to sell its vaccine on the international market, four people with knowledge of the provision told POLITICO.
The pact transformed Moderna. A company that once struggled to attract investors, it's since been valued as high as $140 billion. Stéphane Bancel, its CEO, is a multibillionaire, while three others with ties to Moderna rank among the 400 richest people in the country.
Yet as vaccines rolled out at home and the government’s priorities shifted to vaccinating the world — the only way to truly end the pandemic and prevent new variants from roiling the U.S. — the deal the Trump administration negotiated with Moderna has become a key stumbling block in the global fight against Covid-19.
Armed with the generous language in its contract, the company has refused to grant access to its technology to vaccine manufacturers serving the developing world and at multiple points resisted pleas to increase aid to the neediest countries, angering critics who say the Trump administration should have driven a tougher bargain with Moderna when it had the chance... (MORE)
- - - - - -
With respect to Moderna's business self-interests that they would have pursued in government negotiations during any administrative era, is there really reason to bother highlighting a connection to Trump all these months later, other than that they still hope for the automatic attention his name gave a specific issue? I.e., it's kind of backhandedly admitting the commercial value and propagandist loss of such a high-profile, controversy generating enemy.
