Moderna, which is receiving $483 million from the U.S. government, told lawmakers it would not sell its vaccine at cost. Pfizer has said it would also profit, but has so far taken no government money.<\/b>
\nExecutives from four companies in the race to produce a coronavirus vaccine \u2014 AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna Therapeutics and Pfizer \u2014 told lawmakers on Tuesday that they are optimistic their products could be ready by the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021. All four companies are testing vaccines in human clinical trials. Three of the firms \u2014 AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna \u2014 are getting federal funds for their vaccine development efforts. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson pledged to the lawmakers that they would produce hundreds of millions of doses of their vaccines at no profit to themselves. Moderna, however, which has been granted $483 million from the government to develop its product, made no such promise. \u201cWe will not sell it at cost,\u201d said Dr. Stephen Hoge, the president of Moderna. Many Democratic lawmakers have argued that federal funding for vaccine development should include provisions to guarantee affordability and guard against profiteering. At the Congressional hearing on Tuesday, some House members raised concerns about Pfizer\u2019s decision to reject federal funds, suggesting it could lead to price-gouging and a lack of transparency. \u201cWe didn\u2019t accept the federal government funding solely for the reason that we wanted to be able to move as quickly as possible with our vaccine candidate into the clinic,\u201d said John Young, Pfizer\u2019s chief business officer. \u201cWe\u2019ll price our potential vaccine consistent with the urgent global health emergency that we\u2019re facing,\u201d Mr. Young said, adding that \u201ca vaccine is meaningless if people are unable to afford it.\u201d Representative Dr. Raul Ruiz, Democrat of California, also questioned whether failing to address the financial stakes of vaccine development early on could keep these products out of \u201cthe hands of the people that need this most.\u201d \u201cI don\u2019t want to look back, and then have health equity be an afterthought,\u201d Dr. Ruiz said. \u201cIt has to be prioritized.\u201d The hearing held by members of the House energy committee\u2019s oversight panel was punctuated by notes of optimism from executives from each company, several of whom referred to promising early results from studies in people. On Monday, AstraZeneca and Pfizer released data indicating that their vaccines could stimulate strong immune responses with only minor side effects. Still, the actual effectiveness and durability of these responses against the virus have yet to be determined. No vaccine candidates have been proven effective for preventing infection by the coronavirus, or for protecting people from the severe effects of Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. Panel members pressed the company executives for a commitment to maintain the highest standards for a vaccine, and not sacrifice quality for the sake of expediency. An ideal vaccine, several committee members stressed, would not only be safe and effective, but also be straightforward enough to manufacture en masse and available to the public at low cost. \u201cIt is possible that a Covid-19 vaccine may become available by the end of this year or early next year,\u201d said Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado and the panel\u2019s chairperson. \u201cThat\u2019s a rare bit of good news in this harrowing time.\u201d But, she added, \u201cwe must remind ourselves that plenty can still go wrong. And so the anticipated timeline is not guaranteed.\u201d A fifth contender, Merck, painted a far less rosy picture of the vaccine development landscape. Dr. Julie Gerberding, the company\u2019s executive vice president and chief patient officer, made no promises about when its product would be ready, citing concerns about safety should the process be rushed. \u201cWe do not expect to be able to accelerate the safety assessment,\u201d Dr. Gerberding said. Merck\u2019s chief executive, Kenneth Frazier, has previously cautioned against coronavirus vaccine hype and warned that a hurried approval process could damage prospects for protecting the public. In a statement released on June 30, the Food and Drug Administration noted that any vaccine candidate vying for approval would need to prevent or ameliorate disease in at least 50 percent of the people who received it. Manufacturers won\u2019t have a good sense of these metrics until the completion of so-called Phase 3 clinical trials, which enroll thousands of participants \u2014 some of whom are vaccinated, some of whom aren\u2019t \u2014 and track their infection status over the course of multiple months. Federal approval isn\u2019t the only goal of vaccine development, the executives said. Once this milestone is met, the vaccines will still need to be administered widely and also be accessible to a range of populations particularly those that have been disproportionately affected by the virus. Those would include the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions and Black, Latino and Native Americans. In written statements to the panel, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer reaffirmed their commitment to diversity in their vaccine development pipelines to ensure that these vulnerable communities will also benefit from their products. Dr. Macaya Douoguih, who is head of clinical development and medical affairs of Johnson & Johnson\u2019s Janssen Vaccines, said at the hearing that her company would be leveraging its past experience with community outreach, noting the importance of equipping higher-risk populations with accurate information about the disease. And Dr. Hoge, of Moderna, said that his company is actively enrolling people \u201crepresentative of the diversity of America\u201d into Phase 3 trials. The subcommittee also stressed the importance of worldwide distribution of any vaccines proven effective against the coronavirus to ensure global health. \u201cNone of us are safe until all of us are safe,\u201d Mr. Young said. Carl Zimmer and Noah Weiland contributed to this article.<\/p>\n