scholarly journals Who funded the research behind the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
pp. e007321
Author(s):  
Samuel Cross ◽  
Yeanuk Rho ◽  
Henna Reddy ◽  
Toby Pepperrell ◽  
Florence Rodgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Principal Investigators ◽  
Publication History ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
History Analysis ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Vectored Vaccine ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University

ObjectivesThe Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.ResultsWe identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.ConclusionOur study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%–99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

scholarly journals Who funded the research behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine? - Approximating the funding to the University of Oxford for the research and development of the ChAdOx vaccine technology

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Cross ◽  
Yeanuk Rho ◽  
Henna Reddy ◽  
Toby Pepperrell ◽  
Florence Rodgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
History Analysis ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Vectored Vaccine ◽  
The University

Objectives: The Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or Vaxzevira) builds on nearly two decades of research and development (R&D) into Chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aims to approximate the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, and assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms. Design: We conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct the funding for the R&D of the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly-accessible grant databases. We filed Freedom Of Information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D. Results: We identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between 01/2002 and 10/2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from funding acknowledgement statements. Government funders from overseas were mentioned 158 (27.4%), the U.K. government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%) times. Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions, amounts were available in the public realm for 121 (21.0%) mentions. Based on the FOIs, until 01/2020, the European Commision (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and CEPI (17.5%) were the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D. From 01/2020, the U.K. Department of Health and Social Care was the single largest funder (89.3%). The identified R&D funding was GBP104,226,076 reported in the FOIs, and GBP228,466,771 reconstructed from the literature search. Conclusions: Our study identified that public funding accounted for 97.1-99.0% of the funding towards the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. We furthermore encountered a severe lack of transparency in research funding reporting mechanisms.

Spin-out fever: Spinning out a University of Oxford company and comments on the process in other universities

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Savage
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Technology Transfer Office ◽  
Oxford University ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University ◽  
External Equity

University spin-out companies are increasing seen as a favoured route for commercialisation of university intellectual property. There has been criticism in the Lambert Review of Business–University Collaboration in 2003, commissioned by the UK Government in 2003, that there have been too many spin-outs of low quality and that a measure of quality is the amount of external equity they attract. This has been refuted by Dr Williams of the University of Warwick technology transfer office. Oxford University has created 42 companies with no failures. The rigorous process involved in the creation of an Oxford spin-out is given in some detail. The author then goes on to discuss his experiences of other university spin-out models. Finally, some of the tax problems that caused universities across the UK to stop spinning-out companies recently are discussed. In conclusion despite the criticisms, the author believes the process of creating companies to commercialise university R & D is critical to the overall success of UK plc in the long term.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the Withdrawal Agreement of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The Withdrawal Agreement, adopted on the basis of Article 50 Treaty on European Union (TEU), spells out the terms and conditions of the UK departure from the EU, including ground-breaking solutions to deal with the thorniest issues which emerged in the context of the withdrawal negotiations. Admittedly, the Withdrawal Agreement is only a part of the Brexit deal. The Agreement, in fact, is accompanied by a connected political declaration, which outlines the framework of future EU–UK relations. The chapter then offers a chronological summary of the process that led to the adoption of the Withdrawal Agreement, describing the crucial stages in the Brexit process — from the negotiations to the conclusion of a draft agreement and its rejection, to the extension and the participation of the UK to European Parliament (EP) elections, to the change of UK government and the ensuing constitutional crisis, to the new negotiations with the conclusion of a revised agreement, new extension, and new UK elections eventually leading to the departure of the UK from the EU.

scholarly journals Hydroxychloroquine and dexamethasone in COVID-19: who won and who lost?

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Ortolani ◽  
Elide A. Pastorello
Keyword(s):  
Lung Damage ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Pharmacologic Therapy ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University

Abstract Background On June 30, 2020, the WHO reported over 10 millions of COVID-19 cases worldwide with over half a million deaths. In severe cases the disease progresses into an Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), which in turn depends on an overproduction of cytokines (IL-6, TNFα, IL-12, IL-8, CCL-2 and IL1) that causes alveolar and vascular lung damage. Clearly, it is essential to find an immunological treatment that controls the “cytokine storm”. In the meantime, however, it is essential to have effective antiviral and anti-inflammatory drugs available immediately. Pharmacologic therapy for COVID-19 Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine have been widely adopted worldwide for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. However, the choice of this treatment was based on low quality of evidence, i.e. retrospective, non-randomized controlled studies. Recently, four large Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been performed in record time delivering reliable data: (1) the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RCT included 60 hospitals participating all over the world and showed the efficacy of remdesivir in reducing the recovery time in hospitalized adults with COVID-19 pneumonia; (2) three large RCTs already completed, for hydroxychloroquine, dexamethasone and Lopinavir and Ritonavir respectively. These trials were done under the umbrella of the 'Recovery' project, headed by the University of Oxford. The project includes 176 participating hospitals in the UK and was set up to verify the efficacy of some of the treatments used for COVID-19. These three ‘Recovery’ RCTs concluded definitely: (a) that treatment with hydroxychloroquine provides no benefits in patients hospitalized with COVID-19; (b) that treatment with dexamethasone reduced deaths by one-third in COVID-19 patients that were mechanically ventilated, and by one-fifth in patients receiving oxygen only; (c) that the combination of Lopinavir and Ritonavir is not effective in reducing mortality in COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Conclusions The results of these four large RCTs have provided sound indications to doctors for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 and prompted the correction of many institutional provisions and guidelines on COVID-19 treatments (i.e. FDA, NIH, UK Health Service, etc.). Even though a definitive treatment for COVID-19 has not yet been found, large RCTs stand as the Gold Standards for COVID-19 therapy and offer a solid scientific base on which to base treatment decisions.

BENEFITS FOR EU CITIZENS: A U-TURN BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE?

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 195-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Welfare Benefits ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

THE recent judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the case of Dano (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2358) clarified some important points as regards access to social welfare benefits by EU citizens who move to another Member State. Furthermore, the judgment could have broad implications for any attempts by the UK Government to renegotiate the UK's membership of the EU, which is likely to focus on benefits for EU citizens coming to the UK. This note is an updated and expanded version of my analysis on the EU Law Analysis blog: http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/benefit-tourism-by-eu-citizens-cjeu.html.

scholarly journals Making THE vaccine

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carina Citra Dewi Joe ◽  
Adam John Ritchie
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
Vectored Vaccine ◽  
The University ◽  
Roll Out

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths and devastated communities across the globe. Vaccines will play a key role in bringing the pandemic under control, with successful clinical trials, authorizations and roll-out having now occurred in several countries. However, large-scale manufacturing of such vaccines remains a bottleneck to delivering doses to billions of people at risk of infection, as well as producing new versions of the vaccines that target variants. Here we discuss the current status of manufacturing, focusing on the adenovirus-vectored vaccine developed by the University of Oxford and how the process for manufacturing it was developed.

scholarly journals A brief synthesis of corrections, including retractions, of the Hungarian literature

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
The State ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Hungarian Literature ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University ◽  
The Eu

Hungary is geographically central in the European Union (EU). Being linguistically and culturally distinct, Hungary is ideally positioned and somewhat unique, being surrounded by seven other nations. In academics, the challenges facing Hungarian scholars are no different than other scholars in the EU, or globally. In the past few years, research ethics has become more stringent, in part as a result of fortified post-publication peer review. This letter provides one perspective about the state of Hungarian research and academia relative to other EU nations through the prism of research ethics, and in the form of literature corrections, including retractions. Using the Retraction Watch database, 24 retractions, corrections or expressions of concern were observed. One third of those emerged from the University of Debrecen. Five of the corrections were in Elsevier journals, followed by four in Springer Nature journals. Compared with the remaining 26 EU nations, excluding the UK (i.e., considering Brexit), Hungary ranks 17th in terms of number of corrections (range: Malta = 2; Germany = 751). These numbers suggest either that research ethics may be more stringent in Hungary, or that the Hungarian literature has not been sufficiently scrutinized through post-publication peer review.

Resistance

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Herbert
Keyword(s):  
Research Council ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Political Life ◽  
Cambridge University ◽  
Arts And Humanities ◽  
University Of Oxford ◽  
New Public ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University

This chapter discusses the antagonism and resistance directed against the ARHB. When the Dearing Report first appeared, the University of Oxford stood against the establishment of a separate Research Council for humanities. It expressed doubts about the new public funding of such a new organization and on the transfer of control of expenditure away from the universities to a council envisaged as the instrument of a national policy for research in arts and humanities. Cambridge University also expressed, albeit not as adamantly as Oxford, their disapproval of a Humanities Research Council. Adding to these disapprovals were the conflicts it had caused in the contemporary UK political life, particularly with devolution. In the devolution process of the UK government, one of the devolved powers was education, which created adverse effects on the formulation of Humanities Research Council. The AHRB also met with criticism from other councils including the journals and newspapers of the UK.

4. The separation of powers

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Colin Faragher
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses the meaning of separation of powers; what judges say about the separation of powers in the UK; what statutes say about the separation of powers in the UK; whether the UK Government is based on the separation of powers; the relationship between the executive and the legislature, the relationship between the executive and the legislature in the process of departure from the European Union, the whip system and backbench revolts, the relationship between the executive and the judiciary, the independence of the judiciary, the appointment and dismissal of judges, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, the Sentencing Council for England and Wales, and the relationship between the courts and Parliament.

Brexit: a challenge for the UK constitution, of the UK constitution?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
pp. 409-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gordon
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
General Election ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
National Response ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The United Kingdom 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union – challenges of pursuing the decision to withdraw – challenges for the UK constitution in commencing, executing, concluding, and legitimising EU withdrawal – domestic constitutional requirements for triggering Article 50 TEU – roles of UK government, UK Parliament, and devolved institutions in Brexit – a second referendum or a national general election on withdrawal terms – exiting the EU as a challenge of the UK’s political constitution – Brexit as exposing limitations of the UK’s current constitutional arrangements and architecture – Brexit as an unprecedented event and the centrality of politics – constitutional factors contributing to the outcome of the referendum – concerns about sovereignty and the (im)possibility of a national response – potential implications of the referendum for the UK and for the EU

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document