The debate on vaccine patent waivers has heated up on an international scale. Some are outraged against the current inequity of global vaccine distribution, citing intellectual property (IP) protection as the major cause of the issue. But countries like Germany and South Korea, as well as many pharmaceutical companies, remain hesitant on the idea that waiving patents will be the solution to the pandemic.

Proponents of vaccine patent waivers present waivers as a “silver bullet” that can end the inequity of vaccine distribution, and consequently, the pandemic. However, this simply is not the case. There are serious doubts that patent waivers will actually be effective in boosting global vaccine production. Waiving IP will give other companies and governments the right to produce vaccines, but having a recipe and the rights to use it does not translate to successful production. Vaccines are no simple technology. Take Pfizer for example: Pfizer’s vaccine was developed using groundbreaking mRNA technology, unprecedented in its usage in vaccine development. To replicate the mRNA vaccines, one would need not only their recipe, but also the ingredients: the mRNA technology, infrastructure, resources, as well as a skilled workforce. These will not be magically provided by IP waivers.

Assuming that companies and governments are freely given license to start replicating the vaccines, experts estimate that infrastructure development and successful production can only happen by 2022 at the earliest. But this is far later than when countries such as India and Brazil need vaccines — which is right now. It would be more realistic for countries with extra doses of vaccines, like the US, to share their surplus to alleviate the urgent crises of other nations. In this sense, adamantly advocating for IP waivers is a “distraction”, as it may divert attention away from the more tangible and feasible solutions currently present.

Moreover, IP waivers on vaccines harbor their own dangers. First and foremost, patent waivers create a new risk of low quality vaccines being produced. Just as it is challenging to produce the vaccines, ensuring high quality of the newly produced vaccines will be extremely challenging. Experts from current vaccine producers would have to undergo routine checks on the newly established production facilities. However, transparent communication will be a problem as companies will be hesitant to share production secrets necessary for ensuring vaccine quality, again areas that IP waivers cannot address. Such concerns on vaccine quality may also exacerbate the already serious vaccine hesitancy problem worldwide. Perhaps it will reach a point where people not only look for what the type of the vaccine is, but also where and by whom the vaccine was produced.

Patent waivers may also undermine innovation as well as reduce incentives for future innovation. While it is true that a large percentage of the current vaccine development was publicly funded, much of the core technology that allowed such quick development in the first place came from decades of research and innovation from the companies. Currently, the pharmaceutical industry is strongly against the idea of IP waivers. Putting aside the debate of morality, dismissing the concerns of the industry may bring forth unnecessary conflict in a time desperate for collaboration. A wiser solution would be to ensure IP protection, while utilizing licenses for production to increase production capabilities. This will facilitate genuine cooperation and create healthy competition, and set the correct tone in preparing for the next pandemics to come.

The debate on vaccine patent waivers is a red herring. There should be no debate on what seems to bring forth more problems than solutions. What should be encouraged, however, are discussions on how to fundamentally speed up global vaccine production. Governments must cooperate to locate bottlenecks in vaccination supplies. Pharmaceutical companies must work to expand their production capacities and increase exports overseas. Meanwhile, wealthy countries should share their supplies to mitigate greater virus tolls in the more needy areas. The efforts to tackle the challenges of the pandemic should be collaborative and focused, not misguided by an unnecessary debate.