San Francisco Chronicle - Monday, April 5, 1999
Tom Abate

By contrast, it makes far less economic sense for them to develop new vaccines -- which are inherently one-shot deals -- even though society might benefit more from such preventive measures.

To give drug and biotech firms a greater incentive to develop vaccines, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, recently introduced a bill that would provide a 30 percent tax credit for efforts to ward off diseases that kill more than 1 million people a year worldwide. The only ones that qualify, according to her staff, are HIV, tuberculosis and malaria.

Currently, all companies are eligible for a 20 percent R&D tax credit, regardless of whether they're designing better mousetraps, faster computers or life-saving drugs.

Pelosi's proposal would increase this credit by 50 percent for research on these specified vaccines. It also would allow companies that lose money -- as do most biotech startups -- to pass some of the credit through to their investors. This presumably would attract more investors, who could apply the write- off to their own corporate taxes.

Pelosi's bill, The Lifesaving Vaccine Technology Act, is supported by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the International AIDS Vaccine Coalition and the Global Health Council among others. Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., is poised to introduce companion legislation in the Senate.

Pelosi's idea has obvious merit -- and drawbacks. The notion of rewarding prevention makes eminent sense. But this break is narrowly targeted to just three diseases. And one of those three, HIV, already received millions in direct government support last year.

A new tax break might, as Pelosi hopes, motivate private firms to begin TB and malaria vaccine programs, which they haven't done so far. But the only immediate beneficiaries of Pelosi's proposal would be the four corporations already developing HIV vaccines. They include VaxGen, a biotech startup in South San Francisco, and Chiron, the biotech giant in Emeryville.

As members of Congress weigh Pelosi's measure, they will have to ask whether she is opening a Pandora's pork barrel.

Don Rath, tax director at Chiron, said expanded tax credits for specific R&D projects "would be a novelty."

But probably not for long. If one interest group, in this case the AIDS lobby, wins a sweeter R&D tax credit, other constituencies surely will make impassioned pleas for their own research causes.

--Inoculate this: Still, vaccination seems to be in the air in Washington, D.C. While Pelosi was floating her tax-credit bill, the Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, was finishing a three-year study on the economics of the U.S. vaccine business.

The full report should be up on the Academy's Web site today (www.nas.edu). But Dr. Robert Lawrence, a professor at Johns Hopkins University and chairman of the vaccine study group, briefed me on its findings.

First, a bit about the study group. Ever since 1863, when President Lincoln established the Academy, small teams of NAS scientists have volunteered their time to study topics of public interest.

Lawrence's group had a specific charge: to look at the infectious diseases that afflict Americans; to assess how much it might cost -- and how long it might take -- to develop a vaccine against each infection; and then to calculate where private companies and U.S. society would get the most bang for every buck invested in vaccine research.

After evaluating hundreds of vaccine candidates, the NAS committee ranked them into four groups, from most cost-effective to most expensive, in terms of lives saved per dollar invested in research.

Alas, Lawrence's list bears no resemblance to Pelosi's vaccine favorites. The NAS recommends some fairly pedestrian efforts, such as development of a multiyear flu vaccine aimed at kids. It not only would keep kids healthy and prevent parents from losing time at work, a new flu shot also would stop kids from infecting their grandparents, for whom the flu can be deadly.

How could Pelosi and the NAS be on opposite pages of the vaccine book? The NAS panel, you see, was ordered to focus on infections that kill Americans. Malaria and TB, though deadly in the Third World, fell beyond this purview. The panel excluded an AIDS vaccine from their list because it already was receiving so much government research support, Lawrence said.

Pelosi, on the other hand, focused entirely on diseases that are big international killers. And she does represent San Francisco, where AIDS looms as public health enemy No. 1.

If Pelosi and the NAS committee joined forces, they'd have a stronger argument for a bill to spur development of a wide range of vaccines. The moral being, perhaps, that an an ounce of investment in vaccine research should be worth a ton of tax credit.

THE REST OF THE STORY: San Francisco attorney Gary Gray was mystified by one line in my column last week about DNA "fingerprints." I mentioned how DNA tests are used to identify victims whose bodies were burned beyond recognition.

Gray could understand how forensics experts might extract DNA samples from charred remains. But where would they get a genetic sample from a "missing and presumed dead" person for comparison?

My genetic forensics expert, Sean Walsh of Perkin-Elmer Corp. in Foster City, said it's a cinch -- provided that investigators have a hunch as to the victim's identity.

In such a case, they look for a comb, toothbrush or other personal item that can yield a hair follicle or saliva residue -- enough DNA to make a positive match against the sample from the victim's body.

Walsh said this technique was used to identify bodies charred beyond recognition in the TWA flight 800 disaster.

But if investigators came across a burned corpse and had no clue as to its identity, well, then DNA tests wouldn't be of much help.

Look for BioScope every Monday in the Business section. Send your bio- feedback to Tom Abate by e-mail, abate@sfgate.com; fax, (415) 543-2482; or phone, (415) 777-6213.
99040
SC990401

Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 1999. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.

AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.

Copyright ©1980, 1999. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .