Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005

This article needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (June 2009)

The Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005 (S. 1873), nicknamed "Bioshield Two" and sponsored by Senator

Several other proposals have contained, in part, similar provisions (or protections) as those found in the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005.[1]

Key provisions

The Bioshield Two bill would shift the main responsibility for developing bioterrorism countermeasures out of the

• Provision of rebates or grants as incentives for domestic manufacturing of vaccines and medical countermeasures against bioterrorism and natural disease outbreaks.
• Liability protections for drug makers that develop vaccines for
  biological weapons. The measure would make manufacturers, distributors, health care providers, or administrators of security countermeasures immune from liability caused by a security countermeasure or any pandemic/epidemic
  product, by means of a limited antitrust exemption.
• Establishment of a single agency, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Agency, as the lead federal agency for the development of countermeasures against
  drug makers
  while placing information about such partnerships outside of public view.

Much of the support for the bill comes from Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and its members.^{[citation needed]} In the 2002 election cycle, PhRMA contributed $3,505,052 to politicians, with 95% going to Republicans. The top recipient in the Senate was the bill's sponsor, Senator Richard Burr, who received $288,684, according to the non-partisan OpenSecrets.^{[citation needed]}

Senator Burr said the legislation "creates a true partnership" between the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry and academia to "walk the drug companies through the Valley of Death" (referring to the period during which there are large capital expenditures for development but before profits, if any, can be realized) in bringing a new vaccine or drug to market.

Exemptions from open records and meetings laws would streamline the development process, safeguard national security and protect the proprietary interests of drug companies, say Republican backers of the bill.^[2]

Opposition

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) said "Their plan will protect companies that make ineffective or harmful medicines, and because it does not include compensation for those injured by a vaccine or drug, it will discourage first responders and patients from taking medicines to counter a biological attack or disease outbreak."^[3]

See also

• Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 109–417 (text) (PDF)
  ), a similar bill
• Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, a similar bill
• List of vaccine topics

References