Tyler Cowen has posted an outstanding interview of Noubar Afeyan, co-founder of Moderna, which produces one of the two COVID-19 vaccines approved so far by the Food and Drug Administration. Tyler is at the top of his game, asking really good questions, and you can just see the respect that that creates in Afeyan.
Some highlights follow.
On individualized medicine
We have a program in cancer vaccines. You might say, “What does a cancer vaccine have to do with coronavirus?” The answer is the way we work with cancer vaccines is that we take a patient’s tumor, sequence it, obtain the information around all the different mutations in that tumor, then design de novo — completely nonexistent before — a set of peptides that contain those mutations, make the mRNA for them, and stick them into a lipid nanoparticle, and give it back to that patient in a matter of weeks.
That has been an ongoing — for a couple of years — clinical trial that we’re doing. Well, guess what? For every one of those patients, we’re doing what we did for the virus, over and over and over again. We get DNA sequence. We convert it into the antigenic part. We make it into an RNA. We put it in a particle. In an interesting way, we had interesting precedents that allowed us to move pretty quickly.
Big question I wish Tyler had asked as a follow-on: Do you think the FDA will loosen its reins enough that Moderna and others can deal that way with individual patients without getting permission and doing large-scale tests?
The Academic Scientific Community vs. the Business Scientific Community
Look, the scientific method, the scientific community — it works on advances that are predicated on current and prior advances. Incremental advances are the coin of the realm. It’s not that they’re conservative. It’s just that the process, the communal process of accepting truth as that which can’t be negated, causes you to therefore be, in every which way, questioning everything.
I learned long ago the expression organized skepticism. That’s what science is predicated on. As a result, if you come forward with something that is not fully supported by and connected to the current reality, people don’t know what to do with it. What many academic scientists do is to spend the next 5, 10 years putting the connections in place to make what’s being proposed a natural extension of what existed before.
In industry, we don’t have that need, and the reason Moderna was able to really be the pioneer in the space of establishing a therapeutic platform, even before a vaccine platform, is because for us, the lack of connection between what we were able to do and what had been done before was marginally interesting, but we weren’t trying to publish it.
When you patent something, you don’t have to show that it’s a natural extension of what people did. You just have to describe something that is novel, that is unobvious. In fact, the less connected, the more unobvious, and/or the less connectible.
Note this sentence: “What many academic scientists do is to spend the next 5, 10 years putting the connections in place to make what’s being proposed a natural extension of what existed before.” It reminds me of the old joke about the academic who, observing that a TV works in practice, wants to understand whether it works in theory.
On Immigration and the American Dream
This next is my absolute favorite of the interview.
I also would say that as a country, there’s so many people who have the experience of coming here, that that experience can also be transmitted to people who are born here, for whom the same mindset of being willing to imagine a better . . . If you look, every single person who comes to this country imagines a better future for themselves. That’s my belief. Maybe not every single person — 99 percent.
Imagine if all of us were also born imagining a better future for ourselves. Well, we should be, but we’ve got to work to get that. An immigrant who comes here understands that they’ve got to work to get that. They have to adapt. The problem is, if you’re born here, you may not actually think that you’ve got to work to get that. You might think you’re born into it.
This will be a funny thing to say, and I apologize to anybody that I offend. If we were all Americans by choice, we’d have a better America because Americans by choice, of which I’m one, actually have a stronger commitment to whatever it takes to make America be the place I chose to be, versus not thinking about that as a core responsibility.
That brings up two memories, one old, one relatively recent.
The old memory is that when I came to this country in 1972, at age 21, I had the American dream in mind and I noticed right away that a large swath of the people I ran into in Los Angeles, whether at UCLA or in the city generally, who had grown up in the United States, didn’t.
The more-recent memory is of an interaction I had with a man who was considering running for the Republican nomination for president in 2016. I think the conversation happened in 2015, and it was at a Hoover Institution roundtable I had been invited to. I can’t name the person without violating the confidentiality rules.
He made a statement about immigrants that surprised me. He said (and I think I’m getting his words almost word for word), “So many immigrants come here and act right away as if they just arrived at home base after hitting a home run.”
When it was my turn to talk, I said, “Person X, I’m an immigrant and I thought when I got my green card I’d arrived at home base or at least at third base. I was given a list of crimes that, if I committed them, would get me booted out of the country and none of these crimes were ones I planned to commit.”
Then I made the mistake of asking about his record in a previous office he had held. He answered about his record but didn’t address my point about immigration. This man had the attitude that Afeyan attributes to many Americans: Simply by being born here, he seems to think that he’s made the rounds to home base.
I really don’t know what some politicians and some Americans expect out of us immigrants.
READER COMMENTS
Maniel
Jan 13 2021 at 8:44pm
Prof Henderson,
Thank you for the post. I share your views on immigration, but my story is only an analogy.
I was born into privilege (white male) in Los Angeles and had the good fortune to be admitted to the UCLA School of engineering in my Freshman year. At our orientation, we were invited to look to the left and look to the right, and then to be aware that of the three of us (left, right, and me), only one would actually complete a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering. You can imagine that those of us who made it to our Junior year (about one out of two) were pretty proud of ourselves.
As it happens, the UC system (and the UCLA School of Engineering) also admitted some students who had completed the basic two-year (Freshman and Sophomore) course with good grades and sufficient math, chemistry, and physics, at local Junior Colleges (since renamed Community Colleges). If you think of students like me as “native-born” and the “JuCo” transfers as “immigrants,” you probably have an insight into how our Junior and Senior years played out.
Yes, we native-born survivors knew our way around and what we were doing, so most of us did graduate. But, to our surprise, the immigrants did even better. How is that possible? We were the best of the best. The answer I got, in talking to many of my new classmates, was fear. These immigrants were so afraid of us, afraid that we would get all the high test-scores, that about the only thing many of them did was study. And, by the way, they arrived better prepared than they or we thought because they had very good teachers who cared a lot about teaching.
The morale of the story, “attitude matters.”
Disclaimer: I don’t fully believe in “White” privilege – I do believe in longitudinal, generational privilege, where parents in stable families and peaceful societies invest time, emotion, love, and discipline in their children.
Laron
Jan 14 2021 at 12:44am
I do believe in longitudinal, generational privilege, where parents in stable families and peaceful societies invest time, emotion, love, and discipline in their children.
That’s a really good and succinct description – thanks for posting that.
Phil H
Jan 14 2021 at 7:55pm
I’ve seen stories similar to this (and I live one out, being an immigrant myself). I’m very torn, because on the one hand, the benefits of people working hard are obvious. But on the other hand, living in fear is not a good thing.
I don’t know how to square this circle.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 14 2021 at 7:01am
I think what Afeyan is getting at is the “knowledge” vs “true belief” distinction. That “true belief” is good enough for most practical purposes is not to disparage the quest for “knowledge.”
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 14 2021 at 7:22am
I agree with the “Americans by choice” point
To some extent I think living abroad for a time has something of the same effect; it makes us more appreciative of all that is good about America as well as chagrined at some of it’s flaws.
I remember telling one of my FB friends who was defending Trump’s Muslim ban, that he probably would not feel that way if, like me, a Muslim friend had lent him his pickup while he was living in Egypt.
David Henderson
Jan 14 2021 at 3:07pm
There was no “Muslim ban.” That was always a misnomer.
Alan Goldhammer
Jan 14 2021 at 8:38am
There have been similar approaches to this going on for quite some time. Since they are individualized treatments that are patient specific, they fall outside FDA regulatory authority.
It’s also worth noting that lots of cancer treatments get expedited regulatory treatment by FDA both during development and for approval. Clinical trials are on the small side in terms of patient numbers and there are a lot of cancers that do not have large patient populations. It’s becoming more apparent that there are also genetic linkages that mean certain cancer drugs work only on sub-populations and the tumor has to be genetically analyzed before treatment begins. A great many of these drugs are approved first in the US before getting foreign approvals.
TMC
Jan 14 2021 at 2:42pm
“I really don’t know what some politicians and some Americans expect out of us immigrants.” I certainly can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I’d say 1. Don’t commit any serious crimes (including coming here illegally), and 2. be able to pull your own weight. Nothing too hard.
Thomas H. : The ‘Muslim’ ban affected Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Countries where we could not do an effective background check on its citizens. Your friend from Egypt would not have been affected, just like the other 90% of Muslims worldwide. Most people have known this for 2 years now.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 14 2021 at 3:39pm
You do not need to ban travel from countries; that is totally specious. Just don’t admit people for whom we cannot do background checks. Maybe it IS possible to do a check on Mohamed from Somalia but not John from UK. And that the countries all had Muslim majorities and no investments by the Trump family make it highly suspicious that ability to do background checks had anything to do with the “third try is a charm” policy.
And the point is not that that my friend in Egypt would not have been affected, but my belief that my FB friend would not have supported the Muslim ban if he had had my experience of having had a Muslim friend who lent me his pickup.
TMC
Jan 15 2021 at 10:59am
Thomas,
John from the UK will already be rejected if we can’t vet him. The whole reason that countries are part of the ban is that they cannot reliably check on their citizens because of dysfunctionality, or that we just don’t trust the countries. This was started to be put into place Obama administration if that appeals to you better, rather than the ridiculousness of the Muslim claims.
David Henderson
Jan 14 2021 at 6:31pm
You wrote:
Good. I qualify.
David Henderson
Jan 14 2021 at 6:34pm
Actually, I wonder if those two would turn you into a relatively open borders person, if you’re not already.
So it would mean:
Don’t commit major crimes and don’t come here illegally.
Don’t go on welfare.
If you had that, TMC, would anyone who came here who was willing to follow those rules be allowed until he broke them? (I would also add, as I suspect you would: “You can’t have committed a serious crime anywhere else and you can’t be carrying a communicable disease.”)
TMC
Jan 15 2021 at 10:54am
I would not be for open borders in the literal sense, as the checks you mention would not be able to be in place. I’d support a much larger immigration though if people were willing to go through the process and met the criteria we discussed. My parents are both immigrants and had to meet those criteria. They, and all their five children, have been net contributors to the US.
I have a friend who is now a retired border patrol agent. In the earlier years he had a lot of sympathy for the average Mexican coming across the border, looking for a better life (still does). I’m not sure when he said, maybe 10 or 15 years ago, that those coming across has switched to a lot of Central Americans with extensive criminal histories. Very bad people. Not that Central Americans in general are any worse, but there seems to be an incentive for the criminals to make the journey.
BTW, I’m glad you did immigrate. As with Afeyan, the US is better with you. You are more ‘American’, to me, than most natural born US citizens. I’m heartily in favor of many more like the both of you.
Ted Durant
Jan 14 2021 at 4:39pm
Interesting … I was just thinking this morning, what if citizenship, even for natural born citizens, was revocable?
Comments are closed.