DARPA Awards Moderna a Grant for Up to $25M to Develop mRNA Therapeutics (2013)(investors.modernatx.com)
investors.modernatx.com
DARPA Awards Moderna a Grant for Up to $25M to Develop mRNA Therapeutics (2013)
https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/darpa-awards-moderna-therapeutics-grant-25-million-develop
63 comments
Well that was money well spent!
I wonder what's the story behind BioNTech/Pfizer
They created equivalent vaccine.
They created equivalent vaccine.
I see that BioNTech was founded in 2008. Moderna was founded in 2010.
I guess that like many advances, mRNA was (and still is) a new, promising technology that prompted people to found companies to bring it to the market. Moderna, as an American company, probably simply went to see DARPA when they were looking for funding because of the potential of the technology.
I guess that like many advances, mRNA was (and still is) a new, promising technology that prompted people to found companies to bring it to the market. Moderna, as an American company, probably simply went to see DARPA when they were looking for funding because of the potential of the technology.
Both are based on the work of one scientist Katalin Karikó
She had a pretty tough time getting her work accepted at the time - no one would fund it, she got demoted, everyone said it wouldn’t work etc - as is the way with all genuinely new ideas!
This is a really good write up - her story starts about half way in.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...
She had a pretty tough time getting her work accepted at the time - no one would fund it, she got demoted, everyone said it wouldn’t work etc - as is the way with all genuinely new ideas!
This is a really good write up - her story starts about half way in.
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-...
It actually goes back even further to Ingmar Hoerr (who went on to found CureVac, producing now a temperature stable SARS-COV2 vaccine) who accidentally discovered that RNA can be stabilized using liposomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingmar_Hoerr
https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/curevac-gruender-und-mrna-pion...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingmar_Hoerr
https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/curevac-gruender-und-mrna-pion...
> Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
> make antibody-producing drugs to protect against a wide range of known and unknown emerging infectious diseases and engineered biological threats
This is amazing. I need to follow their other grants now to see what they’re looking at
> make antibody-producing drugs to protect against a wide range of known and unknown emerging infectious diseases and engineered biological threats
This is amazing. I need to follow their other grants now to see what they’re looking at
DARPA also funded HackRF development, afaik still cheapest SDR with TX capability.
These folks invented the internet!
> COMPUTATIONAL CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING (CCU)
This![0]
[0] https://beta.sam.gov/opp/a6d0788057414e2c8fd6bdf45e3fd21d/vi...
[PDF¹] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/CCUProposersDayFAQ%20v15.p...
[PDF²] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/CCUProposersDayBriefv7.pdf
[PDF³] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/HR001121S0024-Amendment-01...
This![0]
[0] https://beta.sam.gov/opp/a6d0788057414e2c8fd6bdf45e3fd21d/vi...
[PDF¹] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/CCUProposersDayFAQ%20v15.p...
[PDF²] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/CCUProposersDayBriefv7.pdf
[PDF³] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/HR001121S0024-Amendment-01...
Has anyone here gone through this process? What is it like compared to YC?
I've received an ARPA-E award. So a similar process and competition level.
First you submit a 5 page concept paper, and if that's acceptable you write a 20 page full proposal (answering the Heielmeier Catechism in detail[0]). If you're selected (around 1-5% acceptance rates) you go through a contracting process--overall it takes about 1 year from initial concept paper to final contract.
Once everything's signed you're executing on a 2-3 year and $1-5 million project where you have to hit technical milestones each quarter. And if you're in the top 10% of projects that were funded by the agency that year you can except follow-on funding at about the same level.
[0] https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/heilmeier-catechism
First you submit a 5 page concept paper, and if that's acceptable you write a 20 page full proposal (answering the Heielmeier Catechism in detail[0]). If you're selected (around 1-5% acceptance rates) you go through a contracting process--overall it takes about 1 year from initial concept paper to final contract.
Once everything's signed you're executing on a 2-3 year and $1-5 million project where you have to hit technical milestones each quarter. And if you're in the top 10% of projects that were funded by the agency that year you can except follow-on funding at about the same level.
[0] https://www.darpa.mil/work-with-us/heilmeier-catechism
Crazy ideas has more chances to be selcted by DARPA rather than YC.
Why is this "amazing"? My understanding is that DARPA is just one of many investors and customers who approached Moderna to develope medicine for different uses. The company had raised $2B by the time they went IPO in 2018. It doesn't seem like DARPA funding had much to do with their COVID development, in the same way that Trump's Warp Speed didn't necessarily play a groundbreaking role in the vaccine development. In Pfizer's case, they refused any gov't funding, but only agreed to the gov't's guaranteed sales if their vaccined got approved.
I have to totally disagree with this statement:
> in the same way that Trump's Warp Speed didn't necessarily play a groundbreaking role in the vaccine development
Operation warp speed, despite its Trump affiliation was extremely successful, If it hadn't been in place the US would have been similar to Canada or Europe in terms of Vaccine rollout. Here's an article about OWS: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-operation-warp-speed-worked...
> in the same way that Trump's Warp Speed didn't necessarily play a groundbreaking role in the vaccine development
Operation warp speed, despite its Trump affiliation was extremely successful, If it hadn't been in place the US would have been similar to Canada or Europe in terms of Vaccine rollout. Here's an article about OWS: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-operation-warp-speed-worked...
This is entirely untrue. Europe funded vaccine development and made pre-purchases in a similar way to the Trump program with similar results. The reason for the EU's lag in rollout had to do with bureaucratic and political factors unrelated to vaccine development.
For instance: the US banned all vaccine exports, while the EU exported tens of millions of doses.
For instance: the US banned all vaccine exports, while the EU exported tens of millions of doses.
Pfizer was the first vaccine approved and wasn't part of Warp Speed.
” Company representatives said in November that "the company is part of Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential coronavirus vaccine,"[60] and that "Pfizer is proud to be one of various vaccine manufacturers participating in Operation Warp Speed as a supplier of a potential COVID-19 vaccine."”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Warp_Speed
Pfizer sold vaccines to the US government. That money came from Warp Speed. That's basically the full extent of Pfizer's involvement in Warp Speed. I choose to call that non-participation, but it's a subtle argument.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/nov/19/pfizer-modern...
The U.S. government did not fund the companies’ research and development.
Pfizer chose to risk its own money on vaccine research and not take federal funding in order to avoid bureaucracy and politics, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said. He said its investment so far was at least $1.5 billion.
"I wanted to liberate our scientists from any bureaucracy," Bourla told CBS in September. "When you get money from someone that always comes with strings. They want to see how you are going to progress, what type of moves you are going to do. They want reports. I didn't want to have any of that.
"Basically I gave them an open checkbook so that they can worry only about scientific challenges, not anything else," he said. "And also, I wanted to keep Pfizer out of politics, by the way."
https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/nov/19/pfizer-modern...
The U.S. government did not fund the companies’ research and development.
Pfizer chose to risk its own money on vaccine research and not take federal funding in order to avoid bureaucracy and politics, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla said. He said its investment so far was at least $1.5 billion.
"I wanted to liberate our scientists from any bureaucracy," Bourla told CBS in September. "When you get money from someone that always comes with strings. They want to see how you are going to progress, what type of moves you are going to do. They want reports. I didn't want to have any of that.
"Basically I gave them an open checkbook so that they can worry only about scientific challenges, not anything else," he said. "And also, I wanted to keep Pfizer out of politics, by the way."
But Warp Speed was more than just R&D dollars. In fact, the R&D dollars were the minor part.
A big part was the coordination between multiple government agencies, negotiation with suppliers for guaranteed volumes, throwing money at the problem when needed.
Pfizer doesn’t need money. It makes billions in profit each year. But it does need the FDA, DOD, CDC, etc all aligned and a clearly laid out path from development, to approval, to distribution and eventually administration.
The R&D is just a small part of it.
A big part was the coordination between multiple government agencies, negotiation with suppliers for guaranteed volumes, throwing money at the problem when needed.
Pfizer doesn’t need money. It makes billions in profit each year. But it does need the FDA, DOD, CDC, etc all aligned and a clearly laid out path from development, to approval, to distribution and eventually administration.
The R&D is just a small part of it.
I can't read the full article (paywall), but my understanding is that COVID vaccine developements were well underway by the time it was announced and the OWS had mostly to do with speeding up approval process, production, distribution and guaranting sales. Not saying it's not important, but I think DARPA's Moderna funding in 2012 is overplayed here.
This is why tax avoidance is a bad thing. Governments can accelerate innovation with stimulations like this.
Looks like DARPA's budget is about 3.5 billion a year vs. the overall defense budget of something like 715 billion. I'm betting that a lot more people would feel ok about paying taxes if more of it was going towards these types of projects rather than empire building in far away parts of the world.
The U.S. isn't empire building. It's mainly a policy of retaining superpower status for world peace.
Containment of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is largely the defining policy of the last 70 years.
Of course tons of blunders like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Tragedies. But there has not been a World War III nor have there been large scale wars killing a sizable portion of the populace such as most wars pre-WWII.
For further evidence that the U.S. isn't interested in empire building is the fact that in wars over the last 70 years, the U.S. hasn't gained land and tried to turn the countries into vassal states like in classical European wars or like USSR did. The U.S. aims to build allies not an empire.
Containment of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is largely the defining policy of the last 70 years.
Of course tons of blunders like Vietnam and Afghanistan. Tragedies. But there has not been a World War III nor have there been large scale wars killing a sizable portion of the populace such as most wars pre-WWII.
For further evidence that the U.S. isn't interested in empire building is the fact that in wars over the last 70 years, the U.S. hasn't gained land and tried to turn the countries into vassal states like in classical European wars or like USSR did. The U.S. aims to build allies not an empire.
> But there has not been a World War III nor have there been large scale wars killing a sizable portion of the populace such as most wars pre-WWII.
This is as much if not more of a result of Mutually Assured Destruction due to nuclear weapons. Humanity finally built something so destructive we had to collectively choose not to use it because the only way to win that game is not to play it.
Now it's all proxy wars, cyber 'wars', and trade 'wars'.
>For further evidence that the U.S. isn't interested in empire building is the fact that in wars over the last 70 years, the U.S. hasn't gained land and tried to turn the countries into vassal states like in classical European wars or like USSR did. The U.S. aims to build allies not an empire.
This much I agree with.
This is as much if not more of a result of Mutually Assured Destruction due to nuclear weapons. Humanity finally built something so destructive we had to collectively choose not to use it because the only way to win that game is not to play it.
Now it's all proxy wars, cyber 'wars', and trade 'wars'.
>For further evidence that the U.S. isn't interested in empire building is the fact that in wars over the last 70 years, the U.S. hasn't gained land and tried to turn the countries into vassal states like in classical European wars or like USSR did. The U.S. aims to build allies not an empire.
This much I agree with.
Less HONEST wars.
Tell people exactly why they're dying again, see how many SpecOps get fucking cancelled.
Tell people exactly why they're dying again, see how many SpecOps get fucking cancelled.
The U.S. isn't creating vassal states because that wouldn't fly with the current zeitgeist, because it'd allienate the EU and other current friendly countries which buy a lot of crap from US companies. Keeping the USD as the base currency of the world is the most important thing. When the a country owns the de-facto base currency it can print it's way into prosperity, having the most powerful army assures that everyone will respect that the pieces of paper you print are worth something.
This way you can get yourself out of trouble any time it arrises by printing your way out of it. Inflation then comes and your debts are now easier to repay. Meanwhile all the schmuck countries holding your debt can't do much about it, since you're the only one that can print USD.
Keeping those countries close and doing trade is way better than a few extra official vassal states, when you can instead just get most of the profits without any of the hassle of actually having to manage a remote piece of land. Why have all that trouble when you can sell your current_gen-2 weapon systems to most countries on earth with loads of profit? Plus they can't ever go to war against you because you'll just stop supplying them.
I'm very pro-US myself but to think that this "benevolent world management" stance is just out of the kindness of the US government's heart seems a bit naive. It's subtle empire building, but it's still empire building. I for one don't mind, because I think out of the options there are, the US definitely isn't the worse choice.
This way you can get yourself out of trouble any time it arrises by printing your way out of it. Inflation then comes and your debts are now easier to repay. Meanwhile all the schmuck countries holding your debt can't do much about it, since you're the only one that can print USD.
Keeping those countries close and doing trade is way better than a few extra official vassal states, when you can instead just get most of the profits without any of the hassle of actually having to manage a remote piece of land. Why have all that trouble when you can sell your current_gen-2 weapon systems to most countries on earth with loads of profit? Plus they can't ever go to war against you because you'll just stop supplying them.
I'm very pro-US myself but to think that this "benevolent world management" stance is just out of the kindness of the US government's heart seems a bit naive. It's subtle empire building, but it's still empire building. I for one don't mind, because I think out of the options there are, the US definitely isn't the worse choice.
> I for one don't mind, because I think out of the options there are, the US definitely isn't the worse choice.
I'm relatively pro-US, but being from EU I for one mind becoming a second class citizen in the US empire without being consulted.
I'm relatively pro-US, but being from EU I for one mind becoming a second class citizen in the US empire without being consulted.
There wasn't a WWIII just because some russian dude once thought "eh, maybe it's just a glitch". USA can't take credit for preventing WWIII when it was one russian guy's single decision away from becoming exacltly half of the WWIII.
The defense budget is in fact over 1.25 trillion dollars in real terms. We just don’t count it like most other countries. For example nuclear weapons are under the Department of Energy.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-...
https://tomdispatch.com/hartung-and-smithberger-a-dollar-by-...
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/05/making-sense-of-the-1-...
https://tomdispatch.com/hartung-and-smithberger-a-dollar-by-...
Yeah, but a vast amount of healthcare is under the DoD in America while it wouldn’t be in other countries.
Defense is business in an abstract sense. DaaS is desirable for many nations instead of building domestic capability which would be far worse due to scale/reinventing-the-wheel. Look up US defense treaties with various nations across the world - this is a mutual agreement in exchange for IP, defense sales, assurance and guarantees, soft power, etc.
Right, so we need both. Defund the military, make sure rich people still pay their fair amount of taxes, and use that money to invest in science, education, healthcare, education etc.
Defunding the military has real impacts. Those free trade deals that lower the cost of goods for average people don't just magically get signed, generally U.S. military presence is also a part of the deal.
More generally if the U.S. loses global hegemony then so does the dollar, and a mass exodus from the dollar as foreign reserve would cause rampant inflation as demand for dollars crashes.
The geopolitical situation is more complicated than just "defund the military". You can see both the current and past administration are trying to get other countries to pay more for the U.S. presence, which is a form of slow withdrawal of U.S. power, so I think they recognize that there is a need to redirect funds, but I don't think you can just outright leave in a year.
More generally if the U.S. loses global hegemony then so does the dollar, and a mass exodus from the dollar as foreign reserve would cause rampant inflation as demand for dollars crashes.
The geopolitical situation is more complicated than just "defund the military". You can see both the current and past administration are trying to get other countries to pay more for the U.S. presence, which is a form of slow withdrawal of U.S. power, so I think they recognize that there is a need to redirect funds, but I don't think you can just outright leave in a year.
US government would never balance its budget even if tax compliance was 100% and the tax rate was 100%.
The math does not check out and the taxes fund nothing except the interest payments on international debt.
The things that were going to get funded will still get funded, because they are funded by the debt issuance and the continued market tolerance for US government debt issuances.
So, no, tax avoidance has practically nothing to do with this. The "roads and schools [and innovations]" argument is particularly weak, because whatever wasn't funded was never going to get funded. The only limit to budget allocations is the market tolerance of the debt and currency. So again - since that market tolerance is extremely vast and expansive given the lack of liquid alternatives - if it wasn't funded, it wasn't going to get funded.
The math does not check out and the taxes fund nothing except the interest payments on international debt.
The things that were going to get funded will still get funded, because they are funded by the debt issuance and the continued market tolerance for US government debt issuances.
So, no, tax avoidance has practically nothing to do with this. The "roads and schools [and innovations]" argument is particularly weak, because whatever wasn't funded was never going to get funded. The only limit to budget allocations is the market tolerance of the debt and currency. So again - since that market tolerance is extremely vast and expansive given the lack of liquid alternatives - if it wasn't funded, it wasn't going to get funded.
> only limit to budget allocations is the market tolerance of the debt and currency
Sovereign debt buyers and FX traders strongly consider a states' ability to collect taxes.
Sovereign debt buyers and FX traders strongly consider a states' ability to collect taxes.
more aptly: the ability of the state to pay its interest now and in the future.
the state is in a balance to avoid a death spiral of its currency: creating more because it purchases less due to market selloff of the currency.
the main point is that it is highly leveraged and tax collection is merely servicing a small single digit percentage of the capital, and therefore the further sliver from tax avoidance is having even tinier percentage of an effect on how what the budget is and could be. the state also has other revenue sources.
the state is in a balance to avoid a death spiral of its currency: creating more because it purchases less due to market selloff of the currency.
the main point is that it is highly leveraged and tax collection is merely servicing a small single digit percentage of the capital, and therefore the further sliver from tax avoidance is having even tinier percentage of an effect on how what the budget is and could be. the state also has other revenue sources.
This is exactly the argument made by Mariana Mazzucato in The Entrepreneurial State. It argues that the state is a major driver of innovation. DARPA is a great example of that. It argues that governments should be receiving some of the returns that private companies make because of this innovation. E.g. Apple makes enormous amounts of money selling iPhones that is full of technology like GPS, Internet, etc. that wouldn't be possible without the state as a driver of innovation. It seems fair that they get a share of those earnings in return.
$25 million went to research that produced a life-saving vaccine and averted (or at least abated) a global crisis. Meanwhile the F-35 program at a lifetime cost of $1.7 trillion has produced basically nothing.
People's biggest criticism of taxation is all the government corruption and wastage that it enables, and IMO that is completely valid.
People's biggest criticism of taxation is all the government corruption and wastage that it enables, and IMO that is completely valid.
Tax avoidance is a moral responsibility, because violence or threat of violence is morally wrong regardless of the outcome.
its kinda impressive all the technologies DARPA/DOD has funded...would be interesting to see the fail/win rate for them.
Non-zero is all you need in this case, isn't it? :)
I wonder if it’s possible to calculate a rate of return on that.
How much worse off would we be now without mRNA vaccines?
I doubt anyone would be complaining about blood clots.
How much worse off would we be now without mRNA vaccines?
I doubt anyone would be complaining about blood clots.
Seems like China did fine with more conventional vaccine technologies. I'm glad we have another tool in the toolbox, but I am missing why the mRNA vaccine tech was necessary for COVID.
The chinese vaccines are mostly inactivated coronavirus vaccines and are only 50-60% effective. We are seeing countries which relied heavily on them such as Chile and the Seychelles having large and sustained outbreaks because they aren't effective enough to stop the spread. They probably do fairly well against mortality though.
I'd say we would be in an incredibly worse position if we only had J&J and Astrazeneca in the west. In the US the pandemic is over now and we have only vaccinated about half of people with the mRNA shots. I strongly doubt we would be normal again now if we had not had those.
I'd say we would be in an incredibly worse position if we only had J&J and Astrazeneca in the west. In the US the pandemic is over now and we have only vaccinated about half of people with the mRNA shots. I strongly doubt we would be normal again now if we had not had those.
> China did fine with more conventional vaccine technologies
China's Covid vaccine is far less effective than the mRNA vaccines, a fact that's been recognized by its own leaders [1]. It's also less extensible--we have covered most of the parameter space conventional methods offer. A new platform allows us to target e.g. HIV anew [2].
[1]https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n969
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-is-working-...
China's Covid vaccine is far less effective than the mRNA vaccines, a fact that's been recognized by its own leaders [1]. It's also less extensible--we have covered most of the parameter space conventional methods offer. A new platform allows us to target e.g. HIV anew [2].
[1]https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n969
[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/moderna-is-working-...
I think if we still had AstraZeneca we would not be in an awful position - but that vaccine already had a massive supply constraint - the EU is still pretty pissed about that. So if there were no other vaccines that would be worse for starters.
Also, as others have pointed out, it’s more effective.
Correct me if I’m wrong about this but it seems to be deceptive to think about it in terms of effectiveness.
60% doesn’t seem that much worse than 95%. Feels like 2/3 as good.
But if you look at it the other way around it’s 40% vs 5% which makes the gap much clearer - 8X more people getting symptoms (not sure what the data is on hospitalisation / deaths is though, probably closer)
Plus I believe mRNA vaccines should end up being cheaper in the long run.
Oh and plus you don’t feel as bad after getting them.
Also, as others have pointed out, it’s more effective.
Correct me if I’m wrong about this but it seems to be deceptive to think about it in terms of effectiveness.
60% doesn’t seem that much worse than 95%. Feels like 2/3 as good.
But if you look at it the other way around it’s 40% vs 5% which makes the gap much clearer - 8X more people getting symptoms (not sure what the data is on hospitalisation / deaths is though, probably closer)
Plus I believe mRNA vaccines should end up being cheaper in the long run.
Oh and plus you don’t feel as bad after getting them.
A big myth often told in the tech world that things are developed by startups using private equity. We often forget the large and dynamic public sector. Biggest "VC" in the world is DARPA and other US government entities.
EDIT: I meant to say, it's a big myth the tech industry tells the public.
EDIT: I meant to say, it's a big myth the tech industry tells the public.
It is not a myth, but well known. Startups take something that is already researched, and further develop it and commercialize/monetize it.
I think the myth might be more in the layman/general population, but most people in the tech world know this.
I think the myth might be more in the layman/general population, but most people in the tech world know this.
Yes! I guess I should be more precise thanks. It's a myth the tech world propagates to the general public. Updated my original comment.
You have numbers for the govt being the biggest? I mean, for biotech, total VC funding is larger than the entire NIH budget.
One of the best $25,000,000 we've ever spent.
That's definitely pretty cool, and I really wish that European's funding had a track record anywhere close to DARPA (though I don't really complain, Europe funding isn't too bad)
Does someone have information about the size of Moderna back then? TFA says they had 144 patents, so I guess they were already pretty big?
Does someone have information about the size of Moderna back then? TFA says they had 144 patents, so I guess they were already pretty big?
So why are we paying 10 times the production price since this product has been payed by public funds ?
Grants encourage early R&D, Purchasing Commitments encourage Product Development and Capital Investments. We can do more of both.
Probably better if the money isn't that tainted...
Read, Debt the First 5000 years by David Graeber. Which outlines what markets are really about. Markets are a tool for the government to provision itself. The government creates markets. The myth that markets were created because barter was annoying is plain wrong.
DARPA is an impressive VC. Could it make sense to apply their approach to other areas?
It's a grant though. I assume no strings attached like a VC.
Good point, it’s a very abstract comparison. Could it make sense for them to receive equity in return? I suppose it would lead to preference of own companies versus others that may be ahead even without a grant.
Either way: Damn, money well spent. This one success may have justified all the other “failures” or gains that haven’t materialized yet.
Either way: Damn, money well spent. This one success may have justified all the other “failures” or gains that haven’t materialized yet.
Well that 25M really paid off. Huge.
THE US government at 66 million pounds was also the single biggest investor in research that led to the Astra-Zeneca/Oxford vaccine as well.
They also paid for the US supply chain, and a non-trivial part of the European supply chain as part of OWS.
It’s not a mistake that the successful vaccines where heavily internationalized affairs with a lot of research money, then a lot of infrastructure spending.
They also paid for the US supply chain, and a non-trivial part of the European supply chain as part of OWS.
It’s not a mistake that the successful vaccines where heavily internationalized affairs with a lot of research money, then a lot of infrastructure spending.