Sputnik V’s disorderly march towards recognition: what does it say about the state of Russian science?

The Lancet publication, whose accuracy has been verified and not questioned by Western scientists, states that the effectiveness of Sputnik V is in the same league as Western vaccines. It stands at 91.6 percent. 21 days after the first dose.

For the Russian biotech industry, this news is an opportunity to rejoice in its achievements, although Moscow has rushed towards recognition in violation of all common protocols in the West. The effective vaccine was discussed before the clinical trials were completed and with the participation of the researchers themselves.

However, what matters to the Kremlin is not the fact that Sputnik V has been talked about more and more in the world since The Lancet was published, even in the EU. Several countries of the Community, including Germany, openly state that they believe that the Russian vaccine should be approved by the EMA.

RIA Novosti just announced on Tuesday that the EMA has accepted Russia’s application for the registration of Sputnik V. And although the process should take around a couple of months, by which time Europe will already be inundated with doses of vaccines from manufacturers. Westerners, a triumph is being declared in Moscow.

Researchers at the Gamalay Institute for Epidemiology and Microbiology in Moscow are said to have paid no attention to the protocols that are common in science. But the result is, and the recognition of Sputnik V is a sign of the Kremlin’s efforts to revive Russian science.

Rules: unnecessary barriers?

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, funding for science collapsed and Russian researchers flocked to the West: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Switzerland.

And in recent years, Russia’s autocratic leader Putin has been trying to inject new energy into stagnant science: A huge amount of money is being invested in universities and laboratories. In 2018, the president urged scientists to publish as much research as possible and to put their results into practice.

Additionally, several modern scientific institutions have sprung up in Russia over the past decade, such as the Skolkov Institute of Science and Technology, also known as Skoltech.

It is true that observers say that raising the prestige of the country’s science is hampered by the persistence of anti-cooperation with foreign scientists, especially Westerners, since the Soviet era. Imports of research material also continue to be forced.

I. Jasny: The main problem is regulation. I would say that our laws and guidelines are 15 years behind the European Union.

For example, Ilya Jasny, head of research at the Moscow-based investment fund Inbio Ventures, says the creation of Sputnik V is “more of an exception” than a sign that Russian science can already compete in the world.

“The main problem is regulation. I would say that our laws and guidelines are 15 years behind the European Union,” admits I. Jasny.

Three years ago, Putin announced a new national research strategy that included the creation of up to 900 new laboratories, including fifteen high-level research centers.

But, according to Jasny, many Russian scientists developing drugs and vaccines continue to view global standards of clinical research – many issues and three clear phases of testing – as “unnecessary barriers.”

Money is more than achievements

Experts say that Russian scientists would gain international recognition if they published more scientific articles and research in peer-reviewed journals like The Lancet, as well as if they wanted to collaborate with colleagues abroad.

But Russia is traveling in a different direction. There are few publications in the main international scientific journals written by researchers from this country.

Additionally, plagiarism and duplicate scandals continue to plague Russian research, with more than 800 studies canceled by the Russian Academy of Sciences last January.

In 2012, Putin announced “Projekt 5-100”. The state has donated millions to selected Russian universities (21 institutions) and announced that five of them should be among the top 100 universities in the world by 2020.

Russian research continues to suffer from plagiarism and duplicate scandals: in January last year, the Russian Academy of Sciences had to cancel more than 800 studies.

The project failed: only Lomonosov Moscow State University was ranked 84th in a ranking.

Science in the Soviet Union and Russia has traditionally served nuclear power, weapons production, and space technology; not much attention is paid to medical research.

However, there are also achievements in this area: a vaccine against Ebola hemorrhagic fever has been developed in Russia, as well as a vaccine against respiratory syndrome in the Middle East.

And there is money: Last Friday, Putin declared 2021 the “Year of Science” in Russia. The government has promised 280 billion for scientific and medical research by 2030. US DOLLAR.

Moments of glory?

By the way, although there was initially skepticism about the Sputnik V vaccine in Russia, the desire to get vaccinated is now growing.

The independent Levada Center announced in early February that in December, only 38 percent Russians wanted to get vaccinated against the coronavirus, but of those who did not, up to 30 percent. He said they are awaiting the results of clinical trials. And since the results are good, now there are queues at the clinics where vaccinations are carried out.

“It seems that all of Russia has decided to get vaccinated today,” said Irina Vasilyeva, a nurse, recently at a Moscow polyclinic.

Russian officials, in turn, triumph. “The Lancet is a chess and a measure. The critics no longer have arguments,” said Kirill Dmitriev, director of the Russian direct investment fund that supported the creation of Sputnik V.

Although there was initially skepticism about the Sputnik V vaccine in Russia, there is now a growing desire to get vaccinated.

Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, also spoke about the article in The Lancet, calling it proof that Russia had not made a mistake in deciding to register the vaccine before the third-stage clinical trials.

Stephen Morrison, director of the Institute for Global Health Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, argued that Russia can enjoy these moments because right now, at least, the EU vaccination campaign is stalling.

“The news really says something about the quality of Russian science, which many people scoffed at and said that many Russian scientists went to work under better conditions in Europe and North America,” Morrison said.

It is true that the Community has not yet approved the Sputnik V vaccine, although now that it is declared safe and effective, there is mounting pressure to turn it green.

“This vaccine appears to be effective. I think this is very good news,” said David Holden, professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London, who commented in The Lancet.

Why avoid transparency?

Of course, we must not forget that Russian researchers have cut several important angles. For example, in April of last year Alexander Ginzburg, director of the Gamalay Institute, and his colleagues administered doses of Sputnik V; the tests have yet to be done even on monkeys.

Ginzburg then explained that Russia had sped up the development of the vaccine by just slightly changing the formula of the Middle East respiratory syndrome vaccine, which it had already developed.

Yakutenko: I hope it is not decided that it is now possible to develop drugs in this way. Everything must be done according to the requirements – the process is very, very long and expensive.

Yet while working in Germany, Russian science journalist and biologist Irina Yakutenko has no doubts: the rush with Sputnik V was an example of bad practice.

“Not enough animal studies have been done and they have already started vaccinating humans. I hope it is not decided that it is now possible to develop drugs in this way. Everything must be done according to the requirements – the process is very, very long and expensive, “said I. Jakutenko.

Other critics point out that even The Lancet’s publication is based on data provided by Russia itself.

“There is a serious lack of transparency in the testing of this vaccine,” said Italian biologist Enrico Bucci, a professor at the Philadelphia Temple University, who, in September, criticized an earlier magazine post about Sputnik V in an open letter to The Lancet.

These researchers then asked the Gamalay Institute for more additional data, but did not receive it.

Jasny, director of Inbio Ventures, already mentioned, also claims that there is a lack of transparency and that the effectiveness of the vaccine may be inflated.

True, he believes the vaccine is still of high quality, and says Moscow’s reluctance to be transparent only undermines confidence in the country’s science. For example, in Argentina, which has bought doses of Sputnik V vaccines, only 39% trust the vaccine. population.

“In my opinion, Russia should publish as much information as possible. But our DNA is not so, we are used to hiding things,” says I. Jasny.

The information published in mid-January attests to this. Russia then proudly announced that 1.5 million people had already been vaccinated with the spontaneous coronavirus vaccine. population of the country.

But independent data analysts have looked at those figures with suspicion and just claimed that Russia has actually vaccinated five times less – just 300,000. – people.

In addition, a high-ranking Russian diplomat was vaccinated with both doses of the Pfizer vaccine in Narva, Estonia, just before returning home, although Kremlin propaganda considers them dangerous. In other words, the diplomat Spatnik V did not want to.