The two British scientists at the forefront of the hunt for a vaccine for coronavirus have clashed over a controversial plan to deliberately infect people with the virus.
Professor Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, is in the advanced stages of setting up a human trial for one of the most promising drugs.
As part of this, he wants to vaccinate young, healthy volunteers before exposing them to the virus that causes Covid-19.
Professor Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, is in the advanced stages of setting up a human trial for one of the most promising drugs
Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at the institute, disagrees with his plan because of the potential risk to volunteers
However, the Mail on Sunday understands that Sarah Gilbert, professor of vaccinology at the institute, disagrees with his plan because of the potential risk to volunteers.
Indeed, after Prof Hill announced his intentions, she told BBC Radio 4: ‘It is not something that will happen in the short term.’
According to a source, the two scientists are currently ‘not particularly happy’ with each other.
Seán: It’s a risk I’m ready to take
Seán McPartlin is volunteering to take part in the Oxford vaccine trial
The enemy may be invisible, but for Seán McPartlin, volunteering to take part in Oxford’s fax test is ‘like going to war’.
Despite the potential risks, the 22-year-old Oriel College student pictured said, ‘When soldiers, perhaps not older than boys, go to war, they accept death from the moment their boots touch foreign soil.
‘They accept it because they know what they are just doing and because it needs to be done for the safety of their loved ones at home. But while many wars are often unfair and fight for the wrong reasons, the same cannot be said for Covid.
‘The world over, people are suffering, people are dying, and something needs to be done. Challenge trials are a war on Covid. I can not think of a more just war to fight. ‘
The philosophy student, who graduated from Co. Meath, Ireland, decided to sign up as soon as the trial was announced.
“When I told my father what I wanted to do, he was tired,” Mr McPartlin said. ‘I explained to him that the risk to my life was minimal, but that did not bother him. “Why should it be you?” he said.
‘Nobody wants their loved ones to make a sacrifice or take a risk, but I could not speak out.
‘In times of crisis, we often ask ourselves,’ What can I give? ‘Well, I’m not a doctor, so I can not give my knowledge, but what I can give is my body and my time. That can help me free the world of Covid. ‘
Their dilemma is whether volunteers can be exposed to the virus, which can wipe out the time it takes to make a vaccine widely available, or wait until any long-term effects are better understood.
News of the conflict comes as other scientists have told this newspaper that a vaccine is probably only partially effective and comes with the risk of strong side effects.
Downing Street has been advised that while there is a 50 per cent chance that an effective vaccine will be administered in the UK next year, it is unlikely to provide full protection against the virus.
Instead, the Oxford University team expects that the jab ‘will’ reduce its worst effects by reducing the severity of the symptoms.
Sources say that tears from the vaccine – codenamed ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 – found that two-thirds of the recipients developed headaches and a fifth became feverish.
The potential limitations are likely to apply to no. 10 be.
A survey found that almost a third of Britons could refuse a vaccine and that the so-called ‘herd immunity’ is barely reachable when less than two thirds of the population takes up the offer.
A source said: ‘It is important to manage expectations about the vaccine.
‘It is not ready yet and if it is, it will not be a complete magic bullet or be without mild but irritating side effects, which some people may put.
‘But it seems that it will reduce the least effects for the most vulnerable and is a vital part of the figure to combat this. ‘
Prof Hill and Sir John Bell, the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford, were among scientists who announced last month that initial tests on 1,077 British adults showed that the Oxford vaccine caused strong antibodies and T-cell responses, potentially a ‘ double defense ‘against the virus.
Antibodies can kill the coronavirus, while T cells, a type of white blood cell, help to coordinate the immune system by targeting infected cells.
In the studies, 90 percent showed that neutralizing antibodies have evolved after a single dose of the vaccine, prompting Ministers to order 190 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine, of which 100 million is the Oxford version.
Scientists must now determine if the vaccine – made from a genetically engineered version of a virus that causes the common cold in chimpanzees – prevents those who come in contact with the virus from getting sick or reducing their symptoms.
This would be most commonly done with a human-challenge trial, in which patients are deliberately infected with the virus, with people under 30 using it who are less likely to be seriously ill with Covid-19.
The Jenner Institute began vaccination in January.
Last month, Prof Hill said he was working with a U.S. campaign group called 1 Day Sooner to secure doses of medical grade Sars-CoV2, the virus that causes Covid-19, which would be needed for human challenge trials.
Prof Hill and Prof Gilbert declined to comment, but both will have to reach agreement before the pilot proposal is submitted to an NHS ethics committee.
In a statement, the Jenner Institute said: ‘We do not intend to test the Oxford vaccine in challenging models at this time.’
.
