Hackers working with the Chinese government targeted firms developing vaccines for the coronavirus, and stole hundreds of millions of dollars worth of intellectual property and trade secrets from companies across the world, the Justice Department said Tuesday as it announced criminal charges.
The indictment does not accuse the two Chinese defendants of actually obtaining the coronavirus research, but it does underscore the extent to which scientific innovation has been a top target for foreign governments and criminal hackers looking to know what American companies are developing during the pandemic.
In this case, the hackers researched vulnerabilities in the computer networks of biotech firms and diagnostic companies that were developing vaccines and testing kits, and researching antiviral drugs.
The indictment includes trade secret theft and wire fraud conspiracy against the hackers, former classmates at an electrical engineering college who prosecutors say worked together for more than a decade targeting high-tech companies in more than 10 countries.
[Video not showing up above? Click here to watch » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrMkYnFNNhc]
The hackers, identified as Li Xiaoyu and Dong Jiazhi, stole information not only for their personal profit, but also research and technology that they knew would be of value to the Chinese government, prosecutors say.
In some instances, the indictment says, they provided an officer for a Chinese intelligence service with whom they worked email accounts and passwords belonging to clergymen, dissidents and pro-democracy activists who could then be targeted.
[CORONAVIRUS: Click here for our complete coverage » arkansasonline.com/coronavirus]
The officer gave help of his own, providing malicious software after one of the hackers struggled to compromise the mail server of a Burmese human rights group.
The two defendants are not in custody, and federal officials conceded Tuesday that they were not likely to step foot in an American courtroom. But the indictment carries important symbolic and deterrence value for the Justice Department, which decided that publicly calling out the behavior was more worthwhile than waiting for the unlikely scenario in which the defendants would travel to the U.S. and risk arrest.
The hacking began more than 10 years ago, with targets including pharmaceutical, solar and medical device companies but also political dissidents, activists and clergy in the United States, China and Hong Kong, federal authorities said.
VACCINE OPTIMISM
Separately, executives from four companies in the race to produce a coronavirus vaccine -- AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Moderna Therapeutics and Pfizer -- told lawmakers on Tuesday that they are optimistic that their products could be ready by the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021. All four companies are testing vaccines in human clinical trials.
Three of the firms -- AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Moderna -- are getting federal funds for their vaccine development efforts. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson pledged to the lawmakers that they would produce hundreds of millions of doses of their vaccines at no profit to themselves. Moderna, however, which has been granted $483 million from the government to develop its product, made no such promise.
"We will not sell it at cost," said Dr. Stephen Hoge, the president of Moderna.
Many lawmakers have argued that federal funding for vaccine development should include provisions to guarantee affordability and guard against profiteering.
At the congressional hearing Tuesday, some House members raised concerns about Pfizer's decision to reject federal funds, suggesting that it could lead to price-gouging and a lack of transparency.
"We didn't accept the federal government funding solely for the reason that we wanted to be able to move as quickly as possible with our vaccine candidate into the clinic," said John Young, Pfizer's chief business officer.
"We'll price our potential vaccine consistent with the urgent global health emergency that we're facing," Young said, adding that "a vaccine is meaningless if people are unable to afford it."
Panel members pressed the company executives for a commitment to maintain the highest standards for a vaccine, and not sacrifice quality for the sake of expediency. An ideal vaccine, several committee members stressed, would not only be safe and effective, but also be straightforward enough to manufacture en masse and available to the public at low cost.
LESS ROSY
A fifth contender, Merck, painted a far less rosy picture of the vaccine development landscape. Dr. Julie Gerberding, the company's executive vice president and chief patient officer, made no promises about when its product would be ready, citing concerns about safety should the process be rushed.
Merck's chief executive, Kenneth Frazier, has previously cautioned against coronavirus vaccine hype and warned that a hurried approval process could damage prospects for protecting the public.
In a statement released June 30, the Food and Drug Administration noted that any vaccine candidate vying for approval would need to prevent or ameliorate disease in at least 50% of the people who received it.
Federal approval isn't the only goal of vaccine development, the executives said. Once this milestone is met, the vaccines will still need to be administered widely and be accessible to a range of populations -- particularly those that have been disproportionately affected by the virus. Those would include the elderly, people with underlying medical conditions and Black, Hispanics and American Indians.
In written statements to the panel, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and Pfizer reaffirmed their commitment to diversity in their vaccine development pipelines to ensure that these vulnerable communities will also benefit from their products.
The subcommittee also stressed the importance of worldwide distribution of any vaccines proven effective against the coronavirus to ensure global health.
"None of us are safe until all of us are safe," Young said.
Information for this article was contributed by Eric Tucker and Frank Bajak of The Associated Press; and by Katherine J. Wu of The New York Times.