Gordon Brown yesterday promised to pay for part of the cost of providing malaria vaccines to developing countries, in an attempt to encourage the development of the elusive treatments.
It is believed to be the first direct promise the UK government has made to fund the provision of innovative drugs for the developing world.
Some groups estimate that $2bn (£1.1bn) will be needed over six years to pay for a commercial malarial vaccine, putting it out of reach of many poorer countries. Malaria kills more than 1 million people every year.
"The British government, working with other governments, is ready to enter into agreements to purchase these vaccines in advance to ensure a secure market and that the vaccines are available more cheaply," said the chancellor.
The earliest a vaccine is expected to be ready for sale is 2010, and the government would not pay up until then. It also has to find partners, as well as negotiate a price with the drug firms developing the vaccines.
GlaxoSmithKline is the nearest to producing a malaria vaccine in a joint venture with the charitable organisation Malaria Vaccine Initiative. In October, they published results that showed those taking its vaccine were 30% less likely to have had an episode of malaria. However, it must pass stricter clinical trials in the next six years to go on sale.
Professor Adrian Hill, of Oxford University, has also found a vaccine that shows partial protection against malarial infection. And the Dutch biotechnology firm Crucell is to start human clinical trials of a vaccine in 2006.
· Cambridge Antibody Technology, a UK biotech, yesterday released details of its claim against US giant Abbott Laboratories, which it is suing for a bigger slice of the sales of Humira, the rheumatoid arthritis drug, which is forecast to have sales of $1.2bn next year.
CAT helped Abbott to find the right human antibody to reduce the effects of arthritis in the mid-1990s.
It is asking for 5% of sales rather than the 2% Abbott is giving, which would be significant income for the loss-making firm.
Nicola Dagg, a patent expert at Lovells law firm, said that the case looked "attractive" for CAT. If the judge decides the contract is ambiguous then the court will look at how important CAT's work was to the development of the drug.