BioMedizone Immunology Research Competition: Aurelia Budianto
- Global STEM Youth Journal
- Feb 20, 2025
- 5 min read
Aurelia Rosalin Budianto
BioMedizone’s Immunology Research Competition
1 September 2024
The New Frontier of Immunology: Navigating The Future of Targeted Vaccinations
Introduction
As the landscape of disease prevention evolves, the field of immunology is undergoing a
significant shift from traditional vaccinations to more targeted therapies. Historically, traditional
vaccines have showcased striking success in providing broad immune responses as protection
against infectious diseases such as measles, polio, and tetanus. Having said that, this paradigm
shift reflects the growing need for more precise and personalized approaches and raises questions
regarding the future of disease prevention and treatment. This research thoroughly examines the
transition in terms of societal implications such as public perception, ethical considerations
encompassed by bioethics, and scientific hurdles in development. Moreover, proposing methods
to address such implications to integrate targeted therapies into public health strategies.
Societal implications
The shift towards targeted therapies has prompted widespread public discourse, as it
marks a significant departure from the more familiar vaccine model. Public perception of this
transition can be assessed by using the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) framework, which
encompasses four interplaying elements: perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits, and barriers
(Rimal and Real 2003). The public may view targeted vaccines unfavorably if the risks of
infection are undermined, or if the perceived benefits do not outweigh traditional vaccines. For
instance, in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, low perception regarding safety and efficacy
contributed to the public’s vaccine hesitancy (Larson et al. 2021). Another significant barrier is
disparity in access, driven by factors such as cost and distribution. As of now, most targeted
therapies such as mRNA vaccinations still rely on very expensive materials (Rosa et al. 2197).
The high-cost and need of advanced medical infrastructure have made them less accessible for
those in underprivileged and rural communities. McCann et al. demonstrated how countries with
under-resourced health care systems, or have been subject to economic volatility, are particularly
vulnerable to such inequities (165). Thus, inequity may be exacerbated as providing basic
immunizations is already a struggle. Furthermore, hesitancy may be sparked by skepticism and
lack of trust, particularly if the benefits are not well-communicated to the public, underscoring
the need for effective public health messaging to foster public acceptance.
Ethical considerations
Like most medical advancements, targeted vaccines raise several ethical considerations
which can be examined through the lens of bioethics, particularly around informed consent and
privacy. Informed consent, which goes in line with the bioethical principle of autonomy, is far
more complex in targeted vaccinations than traditional ones. Thus, ensuring that patients can
make an informed decision will require clear communication and education about the nuances of
personalized vaccination. Reflecting on the COVID-19 pandemic, mandatory vaccination
remained a controversial topic even during the time of crisis. Despite the unanimous agreement
that COVID-19 demands a coordinated global response, there's still a debate on whether
vaccination should be mandatory and who should be required to get them (Bowen 2020). This
underscored the ethical challenge of balancing individual rights with the collective good.
Moreover, reliance on sensitive genetic data concerns privacy rights as it creates the potential of
breaches and unauthorized data use. Thus, it is hard to imagine compulsory vaccinations even if
targeted vaccines proved to be safe, effective, and superior to traditional ones.
Scientific challenges
A primary challenge in integrating targeted vaccinations is the complex mechanisms
underlying their production. Unlike traditional vaccines which stimulate a broad response,
targeted vaccines are designed to interact with a specific molecular component of a disease. The
variability for each individual necessitates extensive research and trials, which increases cost and
time, posing a hurdle in bringing these vaccines to the market. Optimisation and stability issues
are inherent to the production process, in which vaccines are often unstable and progressively
lose their potency after being administered (Amorij 2012). This highlights the need of constant
observation to examine the vaccine's performance. Clinical trials, which are also substantial in
the developmental phase, tend to be more complex for targeted therapies. As they rely on
personalization, clinical trials must be conducted with a precise trial design, ensuring proper
reflection of an individual's specific profile and characteristics. This underscores why many areas
remain underexplored, despite the significant progress of developing targeted therapies. For
instance, autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) and other less common immune diseases, showcased a
lack of robust evidence and limited range of pharmacological agents available (Halliday 2020).
Future Direction
Targeted immunological vaccines are poised to advance significantly with the rise of a
new era in medicine, which focuses on precision medicine. Vaccinations for various genetic
diseases, mRNA related diseases, and global infectious diseases are undergoing extensive
research in a more precise approach. These vaccines promise enhanced efficacy as they target the
disease mechanism on a molecular level, thereby reducing side-effects and improving
effectiveness. To address the adversity of high-cost and complex manufacturing, future efforts
must be directed towards sustained accessibility and scalability.
Conclusion
The shift from traditional approaches to targeted vaccinations represents a transformative
era of immunology, bringing its own set of adversity and opportunities. While these
advancements offer more effective treatments, they raise significant societal, ethical, and
scientific concerns. Key challenges are the reliance on public perception, ethical considerations
of autonomy and equity, and the complexity of production and need of extensive research. To
address these adversities, the ACT framework offers a practical approach which encompasses the
three main areas. A stands for Advocating For Transparency, a collaborative effort by the public
and authority. This is done by developing clear and effective public health communication, with
the aim of forming high public perception to initiate action. C stands for Committing to Equity
and Ethics, in which upholding principles of equity and bioethics must be rooted in all actions
taken. This includes efforts in creating a safer system for protecting genetic information and
maintaining high-standards of autonomy. Lastly, T stands for Tackling Developmental
Challenges. A major interplay in this aspect comes from the authority and the science
community, in which support is needed to overcome production complexities and increase
investment on more effective clinical trials.
Works Cited
Amorij, Jean-Pierre, et al. “Towards tailored vaccine delivery: Needs, challenges and
perspectives.” Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 161, no. 2, July 2012, pp. 363–376,
Bowen, Raffick A.R. “Ethical and organizational considerations for mandatory covid-19
vaccination of health care workers: A clinical laboratorian’s perspective.” Clinica Chimica Acta,
vol. 510, Nov. 2020, pp. 421–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2020.08.003.
Halliday, Neil, et al. “Review article: Experimental therapies in autoimmune hepatitis.”
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, vol. 52, no. 7, 14 Aug. 2020, pp. 1134–1149,
McCann, Gerard, et al. “COVID-19 and Global Inequality.” COVID-19 in the Global
South: Impacts and Responses, edited by Gerard McCann et al., 1st ed., Bristol University Press,
2020, pp. 161–72. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18gfz7c.22. Accessed 27 Aug. 2024.
Miller, Amalia R., and Catherine Tucker. “Privacy protection, personalized medicine, and
genetic testing.” Management Science, vol. 64, no. 10, Oct. 2018, pp. 4648–4668,
Rimal, Rajiv N., and Kevin Real. “Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of
change.” Human Communication Research, vol. 29, no. 3, July 2003, pp. 370–399,
Rosa, Sara Sousa, et al. “MRNA vaccines manufacturing: Challenges and bottlenecks.”
Vaccine, vol. 39, no. 16, Apr. 2021, pp. 2190–2200,
Comments