Abstract
When talking about public participation and the regulatory decision-making process, it is crucial to think about the right time and purpose to involve different stakeholders. The chapter explores circumstantial prerequisites for participatory approaches on the basis of a more recent case study: synthetically produced vaccines against the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. The COVID-19 pandemic made synthetic biology a global issue—in a way that is unprecedented. Yet, its implementation also poses questions for participation for future vaccine and drug production: How can and should we engage the public on ethical questions of emerging and potentially disruptive technologies during a public health emergency? How do certain focus areas, particularly communication and resources, data management and training, provide valuable avenues in dealing with future emergency applications of SB?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
See the WHO’s “COVID-19 Landscape of novel coronavirus candidate vaccine development worldwide”, https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines.
- 2.
See press release of Pfizer, November 18, 2020: https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/pfizer-and-biontech-conclude-phase-3-study-covid-19-vaccine. In light of the competitive spirit between different vaccine candidates new developments in the “race” for a vaccine were not surprising but caused irritation: BioNTech and Pfizer announced an efficacy rate of 95% shortly after Moderna released their findings which exceeded the number Pfizer had given earlier in November 2020. Pfizer’s initial interim analysis showed a protection rate of 90%. The company readjusted the numbers just two days after Moderna had published an interim analysis with news of an even higher efficacy of 95%: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/modernas-covid-19-vaccine-candidate-meets-its-primary-efficacy.
References
Arvay C (2020) Genetische Impfstoffe gegen COVID-19: hoffnung oder Risiko? Schweizerische Ärztezeitung – Bull Méd Suisses Bollettino Dei Medici Svizzeri 101(27–28):862–864
Boytchev H (2021) Why did a German newspaper insist the oxford astrazeneca vaccine was inefficacious for older people—without evidence? BMJ 2021(372):n414. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n414
Jiang S (2020) Don’t rush to deploy COVID-19 vaccines and drugs. Nature 579:321
Kantar (2020) Zurückhaltung in der Öffentlichkeit gegenüber einem COVID-19-Impfstoff wächst – länderübergreifend. Retrieved from https://www.kantardeutschland.de/zurueckhaltung-gegenuber-covid-19-impfstoff
Lazarus JV et al (2020) A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat Med 27:225–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1124-9
Lurie N et al (2020) Developing Covid-19 vaccines at pandemic speed. New Engl J Med 382(21):1969–1973. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2005630
Nguyen A, Catalan-Matamoros D (2020) Digital mis/disinformation and public engagment with health and science controversies: fresh perspectives from Covid-19. Media Commun 8(2):323–328
Paul KT et al (2022) Anticipating hopes, fears and expectations towards COVID-19 vaccines: a qualitative interview study in seven European countries. SSM Qual Res Health 2:100035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2021.100035
Shin MD et al (2020) COVID-19 vaccine development and a potential nanomaterial path forward. Nat Nanotechnol 15:646–655. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-020-0737-y
Siewert S, Dabrock P (2020) Pluralität achten – Nachdenklichkeit erzeugen – Orientierung anbieten: Der Deutsche Ethikrat als Spiegel und Katalysator gesellschaftlicher Debatten. Health Academy 3. In: Manzeschke A, Niederlag W (eds) Ethische Perspektiven auf Biomedizinische Technologie. De Gruyter, pp 246–261. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110645767-023
Taylor A (2022) Why covax, the best hope for vaccinating the world, was doomed to fall short. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/22/covax-problems-coronavirus-vaccines-next-pandemic/
Thanh Le T et al (2020) The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape. Nature 19:305–306
World Health Organization (WHO) (2022) COVID-19 Landscape of novel coronavirus candidate vaccine development worldwide. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccines
Zylka-Menhorn V, Grunert D (2020) Hoffnungsträger auch zum Schutz vor SARS-CoV-2. Dtsch Ärztebl 117(21):A1100–A1106
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Siewert, S., Kieslich, K., Braun, M., Dabrock, P. (2023). Case Study: COVID-19 Vaccine Development. In: Synthetic Biology and the Question of Public Participation . SpringerBriefs in Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16004-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16004-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-16003-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-16004-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)