Collaboration, trust, regulatory capacity, and the need for continued government support: strategic lessons from the UK’s Covid-19 vaccine response

Following on from our roundtable in April of this year, research fellows Amrita Saha (left) and Anabel Marin (right) from The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) have written a blog to discuss the role being played by technology and the lessons to be learnt from the UK's Covid-19 Vaccine Response.  

Covid-19 vaccines were developed in record time. The UK’s rapid response at the time of the crisis in developing, manufacturing, approving, and deploying a vaccine that penetrated global markets showcased the strength of a robust science and innovation system. This success was driven by collaboration, trust-based relations, high regulatory capacities, and government support, which collectively enabled companies to commit significant resources and capabilities for a rapid scaling of production despite the high risks involved.

Central to these efforts has been the UK’s Bioindustry Association (BIA), which played a crucial role in connecting key stakeholders and facilitating rapid collaborations between the public, private, and academic sectors. The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) held a roundtable with members of the BIA in April 2024 to understand strategic lessons from the UK’s Covid-19 vaccine response that will be of relevance for the future. Four key lessons emerged from this discussion: the importance of strong collaborations, the value of pre-existing relations and trust between actors, the necessity for strong regulatory capacity, and the ongoing need for government support.

First, collaboration played a central role in making this rapid development possible. Strong partnerships emerged between academia, industry leaders, and government agencies to move the vaccine candidate rapidly into clinical trials and large-scale manufacturing. Collaboration was a central tenet, not only for the UK, but globally. One third of all vaccine candidates globally were developed by partnerships based on next-gen vaccine platforms rather than individual efforts. The UK stands as a best-case of this approach as concerted efforts focused on building from existing collaborations, greatly facilitated by well-developed regulatory and support institutions, as well as networked bio-industry sector that enabled rapid interactions.

Second, pre-existing relations between industry actors acted as a key enabler. Members quoted trust-based collaborations as central in enabling actors to work at-risk at the beginning of the pandemic. As outlined by BIA members “most of us knew each other and there were good interpersonal relationships and trust… so the success of the consortium led by the University of Oxford was predicated on trust and unified by a common goal”. This was particularly relevant for the early stages of the vaccine production, before government support was received to de-risk vaccine manufacturing investments. “The manner in which Oxford University was able to build partnerships without anything contractual initially was crucial, collaborators (vaccine manufacturers) were willing to work at risk”.

Third, government support for the de-risking of vaccine production was crucial, and continued support will be essential for future pandemic preparedness. The government’s role with the development of VMIC (Vaccines Manufacturing Innovation Centre) was discussed as a critical support. Programs like VMIC helped to de-risk investments and would provide the UK with key capabilities for future vaccine manufacturing. However, the government’s later divestment from VMIC and other vaccine development efforts is a cause of concern given the critical role that government support in these areas play. BIA members stressed the need for continued government support and commitment to vaccine development capacity in the UK.

Fourth, the strong regulatory capacity displayed by the Medicines and Health products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was underlined as critical for the rapid development and deployment of the vaccine. Members highlighted the regulator’s willingness and ability to enable rapid communication channels and work with actors to develop a regulatory system apt for the new technologies. The regulator’s innovation capabilities, efficient communication, and flexibility to adapt to an uncertain and fast-changing situation were critical components of the success of vaccine development efforts.

The lessons learned from the UK’s pandemic response are valuable and it will be strategic to codify the experiences into guidance for the future. Promoting fair and effective collaborations that enable rapid knowledge-sharing and action, building capable and innovative regulatory agencies, and ensuring government support is deployed promptly and efficiently will be critical for rapid vaccine development for future pandemic response as well as for achieving public health objectives.

Looking at the future, important questions relate to which vaccine technologies should be prioritized, how much diversity of technological approaches can and should be supported, and whether governments will be able and willing to commit funding and support for pandemic preparedness. It is essential to see public funding and support of vaccine discovery, manufacturing, and regulatory capacities as critical investments with high societal benefits.