Public sector innovation and the constraints of 'platform thinking': An account of Johnson & Johnson's adenoviral vector vaccines.

CONTEXT: Scholarship on political economy of vaccines in the COVID-19 era has focused on mRNA. Yet Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) vaccine based on recombinant adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) was effective against COVID-19, widely distributed, and earned billions in revenue. The story of J&J's "proprietary" Ad26-based, "AdVac"-branded vaccine "platform" spans decades and multiple pathogens besides SARS-CoV-2, including HIV and ebolavirus. The AdVac "platform" exemplifies the role of the "platform" in modern vaccine development. Our work asks: what is a vaccine "platform"? What role do platforms play in "assetization" of science?

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study of the history of AdVac, triangulating patents, scientific literature, other documentation, and interviews with key scientists. We constructed a timeline of the three phases of the "platform's" life: early promise, mixed success driven by public investment, then disappointment and divestment.

FINDINGS: We distinguish "platforms" from vectors by incorporating analysis of the social, political, and economic context in which vectors operate. "Platform thinking" by scientists in industry, academia, and government can drive claims that certain vectors have all-purpose utility while overlooking other components as mere details. When the Ad26 vector's totalizing potential as a "platform" lost credibility, J&J divested from vaccine research, leaving important scientific questions unanswered and technical resources unshared.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientists must recognize platform thinking to prevent it from unduly shaping the trajectory of biomedical research. Political and scientific leaders should invest in public-sector capacity so that promising technologies can be brought to the public without need for an industry partner in every instance.