Vaccines have long been one of the defining achievements of biomedical science. They have eradicated smallpox and transformed the control of diseases such as measles, polio and influenza. They have also created a model of public health that is not only focused on protecting the individual from disease, but also on collective responsibility. The latest edition of The Biochemist, however, makes clear that the future of vaccination will depend on far more than continuing to develop new formulations in the laboratory.
Across a series of articles focused on vaccines and immunology, the publication, which is published by the Biochemical Society, explores a field being reshaped by the lessons of COVID-19, the demands of global access, the persistence of vaccine hesitancy and the emergence of precision immunology as a route to entirely new forms of treatment. Through this, we see a picture of vaccination as far more than a settled scientific approach of research and discovery. We see a picture of a dynamic and rapidly evolving area of research, engineering, communication and public engagement.
In her introductory editorial, Dr Kakoli Bose, Science Editor of The Biochemist, describes vaccines as “one of the most powerful and paradigm-shifting inventions of the modern scientific era.” It is a statement that while setting the tone for the issue, is not one that frames it as a simple celebration. Together, the articles acknowledge that vaccines now sit at the intersection of scientific complexity and social challenge. Rapidly mutating pathogens, cold-chain requirements, manufacturing capacity, misinformation, fear and unequal access all shape whether immunisation succeeds or not in the real world.
One of the clearest examples is the development of needle-free vaccine systems. In “A gentle touch: engineering the future of needle-free vaccines”, Ana Sara Cordeiro, a biomedical engineer and researcher specialising in advanced drug delivery systems at the University of Porto, examines how non-invasive delivery could make immunisation more accessible and practical, while also becoming more acceptable by the public. Most current vaccines still depend on needles, trained staff and careful disposal processes. By contrast, mucosal and transdermal systems offer the possibility of vaccines that are easier to administer, less intimidating for patients and more suitable for wider deployment.
This is not simply a matter of convenience. Needle-free technologies could help reduce barriers linked to fear, pain, workforce capacity and healthcare infrastructure. They also point to a more patient-centred model of immunisation, where vaccine design takes account of the practical and emotional realities that influence uptake. In this sense, the engineering of delivery systems becomes part of the public health solution.
That theme connects strongly with the Biochemist’s article on vaccine misinformation. In “Why vaccine misinformation sticks: the emotional roots of vaccine hesitancy”, Dr Daniel Jolley, Associate Professor in Social Psychology at the University of Nottingham, Dr Lee Shepherd, Associate Professor of Psychology at Northumbria University, and Anna Maughan, a researcher focused on misinformation and public attitudes towards vaccination at University of Cumbria, explore why misinformation is so difficult to dislodge once it takes hold. The key message here is that vaccine hesitancy is not driven by a lack of information alone. It is also shaped by emotion, identity, fear, distrust and the social environments in which people encounter health claims.
This matters because conventional science communication often assumes that better facts will automatically correct the ideas and beliefs people may hold, false or otherwise. The article suggests a more complex reality. If misinformation speaks to anxiety or mistrust, then communication must also engage with those emotions. Public confidence cannot be built only through correction; it needs to be both credible as well as empathetic, while also demonstrating clear understanding of why people find certain narratives so persuasive in the first place.
Together, the needle-free vaccine and misinformation articles show that the future of immunisation depends on reducing barriers of many kinds. Some are technical: stability, delivery, scalability and manufacturability. Others are human: fear of needles, mistrust of institutions, emotional responses to risk and the influence of misinformation. Effective vaccination strategies will need to address both.
The Biochemist also pushes the idea of vaccination into a more unexpected space: the brain. In “Can we vaccinate the brain? The promise of precision immunology”, Dr Damian Alvarez Paggi, a biochemist and structural biology researcher at the National University of La Plata, and Professor Salvador Ventura, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, explore how precision vaccinology could contribute to next-generation immunotherapies for neurodegenerative diseases. Here, vaccines are not framed primarily as tools for preventing infectious disease, but as programmable interventions capable of directing the immune system towards specific pathological targets.
The article points to approaches such as rational antigen design, pathway-targeted adjuvants and modular delivery platforms. The aim is to generate durable, conformation-specific antibodies that can recognise toxic protein assemblies associated with neurodegenerative conditions, while avoiding harmful inflammation. This is a striking example of how vaccine thinking is expanding beyond its traditional boundaries.
The broader significance is that immunology is becoming increasingly precise. Rather than simply stimulating immunity, researchers are learning how to shape immune responses: where they act, what they recognise, how long they last and how safely they can be controlled. That shift has implications not only for infectious diseases, but also for chronic, age-related and previously intractable conditions.
This points to another a common theme that emerges in this edition of The Biochemist: vaccines are no longer only about the antigen. They are about systems. Delivery systems. Immune systems. Health systems. Trust systems. In other words, the scientific breakthroughs that make the vaccines possible are inseparable from the conditions needed to make them work in practice.
COVID-19 demonstrated the extraordinary speed at which vaccine science can respond to a global emergency. It also exposed weaknesses: unequal access, fragile trust, misinformation, logistical barriers and the difficulty of sustaining public confidence once the immediate crisis fades. The work highlighted in The Biochemist responds to these lessons by looking at both the molecular design of vaccines and at the social contexts in which they are received.
For the Biochemical Society, bringing these perspectives together is important. By giving space to researchers working on delivery technologies, behavioural science and precision immunology, The Biochemist helps highlight the breadth of modern vaccine research and the many disciplines now involved in shaping its future. Like this edition of Projects Magazine, it also gives critical exposure to individual scientific advances, as well as the wider ecosystem of ideas needed to turn discovery into public health impact.
