Scholarlink

<p>The invention of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine occurred at a moment when academic life science research was becoming increasingly reoriented toward market-driven goals. This transformation, shaped by policy shifts promoting the commercialisation of academic research, altered traditional forms of scientific competition. Economic value came to structure not only research agendas but also the institutional logic of academic practice. Intellectual property rights played a key role in materialising this shift, with powerful market actors influencing the outcomes of scientific contests to secure monopolistic control. The case of the HPV vaccine illustrates how upstream innovation processes, especially decisions about ownership, licensing, and legal structuring, determine downstream outcomes such as pricing and access. This challenges prevailing approaches in public health that treat access inequalities as isolated or downstream issues, instead highlighting how the architecture of biomedical innovation itself shapes the terms of inclusion and exclusion in global health.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Reconfiguring scientific competition: patent consolidation and the access politics of the HPV vaccine

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月3日

查看全文
  • P. Omkar Nadh

摘要

The invention of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine occurred at a moment when academic life science research was becoming increasingly reoriented toward market-driven goals. This transformation, shaped by policy shifts promoting the commercialisation of academic research, altered traditional forms of scientific competition. Economic value came to structure not only research agendas but also the institutional logic of academic practice. Intellectual property rights played a key role in materialising this shift, with powerful market actors influencing the outcomes of scientific contests to secure monopolistic control. The case of the HPV vaccine illustrates how upstream innovation processes, especially decisions about ownership, licensing, and legal structuring, determine downstream outcomes such as pricing and access. This challenges prevailing approaches in public health that treat access inequalities as isolated or downstream issues, instead highlighting how the architecture of biomedical innovation itself shapes the terms of inclusion and exclusion in global health.