日本、台灣與法國新冠疫苗開發的綜合評估：政策與技術

Abstract

新型冠狀病毒（SARS-CoV-2）疫情對全球造成重大影響。自疫情爆發以來，包括日本、台灣和法國在內的許多國家迅速啟動疫苗開發，以應對病毒傳播。這些國家以先進科技與科學能力聞名，並投入大量資源以因應這場全球公共衛生危機。然而，儘管付出努力，這些國家在世界衛生組織（WHO）於2020年3月11日至2023年5月5日所宣佈的 COVID-19 疫情期間，皆未能成功開發出獲全球廣泛使用的疫苗（World Health Organization, 2020b, 2023c）。相較之下，BioNTech/Pfizer 疫苗取得全球成功，關鍵因素包括早期採用 mRNA 技術、強勁投資支持與高效監管審批。本研究分析日本、台灣與法國的國內疫苗研發歷程，探討其疫情期間運用的科學資源、制度能力與政策措施，並比較其與 BioNTech/Pfizer 成功關鍵之異同。研究採用比較個案研究法，輔以官方文件、科學資料庫、政府紀錄與企業新聞稿的質性與量化分析，評估六項關鍵因素：（1）疫苗平台技術與開發速度、（2）政府資金與預採購協議、（3）臨床試驗能量與可信度、（4）法規核准時機與市場進入、（5）企業疫情前研發經驗與創新歷程、（6）本土 mRNA 能力建構。這些面向有助理解科學、政策與基礎建設間之交互作用如何影響疫苗成果。研究發現，三國雖展開積極的本土疫苗開發，但因結構性限制，難以在全球市場取得競爭力。相較領先者，三國普遍缺乏成熟 mRNA 平台技術，臨床試驗規模與國際參與不足，且法規核准落後全球疫苗接種關鍵時點。多數疫苗僅供國內使用，缺乏國際認可，或於疫情高峰後才核准上市，無法有效支援全球供應。本研究指出，科技準備度、早期資金支持與法規敏捷性整合，是達成全球疫苗指標關鍵。即使科技先進國家，若缺乏平台基礎、大規模臨床試驗網絡與公私協力同步機制，亦難及時回應公共衛生緊急情勢。研究認為，科學專業不足以保證疫苗能於危機中迅速投入使用。為達成未來疫苗即戰力，各國必須預先投資彈性平台技術、強化臨床與製造能量，並簡化政策流程。日本、台灣與法國經驗提供反思，強調平時建立預警整合機制，以提升國家與全球疫苗應變能力。

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has had a significant impact on the world. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, many countries, including Japan, Taiwan, and France, have rapidly initiated vaccine development efforts to combat the spread of the virus. These nations, recognized for their advanced technological and scientific capabilities, devoted substantial resources to address this global public health crisis. Despite their efforts, none of these countries developed a vaccine that achieved widespread international use during the COVID-19 pandemic period announced by the World Health Organization (WHO) from 11 March 2020 to 5 May 2023(World Health Organization, 2020b, 2023c). In contract, the BioNTech/Pfizer and Moderna vaccine became a global success, benefiting from early adoption of mRNA technology, strong investment, and efficient regulatory approval. This study explores the domestic vaccine development landscape in Japan, Taiwan, and France to examine the scientific resources, institutional capabilities, and policy measures employed during the pandemic. It also investigates the challenges these countries faced and compares them with the enabling factors behind BioNTech/Pfizer’s success. The research adopts a comparative case study approach, supported by qualitative and quantitative analyses using official documents, scientific databases, government records, and corporate press releases. Six key factors were examined: (1) vaccine platform technology and development speed, (2) government funding and advance purchase agreements, (3) clinical trial capacity and credibility, (4) timing of regulatory approval and market entry, (5) companies’ pre-pandemic experience and innovation pathways, and (6) domestic capabilities in mRNA vaccine development. These elements were selected to assess how the interplay of science, policy, and infrastructure shaped each country’s vaccine outcomes. Findings indicate that Japan, Taiwan, and France each launched ambitious domestic vaccine programs but faced structural limitations that hindered global competitiveness. Compared to early vaccine frontrunners, all three countries lacked timely access to mature mRNA platforms, experienced delays in large-scale international trials, and approved their vaccines after critical phases of global immunization had already been achieved. Their national vaccines were either used domestically with limited international recognition or approved too late to make significant contributions to global vaccine supply. The analysis reveals that countries with aligned technological readiness, early-stage funding mechanisms, and regulatory responsiveness were more successful in reaching global vaccine milestones. By contrast, even technologically advanced nations may falter without pre-existing platform capacity, scalable clinical trial networks, and synchronized public-private coordination. This research concludes that scientific expertise alone is insufficient to guarantee timely vaccine deployment during health emergencies. To achieve future vaccine readiness, countries must invest strategically in flexible vaccine platforms, establish trial and production capacity before crises emerge, and streamline policy pathways for rapid development. Japan, Taiwan, and France offer critical insights into the consequences of fragmented preparation and the long-term need to embed coordinated, anticipatory strategies within national and international health systems.