In the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Indian medical innovation ecosystem confronted substantial challenges in meeting the pressing healthcare requirements of the nation. These challenges demand a comprehensive examination to discern the critical issues in Indian Medical Sociology about medical innovations. The primary objective of this study is to assess the intricate interplay between the approaches employed in drug and vaccine development and their consequential effects on affordability and accessibility. Concurrently, it aims to evaluate the efficacy of the existing policy measures affecting social divisions that have emerged because the supply-driven health system has exacerbated.

A qualitative research methodology has been adopted for this inquiry, utilising thematic analysis to dissect the intricacies of the Indian medical innovation ecosystem. The study unfurls the following noteworthy discoveries that contribute to a nuanced understanding of the landscape: (a) it becomes evident that the predominant focus within the Indian medical innovation ecosystem revolves around creating affordable medical technologies and pharmaceuticals, often overshadowing the pursuit of cutting-edge advancements. (b) The strategies employed in developing drugs and vaccines exhibit a conspicuous inclination towards products that promise higher profits, subsequently giving rise to issues associated with affordability and accessibility. (c) While policy measures have been implemented with the intent of addressing the concern of affordability, their actual efficacy in ensuring equitable access to medical innovations raises significant doubts. (d) A discernible imbalance emerges between India's industrial and public health priorities, with economic growth overshadowing the imperative of bridging the existing social disparities.

These insights collectively underline the imperative for strategic policy interventions, a more balanced approach to development, and establishing a multi-institutional framework. These actions are essential to confront the challenges related to affordability, accessibility and the aggravated social divisions that persist within the ecosystem. The study brings out the indispensable importance of cultivating a socially responsible and all-encompassing medical innovation ecosystem, not only as a means to address the prevailing healthcare challenges but also to foster an environment that guarantees equitable access to transformative medical innovations for all segments of society.

Medical sociology, innovation, public health, medical innovation ecosystem, public policy, access to healthcare

Baid, C., & Baid, D. (2023). Funding failure: Determinants of persistence. IMIB Journal of Innovation and Management, 1(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/ijim.221085417

Birch, K., & Tyfield, D. (2013). Theorising the bioeconomy: Biovalue, biocapital, bioeconomics or... what?. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 38(3), 299–327.

Clarke, A. E., J. Shim, S. Shostak & A. Nelson (2009). ‘Biomedicalising genetic health, diseases and identities’. In P. Atkinson P. Glasner Ma. Lock (Eds), Handbook of genetics and society: Mapping the new genomic era (pp. 21–40). Routledge.

Cooper, M. E. (2011). Life as surplus: Biotechnology and capitalism in the neoliberal era. University of Washington Press.

Faix, A. (2022). Qualitative innovation in the light of the normative: A minimal approach to promoting and measuring successful innovation in business. IMIB Journal of Innovation and Management, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/ijim.221091004

Fuchs, V. R., &Sox Jr, H. C. (2001). Physicians’ views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations. Health Affairs, 20(5), 30–42.

George, S. (2021). Medical innovation and disease burden: Conflicting priorities and the social divide in India. Cambridge University Press.

George, S., Chandran, A. B., Nadh, P. O., & Apurva, K. H. (2018). Is drug development in India responsive to the disease burden? Economic & Political Weekly, 53(30), 51.

Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). The idiom of cooperation. In States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). Routledge.

Laal, M. (2012). Innovation and medicine. Procedia Technology, 1, 469–473.

Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. (1985). In The dialectical biologist. Harvard University Press.

Lovaas, J. (2007). In The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century (p. 352). Nikolas Rose. Princeton University Press 2006. 15.95, ISBN 978-0-691-12191-8, paperback. Journal of Biosocial Science, 39(5), 795–796.

Pandey, A., Ploubidis, G. B., Clarke, L., & Dandona, L. (2018). Trends in catastrophic health expenditure in India: 1993 to 2014. In Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Vol. 96, p. 18). Princeton University Press.

Rajan, K. S. (2017). In Pharmocracy: Value, politics, and knowledge in global biomedicine. Duke University Press.

Rajan, S. (2002). Biocapital: The constitution of post-genomic life [Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].

Rose, N. (2007). In The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton University Press.

Stevens, T., & Newman, S. (2019). In Biotech juggernaut: Hope, hype, and hidden agendas of entrepreneurial bioscience. Routledge.

Strasser, B. J. (2014). Biomedicine: Meanings, assumptions, and possible futures. The Swiss Science and Innovation Council. https://www.swir.ch/images/stories/pdf/en/SWIR_1_2014_Biomedicine.pdf,.

Waldby, C. (2002). Stem cells, tissue cultures and the production of biovalue. Health, 6(3), 305–323.