As wild birds take wing from Siberia this migration season, bringing the spectre of avian flu ever nearer, it is probably not the time to penny-pinch on research that could increase the efficacy of a potential vaccine. It is not yet clear whether the virus that has hit Turkish poultry is the deadly H5N1 strain, which has already jumped the species barrier in South-East Asia. But if the worst-case scenario happens, in the form of a global pandemic, one thing is clear. Even if an effective vaccine can be found, the vaccine factories of the world would be woefully inadequate for the task of producing it in sufficient quantities.

The risk of a pandemic is still uncertain. Nonetheless, it is a real enough possibility for the World Health Organisation to urge governments to build up stocks of generic vaccine. On the plus side, a vaccine is now being tested in the United States that should protect against the H5N1 strain, which has so far infected more than 100 people and killed more than 60. However, the American trials show that the vaccine confers immunity only at very high doses, which must be four times stronger than conventional flu shots. Since about 300 million flu vaccine doses are produced globally each year, only about 75 million of the world’s 6 billion population could be vaccinated, if conventional factories transferred their production to make the new jab.

Human ingenuity has already, it seems, gone a long way towards inventing a pandemic vaccine. Can human ingenuity also solve the problem of capacity? If scientists could reduce the amount of vaccine needed per person, many lives potentially could be saved. Step forward a team of virologists from the University of Leicester and the National Institute of Biological Standards and Control. This group wants to test adjuvant chemicals that could boost the immune system’s response to the vaccine, thus increasing productivity. An excellent idea, on the face of it. Which makes it all the more surprising that the Department of Health has apparently not responded to the detailed proposals that were submitted by these scientists almost eight months ago.

It is not year clear why the Government has not given priority to a piece of research that appears so potentially vital. The uncertain risk of a pandemic poses an unusual challenge for a public funding system that is not geared to tackling public health emergencies. But this is a case in which public funds should be made available to supplement the patchy efforts of vaccine manfacturers. And it is certainly one that merits a coherent and co-ordinated response.

Governments will naturally wish to avoid merely replicating research being done elsewhere. Both America and France are sponsoring H5N1 research. But the American trials did not include adjuvants, partly because they were geared to the needs of the regulator. It is also true that the H5N1 vaccine may not be a perfect match for a pandemic strain that could emerge in several years’ time. But it could still prove to be a valuable first-stage primer against the disease.

There is a strong case for a diversity of approaches, a multiplicity of brains, to focus on combating this threat. It is always difficult to deal in the hypothetical, but this is a case where apparently small steps by scientists could result in many millions of lives saved.