I saw other headlines on news reports about this malaria study finding that were much more pessimistic. Sure enough, this actual article kindly submitted here reveals that many researchers are "disappointed" by the malaria vaccine field-tested in the recent study.
The bottom line is much like what the article finishes up by saying, "Other experts warned that funding for a vaccine should not be redirected away from insect nets and other malaria control measures." A vaccine that has a higher effectiveness against malaria than the one just studied would be very helpful, but it will probably take a new approach to vaccine development to find one. The article incorrectly refers to the malaria parasite having "learnt" (a better choice of words would be "been naturally selected for") adaptations to escape host animal immune systems,[1] and that is why it is not easy to develop vaccines for the Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria.
The bottom line is much like what the article finishes up by saying, "Other experts warned that funding for a vaccine should not be redirected away from insect nets and other malaria control measures." A vaccine that has a higher effectiveness against malaria than the one just studied would be very helpful, but it will probably take a new approach to vaccine development to find one. The article incorrectly refers to the malaria parasite having "learnt" (a better choice of words would be "been naturally selected for") adaptations to escape host animal immune systems,[1] and that is why it is not easy to develop vaccines for the Plasmodium parasites that cause malaria.
[1] http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1513/85