Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was a prominent purveyor of vaccine misinformation during the pandemic. He is now at the forefront of America’s health initiatives.
The Washington Post via Getty Images
Less than a year after the onset of COVID-19, which drastically changed our lives and claimed over 7 million lives, the FDA and other regulatory bodies worldwide approved the first mRNA vaccine. Developed by Pfizer and BioNTech, this vaccine utilized innovative biotechnology that harnesses the body’s natural processes to generate antibodies to combat diseases. Shortly after, Moderna’s mRNA vaccine received authorization as well. The rapid development and distribution of these vaccines were unprecedented; for comparison, the mumps vaccine took four years to develop.
This accelerated pace was made possible by over $330 million in federal NIH grants that supported three decades of foundational mRNA research. The groundwork for discovery and testing had been laid prior to the Biden and Trump administrations investing over $30 billion in the development, procurement, and distribution of vaccines. Today, the underlying mRNA technology, which played a crucial role in saving millions of lives, preventing hospitalizations, and mitigating long Covid cases, is being applied to combat a variety of diseases such as bird flu, cancer, and heart failure.
Despite the success of these COVID vaccines – and the persistent efforts by the administration and its supporters to claim credit for them – there is now a backlash against mRNA technology. This opposition poses a threat not only to future pandemic vaccines but also to U.S. biotechnology leadership in a market valued at nearly $20 billion.
Misinformation surrounding mRNA vaccines includes false assertions of their lethality, ability to alter DNA, or facilitate mind control. Despite being widely debunked, these conspiracy theories have spurred concerted campaigns across the nation to cease federal funding for mRNA-based vaccine and treatment development.
“Removing federal funding of mRNA vaccine technology would compromise pandemic preparedness greatly.”
Kentucky legislators oppose administering mRNA vaccines to minors, Idaho seeks to ban their use for a decade, and Texas aims to prohibit them entirely. Under the guidance of one of the most prominent disseminators of mRNA vaccine misinformation, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has initiated a review of its investments in related vaccine research as part of an impending downsizing of the Department of Health and Human Services, resulting in over 10,000 job reductions in addition to the 10,000 voluntary layoffs that have already occurred.
Dr. Amesh Adalja, an infectious disease specialist and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, cautioned that halting federal funding for mRNA vaccine research would severely hinder scientists’ readiness for potential pandemic threats like avian flu. “Removing federal funding of mRNA vaccine technology would compromise pandemic preparedness greatly,” he emphasized. “There are multiple projects aimed at using this vaccine platform against potential pandemic threats.”
For the American biotech sector, which currently leads a market that could reach over $70 billion by 2032, this is troubling news. Reports suggest that the Department of Health and Human Services is reconsidering a $590 million contract with Moderna for developing vaccines against bird flu and other potentially pandemic-causing flu viruses. The NIH has already terminated a grant studying the immune effects of mRNA vaccines, with concerns of further cutbacks looming.
If the challenges to mRNA technology from U.S. lawmakers intensify and impede its development, it could result in a loss of American dominance in pharmaceuticals at large, as noted by Pitchbook Analyst Kaz Helal in Forbes. Currently, he explained, “if the FDA approves, the world follows.” However, should the U.S. slow down or halt the advancement of new vaccines, that progress is likely to continue overseas in Europe or China. This, Helal warned, “could be a long-term disaster for the U.S.,” diminishing its influence and standing in the biotech sector.
What sets mRNA therapies apart is the very reason they were so successful in combatting COVID-19: their ability to be developed, adjusted, and scaled more swiftly than conventional vaccines. mRNA therapies are faster and more cost-effective to produce than antibodies or other proteins. Moreover, they have a transient presence in the body, reducing the risk of adverse effects. By introducing mRNA fragments containing genetic instructions for the body to generate specific proteins, these vaccines stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies against diseases, effectively converting the human body into a manufacturing facility for therapeutic agents.
InnovationRx is your weekly digest of healthcare news. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, subscribe here.
The federal government recognized the potential of mRNA technology years ago and funded numerous programs dedicated to developing next-generation vaccines for Covid and related coronaviruses, as well as influenza viruses with pandemic potential. The NIH has supported projects aimed at creating mRNA vaccines and treatments for conditions like HIV, Oropouche fever, and cancer. The first phase of Trump’s administration prioritized enhancing vaccines through an executive order that led to funding for mRNA vaccine research. However, his current administration poses a threat to impeding or halting this progress.
This potential course of action will directly impact entrepreneurs establishing businesses based on government-funded research. Jacob Glanville, CEO of Centivax, a company developing a universal flu vaccine utilizing mRNA technology, relies partially on NIH funding. Glanville mentioned to Forbes that his company could continue its work without federal support, but at a significantly slower pace, jeopardizing the swift progress crucial during the COVID crisis.
Other mRNA biotech firms may not fare as well. Helal pointed out that if the NIH decides to cease funding mRNA research, startups emerging from smaller universities lacking substantial endowments or industry affiliations, unlike institutions such as Stanford and Harvard, will undoubtedly face challenges, resulting in fewer new companies and limited advancements.
The backlash against mRNA vaccines is likely to impact other therapies derived from the same technology. Recent studies have shown that an mRNA treatment helped prevent the recurrence of pancreatic cancer after surgery. An mRNA therapeutic developed jointly by Merck and Moderna significantly increased survival rates among patients with advanced skin cancer. Astrazeneca and Moderna have reported positive outcomes in an mRNA drug they are jointly developing to regenerate damaged heart tissue. If a bill currently under consideration in the Texas legislature is approved, all these medications would face prohibition within the state.
Should the U.S. withdraw support for mRNA therapy development, it is unlikely to affect drugs already undergoing clinical trials, Helal predicted, as pharmaceutical companies could simply market them in Asia and Europe. Major pharmaceutical firms might also relocate mRNA development to more receptive locations like Denmark or Germany, awaiting potential shifts in policy with future administrations.
However, a four-year wait is significant – long enough to jeopardize the U.S.’s leading position in biotechnology. “Europe will be a solution,” Helal remarked. “But the risk is that it will challenge U.S. dominance in terms of medicine.”
MORE AT FORBES
