Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced Tuesday that the federal government is canceling nearly $500 million in funding for the development of mRNA vaccines, a revolutionary new technology that was first put into widespread use during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In a video explaining the decision posted to social media, Kennedy said that the Department of Health and Human Services has determined that “mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits” for respiratory viruses like COVID-19.
He also claimed that the pandemic showed “mRNA vaccines don’t perform well against viruses that affect the upper respiratory tract.” That statement runs counter to a wide body of research finding that COVID vaccines saved millions — if not tens of millions — of lives over the course of the pandemic.
A total of 22 projects funded by a government agency called the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) will be affected by the funding freeze, according to the department. A few projects that are in their final stages will be allowed to continue, but “no new mRNA-based projects will be initiated.”
“This isn’t just about vaccines. It’s about whether we’ll be ready when the next crisis hits. Cutting mRNA development now puts every American at greater risk,” Rick Bright, who directed BARDA in the early stages of the pandemic before being reassigned by the Trump administration, told NBC News.
The decision doesn’t mean that research into mRNA vaccines will stop entirely, but it does cut off a major source of funding that helped the vaccines become a reality in the first place. By the time the pandemic had started, the government had already given an estimated $337 million in grants for research into mRNA vaccines. That support over the course of decades put scientists in a position to make COVID vaccines available to the public at a record-shattering pace of less than a year.
How do mRNA vaccines work?
The “m” in mRNA stands for messenger. In the most basic terms, it’s a piece of genetic code that tells our cells what to do. Scientists have discovered how to harness this process to make vaccine development much faster and less expensive.
Traditional vaccines typically use a dead or weakened version of a virus to stimulate an immune response that effectively teaches the body how to combat the real version if it ever encounters it. These types of vaccines can take a long time to develop because they rely on the slow, often complicated process of cultivating and modifying the actual virus into a safe and effective form.
Using mRNA is much faster because the crucial ingredients can be created and customized in a lab. It took Moderna just two days to produce its mRNA vaccine for COVID in January 2020, before most people had ever even heard of the virus. The vaccines carry a snippet of mRNA that instructs the body to produce a small portion of a virus, usually a protein on its outer membrane, which is enough to trigger the same type of immune response that is prompted by traditional vaccines. The quicker process also means that existing mRNA vaccines can be modified more rapidly when viruses evolve.
Despite Kennedy’s claims, mRNA-based COVID vaccines have been found to be just as effective at preventing severe infections and death as vaccines made using other methods. After the vaccines became widely available, unvaccinated people were 11 times more likely to die of COVID than those who were fully vaccinated, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Two researchers who helped achieve early breakthroughs in mRNA vaccines were awarded the Nobel Prize in 2023.
Applications beyond COVID
The introduction of COVID vaccines didn’t just mark a turning point in the deadliest pandemic in modern history. It also provided evidence of mRNA’s potential to protect people from a whole range of diseases.
Just last week, researchers released promising results from early trials of new mRNA-based vaccines for HIV, a huge breakthrough in a pursuit that has confounded scientists for more than 40 years. There have been tremendous strides made in drugs that protect people from catching the virus or keep them healthy if they do contract it, but the limitations of those treatments still mean that more than 600,000 people are dying every year of AIDS — mostly in the developing world. Experts see a potential vaccine as a key to finally conquering the virus.
There is also optimism that mRNA could be an effective tool in combating the seasonal flu. Current flu vaccines vary widely in effectiveness from year to year, and are only about 60% effective at their best, because it can be hard for experts to predict which strain of the virus will be more dominant in any given flu season.
Several pharmaceutical companies are developing mRNA flu vaccines that could become a powerful tool for fighting influenza because of how quickly they can be adapted to match the nature of the virus at any given time. That speed could be especially important if a novel flu strain, like bird flu, causes a severe outbreak. There is even some promise that mRNA might one day be used to make a universal flu vaccine that covers all strains.
The holy grail for mRNA is cancer. Though vaccines are typically used to prevent disease, there are several vaccines in development that show “real hope” of being an effective treatment for people with cancer. Those include “individualized” vaccines that are custom-made for each patient’s specific needs.
An mRNA vaccine for RSV is already available to certain high-risk adults. Other possible applications include the Zika virus and cytomegalovirus, an infection that is particularly dangerous for babies and people with compromised immune systems.
Though experts say the rollback of U.S. government funding is a setback for these projects, some also expressed optimism that mRNA breakthroughs will continue to come even without America’s support.
“Will this dent what’s going on in the U.S.? Unquestionably,” Kate Bingham, who led the United Kingdom’s COVID vaccine task force, told the Guardian. “Does that mean it’s negative for the world? Not necessarily.”
