A retreat from mRNA research could have lasting costs

After investing heavily in mRNA vaccines during the pandemic, the U.S. government is now pulling back. Last August, it announced that it would cut nearly $500 million in support across 22 projects.

At the time, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy claimed the vaccines weren’t effective in upper respiratory system infections in flu and COVID cases. Later, after rejecting a review and then reversing course on mRNA flu vaccine developed by Moderna, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said they support mRNA vaccines — but that taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill.

To discuss how all this is impacting mRNA vaccine development, “Marketplace Morning Report” host Sabri Ben-Achour was joined by Dr. William Moss, a professor and the executive director of the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins University. The following is an edited transcript of their conversation.

Sabri Ben-Achour: Some people might wonder, why use mRNA to have our bodies make viral antigen to which our immune systems respond? Why do that instead of make the antigen outside of the body and then stick it in?

Dr. William Moss: The big advantage with the mRNA vaccines is that they can just be very rapidly adapted. We can make changes to the genetic code in the messenger RNA and really develop a new vaccine very quickly. It's really that flexibility and speed that is an advantage — particularly for emerging infectious diseases, pandemic viruses, where we really want to get our vaccines out very quickly.

Ben-Achour: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said last year he was terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments, because the data showed these vaccines failed to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu. Is that true?

Moss: I think it's a misrepresentation of the success that we had with mRNA vaccines for COVID. It is true that people can get these vaccines and get infected again, but what they're really being protected against is severe disease, hospitalization, deaths, and that was so important.

Ben-Achour: The U.S. government is a massive source of funding for medical and health research and development. What happens to mRNA research if it gets cut out of that multibillion-dollar pie?

Moss: I think that's going to be very tragic for the United States. Other countries are kind of stepping up, and they can get ahead of us on this technology. This is really a transformative technology, and is going to be the way of the future, particularly for developing vaccines against emerging infectious diseases, pandemic influenza viruses, as well as for treating cancers.

Ben-Achour: I mean, ultimately, the consequence of having yet another cutting-edge industry leave the U.S. seems that it's one more thing that we’ll be dependent on someone else for?

Moss: I think that's the case. I mean, the United States certainly has the infrastructure. Those companies that developed and really moved forward the COVID-19 messenger RNA vaccines are very well poised to continue to make advances in this field. The United States has advantages in some of the other aspects of developing mRNA vaccines. But again, other countries outside the United States that are more heavily investing in this technology and don't have the regulatory hurdles or questions about whether these are going to move forward in the United States, they're going to be able to make advances before the United States.