Assessing the end of mRNA research: ‘We just shot ourselves in both feet and both hands’

When Health & Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced the cancellation of mRNA vaccine development projects, healthcare leaders denounced the government’s decision to move away from vaccines that have saved many lives.

Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, says the termination of federally-sponsored mRNA research is short-sighted, but will have lasting repercussions.

Few critics have been as outspoken as Dr. Michael Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Osterholm has spent decades in public health, including time as an adviser to then-Health Secretary Tommy G. Thompson during President George W. Bush’s administration.

In an interview with Chief Healthcare Executive®, Osterholm says Kennedy’s decision to end federal support of mRNA projects is “not based on any science or even reasonable public policy.”

“We know we can do more to improve these vaccines,” he says. “So from the whole entire perspective of just risk preparedness for a pandemic, what they did was, we just shot ourselves in both feet and both hands.”

Osterholm says the move represents the latest in a series of troubling changes to the federal government’s vaccine policy since Kennedy took over the Department of Health & Human Services in February.

And he warns the ending of mRNA projects will have long-lasting ramifications.

‘Unfortunate and short-sighted’

When Kennedy announced the termination of nearly $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts, he said the mRNA technology “poses more risks and benefits” in treating upper respiratory viruses, including COVID.

Osterholm and a host of other healthcare leaders, including Jerome Adams, MD, the former surgeon general who served in President Trump’s first administration, said mRNA vaccines helped save millions of lives in the COVID-19 pandemic and have proven to be safe. Osterholm said that claims of the risks of mRNA vaccines outweighing the rewards is “an untenable answer.”

“The fact is that there is so much data to support that that's not true,” Osterholm says.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America said “mRNA vaccines are safe and highly effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization and death due to COVID-19.”

Bobby Mukkamala, MD, president of the American Medical Association, also defended mRNA vaccines in a letter to The Washington Post that was published Friday.

“At the height of the coronavirus pandemic, when President Donald Trump launched Operation Warp Speed, mRNA technology was the key to rapidly developing vaccines that saved millions of lives,” Mukkamala wrote. “With another pandemic always just beyond the horizon, there is no medical reason to cease programs that empower us to develop vaccines more quickly to address viruses as they mutate.”

In recent days, the health department has defended the decision to pull the mRNA contracts by saying that the work doesn’t have the public support.

In an op-ed for The Washington Post, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya wrote that the mRNA platform has potential and could yield breakthroughs in treating cancer, but “the platform has failed a crucial test: earning public trust.”

Osterholm says those statements are “ironic,” since Kennedy has long been critical of the safety of vaccines and has stoked the skepticism of some in the public regarding vaccines.

By pulling away from mRNA research, the government is hurting its ability to respond to future pandemics, he says.

If there’s a major global influenza pandemic, with the current egg culture approach of making vaccines, Osterholm says, “We have enough capacity to make vaccine for about one-fourth of the world in 15 to 18 months after the pandemic began. That's all. It's just a slow, laborious process.”

“If we had a much faster means for manufacturing a comparable vaccine, it could be the game changer for a pandemic,” he says. “Well, that's what mRNA technology represents, that possibility. And we need the research to actually explore that. To support that the mRNA technology works successfully for influenza vaccines, we need to continue to improve on the vaccines in general.”

With the health department ending 22 mRNA contracts with pharmaceutical companies and research institutions, Osterholm doubts that funding can be made up by the private sector.

“I don't see a major investment coming into this area from the United States,” Osterholm says. “I think that the general sense is that the administration's made their mind up. They're just not going to be mRNA technology, which is terribly unfortunate and short sighted.”

Osterholm says he expects other countries to take the lead in mRNA research.

“I think you're going to see some investment occurring around the world,” he says. “And the irony will be that, when that next pandemic happens, the world will be lining up right away to get vaccinated. And as opposed to what happened with Covid, when we were at the front of the line, next time, we'll be at the end of the line.”

Even if a new administration takes charge in Washington a few years down the road and installs different leadership atop the federal health and research agencies, Osterholm says the recovery of work in mRNA research won’t be swift.

“Anytime you basically take down an existing research capacity, it never comes back up with the same speed that it went down. Never. And I think that that is a huge challenge,” he says.

'Different kinds of leadership'

Ending federally-backed studies of mRNA technology follows a number of changes in vaccine policy that have alarmed experts in public health and infectious diseases.

When asked about changes in vaccine policy, Osterholm says, “I haven't seen any yet that actually improve upon the health of America.”

Several weeks ago, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Critics said the group offered important guidance on vaccines, and they expressed concern about some new members installed by Kennedy.

Healthcare leaders blasted the health department for changing recommendations on Covid vaccines, saying it is no longer advising pregnant women and healthy children to get the coronavirus vaccine.

The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention also raised eyebrows by announcing new research to determine if there are any links between autism and vaccines, even though previous studies have found no ties.

Last week, the health department also said it was reinstating the Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines. Dr. Paul Offit, a vaccine scientist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told CNN that he fears the panel will reflect Kennedy’s long criticism of vaccines and will work to show “vaccines are doing more harm than good.”

Several healthcare organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, and the American College of Physicians, have filed a suit to block Kennedy’s changes in vaccine policy.

In his work as director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, Osterholm is also leading the Vaccine Integrity Project, which is aiming to ensure vaccines are grounded in the best science. The group has developed a database to make recommendations that aren’t depending on the federal Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

The group is also aiming to combat misinformation about vaccines.

“I think the challenge we have right now is trying to respond to mis- and disinformation that is so, so distant from the truth,” he says.

Osterholm is encouraged that other medical societies are stepping up and offering guidance on trustworthy information about vaccines. He says healthcare organizations also face the challenge of finding ways to get accurate information to Americans, most of whom aren’t reading medical journals.

When asked if healthcare leaders and advocates need to be playing a greater role at a time of growing confusion on vaccines, Osterholm says, “We all need to be doing more.”

“This is a very difficult time that needs very different kinds of leadership,” he says.