An epidemiologist on Trump’s decision to pull funding for mRNA vaccine research : NPR

Steve Inskeep, host:

The Trump administration ends $ 500 million in federal funding for mRNA vaccines. The Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., said that this would cancel contracts for 22 different projects that had been intended to develop vaccines to combat respiratory viruses like COVVI-19 and the flu. To understand the implications, we called the epidemiologist Michael Osterholm. He is director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Hello Sir.

Michael Osterholm: Hello.

Inskeep: just for the average person, what makes a mrnm vaccine different from other types?

Osterholm: Well, other vaccines that we have normally used in the past actually introduce part of the virus or bacteria in the body for which you try to get immunity. And then your body recognizes it, essentially makes an immune response to that. With mrnm, in fact, what you do is that you insert into the body a piece of material that really brings cells from the human body to make a specific part of this virus. In this case, this is called a advanced protein. And then in a day or two, it ceases to happen. But now you have all these advanced proteins, what we call the antigen, or the small part of it in the body, and you make an antibody. It is therefore a very, very effective way to form the human body to recognize something that should not be there and to make the immune response and which prevents it from spreading in the body.

Inskeep: and to recall a recent story, it is a relatively new technology. It was used at the start of the cocovated pandemic, and he would seem to have saved many lives. Is everything correct?

Osterholm: It’s absolutely true. With the exception, this is not new. We have actually been studying mRNA vaccines for over 15 years. And so there is in fact – there was a lot of information available when the pandemic started, and this is one of the reasons why the mRNA technology was chosen was because not only the way it works and the speed with which you can do the vaccine, but we actually had a good amount of information that has already accumulated its safety and showing how they were very effective.

Inskeep: Interesting. Well, allow me to read you a few words from the RFK Jr. declaration explaining this decision to cancel $ 500 million in funding. These are RFK’s words. Quote, “To replace the mRNA programs in difficulty, we favor the development of safer and wider vaccine strategies, such as whole virus vaccines and new platforms that do not collapse when viruses are matt.” RFK’s words. I have questions about many of these words. First of all, these mRNA programs in difficulty. Do you think these programs were troubled?

Osterholm: The only problem that these programs encountered was the fact that ideologically, this administration wants to reject mRNA technology because it simply reminds them of what happened with the pandemic. It should be noted that this discovery of the efficiency of the mRNA vaccine for COVID has in fact left the Trump 1 administration and was announced as a major advance for which the president and the administration have taken a lot of credit. It is therefore somewhat ironic, if not painful, to hear four or five years later that now they reject it completely. So this is the only problem we have right now with the vaccine.

Inskeep: OK, so you think these 22 programs operated. Let’s look at another sentence from RFK – prioritize safer and wider vaccination strategies – suggesting that mRNA is not sure. Are these vaccines dangerous?

Osterholm: And this is still where we are entering it. You know, one of the gifts that some people would suggest that RFK A is its ability to use words. For those of us on the scientific side, it is really a challenge because it does not really understand, in many cases, what he says. When you talk about safety for vaccines at the moment, this profile for mRNA vaccines is as sure as everything we have.

Inskeep: Another sentence – platforms that do not collapse when viruses mutate. He suggests in this video that mRNA stops working when a mute virus and that it is a drawback. Is he right?

Osterholm: No, it is not. In fact, what we have clear proof is that, as the cocovio virus has changed and changed slowly, what we see is that we just have reduced protection against the vaccine. But we always have exceptional protection against serious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths, and that is by far the most important results that we worry about. Thus, in fact, his declaration is absolutely incorrect.

Inskeep: I want to note that during the pandemic, there was a generalized analysis about these vaccines. RFK responds to something in society here. I even had members of my family who said, hey, I don’t want to take this technology, which seemed not tested. Have mRNA vaccines proved to be safe when used by millions of people in the pandemic?

Osterholm: In fact, not only very sure, but they saved millions of lives.

Inskeep: OK.

Osterholm: And I think this is the challenge we have at the moment is that what RFK has done is not only to withdraw these new programs to support research on mRNA technology, but it has also created more doubt in the population. And as you pointed out, Steve, it’s huge. You know, vaccines are important, but they are not as important as vaccination, real use of the vaccine. And so even if you have an effective vaccine but someone has dissuaded you from using it, it’s a real challenge.

Inskeep: How does that correspond to other RFK movements on vaccines?

Osterholm: Well, you know, many of us have believed that all our approach to your position in health and social services is to get rid of vaccines essentially. It has been an anti-vaccine fanatic for many years, and it adapts to this mold right there.

Inskeep: Bill Cassidy. Senator Bill Cassidy de Louisiana is a doctor. I want to raise it because it permanently supports vaccines, including mRNA vaccines. He believes in them. He decided to confirm it to put it in office. Despite Cassidy’s own concerns, he looked at President Trump’s preference and also said that he had obtained a promise from RFK, which RFK denies. Now that Cassidy has launched its lever effect, he says he is disappointed. To what extent does the senator’s decision seem significant to you now?

Osterholm: Well, I think that when you look at a body like the American Senate, all senators have a responsibility for their citizens in terms of not only representing them in Congress, but what does it mean for their daily life? And what they did collectively – and Senator Cassidy was surely an important vote there – was essentially the activity of secretary Kennedy Carte Blanche. And that’s what he’s doing right now. He simply makes decisions unilaterally concerning vaccines which, in the past, would have been examined by experts, would have been discussed in the community. Now we just get a 58 -second video to declare him, for example, that pregnant women can no longer get a cocovid vaccine or young children. I mean, that’s right – that’s something we’ve never seen in public health during my 50 -year career.

Inskeep: Michael Osterholm, whose next book, “The Big One: How We Dust prepare for future fatal pandemics”, has come out next month. Thank you very much, sir.

Osterholm: Thank you.

(Soundbit of “Voices in the Hall” by Margay)

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit the pages of use of the conditions of use of our website on www.npr.org for more information.

The accuracy and availability of NPR transcriptions may vary. The transcription text can be revised to correct errors or match audio updates. Audio on npr.org can be published after its original broadcast or publication. The file authorizing the NPR programming is the audio recording.