STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
The Trump administration is ending $500 million in federal funding for mRNA vaccines. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said this would cancel contracts for 22 different projects that had been intended to develop vaccines to fight respiratory viruses like COVID-19 and the flu. To understand the implications, we called up epidemiologist Michael Osterholm. He is director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. Good morning, sir.
MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: Good morning.
INSKEEP: Just for the average person, what makes an mRNA vaccine different from other kinds?
OSTERHOLM: Well, other vaccines that we normally have used in the past actually introduces into the body a part of the virus or the bacteria that you're attempting to gain immunity for. And then your body recognizes that, makes basically an immune response to that. With mRNA, actually, what you do is you insert into the body a piece of material that actually causes cells in the human body to make one specific part of that virus. In this case, it's called a spike protein. And then over a day or two, that stops happening. But now you have all that spike protein, what we call antigen, or the little part of it in the body, and you make antibody to it. So it's a very, very effective way to train the human body to recognize something that shouldn't be there and to make the immune response and that stops it from spreading in the body.
INSKEEP: And just to recall some recent history, this is a relatively new technology. It was used during the early phase of the COVID pandemic, and it would seem to have saved many lives. Is that all correct?
OSTERHOLM: It's absolutely true. With the exception, it's not new. We've actually been studying mRNA vaccines for more than 15 years. And so there's actually - there was a lot of information available when the pandemic began, and that's one of the reasons why mRNA technology was chosen was because not only how well does it work and how quickly you can make the vaccine, but we actually had a fair amount of information already accumulated showing its safety and showing how it was very effective.
INSKEEP: Interesting. Well, let me read you some words from the statement from RFK Jr. explaining this decision to cancel $500 million worth of funding. These are RFK's words. Quote, "to replace the troubled mRNA programs, we're prioritizing the development of safer, broader vaccine strategies, like whole-virus vaccines and novel platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate." RFK's words. I have questions about many of those words. First, these - troubled mRNA programs. Do you believe those programs were troubled?
OSTERHOLM: The only trouble that those programs ran into was the fact that ideologically, this administration wants to reject the mRNA technology because it just reminds them of what happened with the pandemic. It's notable that this discovery of the effectiveness of the mRNA vaccine for COVID actually came out of the Trump 1 administration and was heralded as a major advance for which the president and the administration took a great deal of credit. So it's somewhat ironic, if not painful, to hear four or five years later that now they're totally rejecting it. So that's the only problem we have right now with the vaccine.
INSKEEP: OK, so you think these 22 programs were working. Let's look at another phrase from RFK - prioritizing safer, broader vaccine strategies - suggesting that mRNA is unsafe. Are those vaccines unsafe?
OSTERHOLM: And this is again where we get into it. You know, one of the gifts that some people would suggest RFK has is his ability to use words. For those of us on the science side, that's really a challenge because he doesn't really understand, in many instances, what he is saying. When you talk about safety for the vaccines right now, this profile for mRNA vaccines is as safe as any we have.
INSKEEP: Another phrase - platforms that don't collapse when viruses mutate. He suggests in this video that mRNA stops working when a virus mutates and that is a disadvantage. Is he correct?
OSTERHOLM: No, he's not. In fact, what we have clear evidence of is that as the COVID virus has changed and changing slowly, what we see is that we just have some reduced protection from the vaccine. But we still have outstanding protection against serious illness, hospitalizations and deaths, and that is by far the most important set of outcomes that we worry about. So, in fact, his statement is absolutely incorrect.
INSKEEP: I want to note that during the pandemic, there was widespread anxiety about these vaccines. RFK is responding to something in society here. I even had members of my family who said, hey, I don't want to take this tech, which seemed untested to them. Did mRNA vaccines prove to be safe when used by the millions in the pandemic?
OSTERHOLM: In fact, not only very safe, but they've saved millions of lives.
INSKEEP: OK.
OSTERHOLM: And I think that's the challenge that we have right now is that what RFK has done is not only just withdrawn these new programs to support mRNA technology research, but he's also created more doubt in the population. And as you just pointed out, Steve, this is huge. You know, vaccines are important, but they're not as important as vaccination, the actual use of the vaccine. And so even if you have an effective vaccine but somebody has dissuaded you from using it, that's a real challenge.
INSKEEP: How does this fit with RFK's other moves on vaccines?
OSTERHOLM: Well, you know, many of us have believed that his whole entire approach to his position at Health and Human Services is to basically rid us of vaccines. He's been an anti-vaccine zealot for many, many years, and this is just fitting in with that mold right there.
INSKEEP: Bill Cassidy. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana is a doctor. I want to bring him up because he definitely supports vaccines, including mRNA vaccines. He believes in them. He decided at the confirmation to get him into office. Despite Cassidy's own concerns, he bent to President Trump's preference and also claimed he got a promise from RFK, which RFK denies. Now that Cassidy has thrown away his leverage, he says he's disappointed. How significant does that one senator's decision look to you now?
OSTERHOLM: Well, I think when you look at a body like the U.S. Senate, all of the senators have a responsibility to their citizens in terms of not only representing them in Congress, but what does it mean for their everyday lives? And what they've done collectively - and Senator Cassidy surely was an important vote there - was basically give Secretary Kennedy carte blanche activity. And that's what he's doing right now. He is just unilaterally making decisions about vaccines that in the past would have gone through review by experts, would have been discussed in the community. Now we just get a 58-second X video of him declaring, for example, that pregnant women can no longer get COVID vaccine or young children. I mean, it's just - it's something that we've never seen in public health in my 50-year career.
INSKEEP: Michael Osterholm, whose upcoming book, "The Big One: How We Must Prepare For Future Deadly Pandemics," is out next month. Thanks so much, sir.
OSTERHOLM: Thank you.
(SOUNDBITE OF MARGAY'S "VOICES IN THE HALL") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
