Rick Bright, who previously led the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), has come forward with serious concerns about the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cutting funding for mRNA vaccine development. He claims this move could jeopardize the national security of the United States.
In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Bright stated, “BARDA wasn’t the only agency putting money into mRNA research early on. The Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency also saw the technology as a quick response to emerging biological threats, some of which could be used as weapons.”
This news follows the announcement from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that the department would be terminating 22 investment projects focused on mRNA and reallocating around $500 million at the start of the month.
Significance of the Decision
According to Bright, the mRNA technology was key for the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, and stepping away from this technology could hinder the nation’s ability to swiftly react to future biological hazards.
Several other scientists and medical professionals, including infectious disease expert Dr. Thomas A. Russo, have expressed their disapproval of this funding cut. Dr. Russo remarked to Newsweek that mRNA vaccines are vital for when the next infectious disease crisis arises.
Essential Facts
On August 5, the HHS confirmed its decision to cancel $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts, which affects research groups and proposals from prestigious institutions like Emory University, Tiba Biotech, Pfizer, and Sanofi Pasteur.
These projects focused on viruses affecting the respiratory system, such as seasonal flu, COVID-19, RSV, and H5N1, benefiting both industry and academic research teams.
Kennedy justified the decision by stating that data indicated mRNA vaccines did not perform as effectively as expected in preventing upper respiratory infections—thus pivoting funding to other vaccine technologies.
Despite this, Bright defended mRNA technology, highlighting how the unprecedented speed of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in 2020 resulted from years of prior investment. He remarked, “This decision undermines one of the biggest medical breakthroughs in decades, a technology that has the potential to safeguard millions against future threats.”
Bright emphasized that the groundwork for this investment was laid long before COVID-19, beginning during the Zika virus outbreak in 2016. He explained, “We needed a method to create a vaccine rapidly to protect pregnant women and their infants from serious birth defects. Traditional vaccine methods were too slow. mRNA was the answer—an agile technology that could adapt as soon as the genetic sequence of a virus was available.”
Kennedy, in a post on X, stated, “We reviewed all scientific findings, heard from experts, and took action. BARDA is ending 22 mRNA vaccine contracts because the data reveals these vaccines do not effectively protect against wicked respiratory infections like COVID and the flu. We are directing funds toward safer, broader vaccine technologies that can withstand viral mutations.”
Newsweek has reached out to HHS for a response to Bright’s statements.
Public Reactions
Former BARDA chief Rick Bright commented in his NYT op-ed, “Just like any technology, mRNA has its limits. Vaccines aimed at preventing respiratory infections, regardless of whether they utilize mRNA or traditional methods, are typically more successful at preventing severe illness rather than stopping infections altogether. This highlights a scientific challenge we can tackle with next-gen vaccines. The solution to limitations lies in improvement, not in abandoning these technologies.”
Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit organization against vaccines founded by Kennedy Jr., released a statement on X celebrating the funding cuts to 22 mRNA projects. They said, “While we consider the mRNA vaccines currently available to be unsafe and should be on the market, this marks progress in a better direction. Today’s pandemic preparedness strategy poses a real threat to human health.”
What’s Next?
The HHS indicated plans to divert funding towards different vaccine strategies, although no detailed timelines or specific programs for redirected support were shared.
Scientific communities, industry stakeholders, and public-health authorities are evaluating the situation to determine the effects and decide what their following steps will be. Some public health advocates have initiated efforts to promote vaccine science and deliver accurate public information.
