HHS Winds Down mRNA Vaccine Development Under BARDA

https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-winds-down-mrna-development-under-barda.html

by coloneltcb • 12 months ago

136 116 12 months ago

infamouscow4• 12 months ago

BARDA is terminating 22 mRNA vaccine development investments because the data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.

650REDHAIR• 12 months ago

The problem is that I don’t believe RFK jr and therefore I don’t believe HHS. How accurate is their data? Was it manipulated?

j3th9n• 12 months ago

Good questions to always ask. But better late than never. Welcome to the matrix.

yakz• 12 months ago

They didn’t trust the government and wanted you to stop trusting the government too.

They know that their own public statements are not trustworthy (they are peddling weird bullshit for profit in their private lives, after all).

They got themselves elected and so now you don’t trust the government.

Mission accomplished.

genter• 12 months ago

It's a good thing Shockley gave up on the transistor, it never would've been able to switch as much current as a relay, or switch as quickly as a vacuum tube.

It's a good thing Benjamin Franklin gave up on electricity, we would've never been able to contain it safely.

It's a good thing Watts gave up the steam engine, it never would've put out as much power as a horse.

wk_end• 12 months ago

With the caveats that 1) I suspect that this isn't actually data-driven as RFK Jr. is an anti-vax nut and 2) personally I think the government should fund vaccine development:

Were Shockley, Franklin, or Watts funded by the US government? To the tune of half a billion dollars?

That's not a rhetorical question - I don't know to what extent their work received grants. But I think you need to connect those particular dots to effectively make the kind of comparison you're making.

The implication of your post (sort of) is that work on mRNA vaccination development either needs to be funded by the government or it'll be given up on. If it's the kind of breakthrough that it likely is (and already has been, really) I doubt that's really the case. It's just unfortunate for Americans and the world that the work will likely be done elsewhere, perhaps more slowly, and perhaps (?) with less public (rather than for-profit) interest.

text04044• 12 months ago

when you think of scientific research, do you imagine someone having an immediate eureka moment in a vacuum and writing a paper without having ever considered a problem before? do you understand that scientific progress takes years of dedication, hard work, trial and error, and then finally (occasionally) success?

do you understand long-term survival and the necessity of planning for future generations, or are you just looking for the equivalent of this quarter's shareholder returns when it comes to advancing the species?

infamouscow4• 12 months ago

As a published researcher operating outside traditional academia, I find this rhetoric somewhat tiresome, as it overlooks the systemic interplay between public funding, academic training, and industrial commercialization in scientific advancement.

To address your query on long-term planning for the species versus short-term gains, consider the role of tax dollars allocated through NSF grants to universities. These grants primarily support basic research and graduate education in fields like chemistry and biotechnology, which inherently trains the next generation of skilled workers for industry. For instance, the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) provides stipends and tuition support to outstanding graduate students pursuing research-based master's and doctoral degrees in STEM.

Similarly, the NSF Research Traineeship (NRT) program funds interdisciplinary training for graduate students, often in areas such as chemical ecology or bio-inspired technologies, equipping them with advanced skills through hands-on research and stipends of at least 12 months.

NSF accounts for approximately 25% of federal support for basic research at U.S. colleges and universities, much of which involves training students who subsequently enter the workforce.

Most of these NSF-supported graduates are hired by multinational corporations in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and chemical manufacturing—entities like Pfizer, Moderna, or Dow Chemical, which are among the largest in history.

Once in industry, these professionals conduct proprietary research behind closed doors to protect intellectual property and competitive advantages. The resulting products, novel drugs or biotechnological therapies, are frequently priced at astronomical levels, often rendering them unaffordable without insurance subsidies or government interventions. This raises serious questions about the equity of public investment: taxpayers fund the foundational training and basic discoveries, yet the downstream benefits accrue disproportionately to private shareholders through high-margin sales.

In essence, while scientific progress indeed demands years of dedication, the current system subsidizes corporate profits via public education of the workforce.

insane_dreamer7• 12 months ago

Which data?

Citations please.

WarOnPrivacy• 12 months ago

Reducing public health by damaging and degrading systems that advance and preserve health - this might not be the best way to reverse a population decline.

mindslight2• 12 months ago

Wait until you hear how they've criminalized maternal healthcare. There's really no other way to view this clown car of malcontent grifters besides societal suicide.

worik3• 12 months ago

criminalized maternal healthcare.

The rotters! It is out and out misogyny. But it is abortion and birth control they target, is it not? They could argue that they are acting to increase population?

Do not mistake me for in any way supporting these evil people. But being pedantic I wish to criticise them accurately

Are they criminalising some other aspect of maternity care?

verdverm3• 12 months ago

mRNA...

2021 - saved millions of lives

2023 - won a Nobel Prize

2025 - cancelled by an anti-vaxxer

latchkey2• 12 months ago

May have gotten some of this wrong and probably missing a bunch, but...

  1960's - discovered
  1970's - delivered into cells
  1987 - protein development
  1990's - more development
  2013 - potential vaccine for rabies

verdverm3• 12 months ago

Yea, there is a much longer history.

What's really crazy is that this is the same (?, 2.0) administration that championed the Project Warpspeed that led to this sequence of events. You'd think they'd be talking up how great they did and all the potential mRNA has to MAHA, yet here we are...

OCASMv29• 12 months ago

2021 - saved millions of lives

Not really, the virus mutating into less aggressive strains did. Reducing counter-productive treatments (like ventilators) helped greatly too.

worik3• 12 months ago

Not really,

Yes, really

verdverm3• 12 months ago

The problem is that this is so ideological for some people, damn the science and facts, lies and positioning are all that matter in the post-truth world

Imagine believing that in a world of billions, that the vaccine didn't save at least 2M lives through reductions in symptoms and spread. The same is true for virus mutations

lamontcg3• 12 months ago

The virus didn't mutate into less aggressive strains, everyone got T-cells through vaccination or infection, which made subsequent infection less severe.

Which is borne out through the higher death rate in Republicans who didn't get vaccinated, compared to Democrats who did.

And we had situations like Hong Kong which got absolutely hammered by Omicron, even though that strain was supposedly "less severe", because of the low levels of prior infection and vaccination when Omicron hit there.

insane_dreamer7• 12 months ago

It was a combination of these factors that saved lives. mRNA vaccines played an important part.

Everyone can calm down now.

chimprich4• 12 months ago

Not really, the virus mutating into less aggressive strains did.

This didn't happen. There was no selection pressure on the virus to mutate to a "less aggressive" form. To think there was is to fundamentally misunderstand the science here.

The incubation period was plenty long enough for the virus to spread before incapacitating the host. All the selection pressure was for the virus to become more virulent - and that is precisely what happened. We saw multiple strains appear which were harder to deal with.

Reducing counter-productive treatments (like ventilators) helped greatly too.

This had a negligible impact. Patients were only put on ventilation when they were already very sick and at a high chance of death. Worldwide only a tiny proportion of deaths came about in this way. Even rich countries only had ventilators in the tens of thousands. Compare that to the billions who received vaccinations.

jmclnx• 12 months ago

Well why should the US lead in medical advancements. Glad we have an administration that has no problem handing medical advancements to China.

I am sure China will thank us some day. How stupid can Trump and his people be, every day they do something even more stupid than the day before.

thenerdhead7• 12 months ago

It’s tough to get a clear picture, but if you’ve been following the research closely, it’s obvious that there are better long-term candidates in the pipeline.

Project Next-Gen is highly data-driven, and the most promising candidates are rising to the top as some are already near Phase 3.

Redirecting funding toward these options isn’t as drastic as it may seem. In fact, it makes sense if we want the best outcomes.

https://medicalcountermeasures.gov/nextgen

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/79/1/115/7607231

IgorPartola• 12 months ago

I don’t really see where and how this is more promising than mRNA. My (very cursory) understanding was also that mRNA based vaccines can go far beyond just COVID and into all manner of promising options such as curing some of the viruses that cause the common cold entirely.

thenerdhead7• 12 months ago

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=thenerdhead#44805721

WillPostForFood• 12 months ago

curing some of the viruses that cause the common cold entirely.

This was this kind of crazy hype from back in 2021/2022 that has helped fuel the backlash against MRNA vaccines. There has been nothing happening on the common cold virus with MRNA vaccines. In retrospect, it seems like CEOs pumping the stock price with wild promises.

OCASMv29• 12 months ago

So long as they don't have a targeting mechanism and can turn any of your tissues into antigen factories they can't be deemed safe for use.

Just like carbon nanotubes were all the rage until it was discovered they are as toxic as asbestos.

beepbopboopp• 12 months ago

Yea, no.

If there are indeed better candidates why not compare the results of those candidates in field? Backing a hope versus a working solution with all your chips means that even if these end up being better the decision was still deeply wrong and we got lucky. Just abysmal risk mismangement.

thenerdhead7• 12 months ago

Look, it’s not that BARDA is throwing science out the window in favor of some wishful thinking. It’s that they’re looking beyond what works now and toward what might work better, not just for today’s virus, but for the ones waiting in the wings.

Oral vaccines, nasal sprays, multi-antigen, multi-receptor approaches, these aren’t just buzzwords. They aim at mucosal immunity, they aim at T-cells, they aim at the places our current tools often miss. And when you learn that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body long after the sniffles are gone(i.e. Long COVID/MIS-C), you realize we need more than just antibodies.

fzeroracer2• 12 months ago

So you trust RFK Jr at his word then when he lies right to your face? Because even if you honestly believe there are better long term candidates in the pipeline you would have to be immensely disingenuous to believe anything he says.

thenerdhead7• 12 months ago

There are legitimate scientific efforts underway to explore next-gen vaccine platforms like mucosal and T-cell-based strategies.

That shift is happening regardless of what RFK Jr. says or doesn’t say. Let’s separate the messenger from the actual science for a moment.

insane_dreamer7• 12 months ago

Not against researching other candidates as well. But mRNA has a proven track record and extending it to other diseases is a promising track.

You can fund research in those other areas without cutting mRNA. Sure it'll cost more $ but there's plenty of that - ffs we're spending $150 billion _more_ on "border security".

thenerdhead7• 12 months ago

Yes and those are being funded well. Look at HIV and cancer mRNA breakthroughs. Those aren’t being cut.

This is specifically about COVID-19 and flu. Which after 5 years we have better science supporting how to combat them long term.

I think a lot of people miss that nuance because of who the message is coming from.

tw04• 12 months ago

To be clear, he’s saying the wildly successful mRNA covid vaccines, given to hundreds of millions of people, “don’t work”. Based on “science” without any actual citation* of a study to be seen.

It’s absurd this administration can now just say “we used science” and not be held accountable for the bald faced lies.

mzajc• 12 months ago

Absurd, but unsurprising. I've seen their voters, in bad faith, compare science to religion, either because the distinction between pure faith and a scientific process is too alien to them or because they pretend that it is. This is yet another manifestation of this "misunderstanding".

o11c4• 12 months ago

To be fair, there often isn't as much a distinction as we'd like. Even ignoring soft sciences ...

how often is there an HN post linking to a paper about some great new battery technology?

When the in-group fails to police itself sufficiently, it is inevitable that the out-group will do so coarsely.

linotype• 12 months ago

Sagan called this in the 90s if not before.

shreezus• 12 months ago

University research grants that have the word "mRNA" present are currently being flagged and frozen, even though mRNA technology has been used for things like cancer vaccine research for years. Politicizing a technology is incredibly absurd and will have long-term repercussions on science & medicine.

I know of a professor at one university that had grants frozen due to being flagged as "woke" gender discourse. His lab researches...(wait for it)... immunotherapy treatments for breast cancer in women.

rockemsockem• 12 months ago

And here I thought the right liked boobs, smh

senectus1• 12 months ago

This administration and the congress to go with it are going to end up being recorded as more damaging to human progress than covid or the GFC.

lvspiff3• 12 months ago

A podcast or tweet from RichNipples isnt an ACTUAL scientific citation??? Next you’ll tell me DogDookie69 isn’t the women’s reproductive specialist he’s made himself out to be.

maximilianburke2• 12 months ago

There are two ways to make a population healthy. You can either eliminate sick people through treatment, or eliminate sick people through death. I think this administration is picking the latter.

HarryHirsch• 12 months ago

You can also provide clean air and mandate such and such a turnover of fresh air, and you can have paid sick days, so that employees don't drag themselves in with respiratory illness and infect the rest of the staff. But it's America, can't have such.

maximilianburke2• 12 months ago

(I kinda was hoping that would fall under the former, heh)

lvspiff3• 12 months ago

They are picking the “un-rich” latter. The rich can still have all the vaccines they want they just gotta pay for it. Same goes for healthcare. If you don’t have a job and arent independently wealthy well screw you dont care about you anyways. So its not just a purge of the sick people its a purge of the poor as well.

I dont think they have an endgame other than at the end they’ve accumulated all the wealth and power possible…nothing about making population healthy

conception2• 12 months ago

The rich aren’t funding their own vaccine research.

bartman• 12 months ago

These cuts have been in progress for months, and it’s a sad state of the world when scientific research and its products are called unscientific and not evidence based without any substantiation.

I’m reminded of this quote from Carl Sagan’s Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, as we creep closer and closer to future he describes.

We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 12 months ago

Souter warned of the lack of civic education as well. We are just ignorant all around these days!

“An ignorant people can never remain a free people. Democracy cannot survive too much ignorance.”

“I don’t believe there is any problem of American politics in American public life which is more significant today than the pervasive civic ignorance of the Constitution of the United States and the structure of government.”

lvspiff3• 12 months ago

Theres such a huge focus on STEM yet i rarely see the scientific method or critical thinking and logic being taught. Its like forming your own ideas is no longer a thing and so long as you have the solution you wont need anything original

I see it growing worse in my job where newer staff rarely can come up with new ideas and the older staff are having to hand hold them. They have trouble even stating the problem at times just “i dont know how to fix any of it”. Eventually the solution is either crazy convoluted (a factory for a class for a static function that returns a string of static json) or just crazy in general (let me put this json into an env variable so its now its available global)

OCASMv29• 12 months ago

Or maybe they do have evidence that proves ineffectiveness/harm of a technology that was rushed to the market during a global panic.

twodave• 12 months ago

It’s more nuanced, I think.

Some of those in power do understand science and technology, and have responsible stances.

Some … understand …, and have intentionally-irresponsible stances.

Some do NOT understand, and choose positions either based upon bad information or other priorities entirely.

And those of us not in power are routinely lied to by all four groups, making us question the reputation of literally everything.

I think the end state of this is sort of the dragon eating its tail—not only do those in power no longer understand science and technology (or use their understanding to manipulate others), but the disease then spreads to most everyone else.

JeremyNT• 12 months ago

Closer to home, here on HN (and in SV generally) there is a lot of support for this regime.

It's infuriating that people who really should know better either remain willfully ignorant or simply view the loss to humanity as an acceptable price to pay for ending up with a lower marginal tax bracket.

ethbr12• 12 months ago

Slight addition: some understand that science is immutable (in the platonic sense, whether or not current knowledge is accurate) and therefore willingly work to destroy public belief in science because it's a threat to their own power to declare truth.

rngecounty2• 12 months ago

I'm glad this is being done. Government funded research like this is just another financial engineering opportunity for these research companies/universities. I am not making this up, just check the other post about scientific fraud at scale which is currently on the front page of HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796526

bigyabai2• 12 months ago

Privatizing vaccine development doesn't remove the incentives for scientific fraud. If anything, we trust the government with these incalculably valuable public-works projects because we cannot afford to write off the alternative. Not for COVID, not for the seasonal flu, and not for the next plague/ebola/malaria of your lifetime either.

insane_dreamer7• 12 months ago

All we're doing is shifting your tax dollars to the military, which is another financial engineering opportunities for defense contractors.

If my money's going to go somewhere I'd rather it go to research universities/companies and get outputs that will save lives rather than destroy lives.

getlawgdon• 12 months ago

Winder when we'll all be sick enough of the lunacy to permanently boot these right wing extremists. ...

moogly• 12 months ago

RFK Jr. should be called the Angel of Death of the 21st century.

jleyank• 12 months ago

Hell, they're not going to collect much in elevated pharmaceutical tariffs if they things the stuff is voodoo and won't import it. European and Asian companies don't have to worry about losing a market that's moving away from them.

bediger4000• 12 months ago

At the very least, RFKJ either perjured himself during his confirmation hearing, or he's going back on his testimony. He claimed he wasn't going to do any of this. I think this is impeachable conduct.

mcphage• 12 months ago

Hey, welcome to 2025. Always nice having time travelers visit. Not sure why you picked this year to travel to from the past, but it was not a great decision.

FireBeyond• 12 months ago

Yeah, even beyond the complete lack of accountability, nothing will happen. "I meant it at that time. But on further reflection, I've updated my opinion."

burnt-resistor• 12 months ago

When the next pandemic comes and there's no plan or preparation, it will be dismissed as a "complete surprise" "no one could've predicted" and "hatched in a North Korean lab".

coreyh14444• 12 months ago

Who is downvoting these en masse?

JojoFatsani• 12 months ago

Welcome to the Chinese Century.

HHS Winds Down mRNA Vaccine Development Under BARDA

Related Stories