Experts alarmed over mRNA research cuts
Kennedy now wants HHS to focus on vaccine platforms with 'stronger safety records.'
The FDA approved two mRNA vaccines against the COVID-19 virus, and research shows that the shots prevented 14.4 million deaths during the first year they were used.
Vaccines typically take years to develop, but the mRNA shots were developed in record time thanks to a massive influx of funding from the first Trump administration, dubbed Operation Warp Speed. Kennedy's moves threaten to undercut those achievements.
'It's pretty clear that the administration, or at least the secretary, has a political vendetta not just against vaccines but against mRNA in general,' said Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University.
Kennedy, a well-known vaccine skeptic, has faced pressure from fellow anti-vaccine supporters to push mRNA vaccines off the market. He has a particular dislike for mRNA vaccines and once falsely claimed that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine was the 'deadliest vaccine ever made.'
Health experts warn that the move also places the U.S. behind other countries in biomedical research and sends a message to scientists to avoid work related to mRNA technology.
Preliminary data show that mRNA vaccines have potential use for treating diseases like cancer. If scientists don't further explore how the technology can be used, sick Americans could miss out on breakthrough treatments.
Other experts worry the decision weakens national security and could open the country up to public health emergencies caused by biological warfare.
'One of the ways to deter that from happening is to say the United States is committed to preparedness,' said Jennifer Nuzzo, a professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health.
She added that when the U.S. removes multiple protections from biological hazards, it sends a signal to its adversaries that it is 'no longer interested' in defending itself.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
16 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Speaking out for immigrants has cost me, but Miami Republicans' silence is worse
This past week, I was heartened by the reaction to recent articles in the Miami Herald and New York Times discussing my civic engagement in defense of decency, compassion and justice for immigrants. I spoke not only as a Cuban American, but as an American deeply troubled by the cruelty inflicted on people — especially Latinos — in our state and country by President Trump's immigration policies. Many reached out in support. A few disagreed. I write now not to those who cheered, but to those who scorned, and more importantly, to those who remain silent. I did not come to this moment lightly. I crossed a personal Rubicon from which there is no return. But it had to be done. Let me set the record straight: I am no leader — just one voice hoping to awaken a slumbering moral majority. I have always resisted bullies and abusers quietly. But quiet action in the face of loud injustice is a form of complicity. That ends now. I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am an American — an immigrant who came here with nothing, became a citizen, served in the Army, and owe this country a debt I can never repay. I believe in the rule of law, strong borders and the fair removal of those who break our laws. But I also believe in humanity and the right of every person to be treated with dignity and due process. I will never forget how this country embraced my family when we arrived with only hope in its promise. I am the son of a father who taught courage and a mother who taught compassion. Educated by Jesuits, I live by their motto — 'men for others' — and their belief that love must act. When cruelty becomes policy and injustice becomes normalized, love must raise its voice. That is why I can no longer remain silent as Miami's Republican U.S. Reps. Maria Elvira Salazar, Carlos Giménez and Mario Diaz-Balart shrink from their responsibility to stand against Trump's dehumanizing immigration agenda. They are Cuban Americans and children of immigrants, just like me. They know the pain of exile. Yet in the face of a bully president who separated children from their parents, vilified immigrants and exploited fear for power, they say and do nothing, though Salazar has sponsored the Dignity Act to provide legal status to some undocumented immigrants. Their silence is not neutrality. It is cowardice. Speaking out has come at a cost. A bag of raw meat was recently left on my driveway with an ominous note: 'We know you love your dogs.' Weeks later, an unfamiliar man pulled up beside me, called me by name, and warned me to 'Stop talking.' I won't lie — it shook me. But it did not silence me. It steeled me. I've long feared heights. During my military service in the Vietnam War, I forced myself to jump from planes over and over until fear became endurance. I was as afraid on my last jump as my first, but I kept jumping. To those who try to intimidate me, know this: I am not afraid. You will not bully me into submission. You will not quiet the truth. And you will not stop what must come next. The soul of our country is not for sale. Our values are not negotiable. When our representatives lack the courage to stand for what is right, it falls to citizens like you and me to speak up — and act. Very soon, I will act again and speak out even more forcefully, alongside others who still believe in an indivisible nation dedicated to liberty and justice for all. Not for Republicans. Not for Democrats. But for Americans. We can be better than this. We must be. Miguel 'Mike' B. Fernandez is the CEO of MBF Healthcare Partners in Coral Gables. He is a Cuban-American community activist and philanthropist.
Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ivy League schools are forking over millions under deals with Trump. Here's where the money's going.
Both deals with the Ivy League schools came as they faced complaints they had allowed antisemitism to proliferate on campus during protests against the war in Gaza, as well as allegations they had discriminated against students via diversity-related policies and programs. Neither Brown nor Columbia in their agreements admitted any wrongdoing — something Harvard has indicated in court fights with the federal government it is also unwilling to do. Advertisement The measures the schools adopted to get the government off their backs differ wildly. Both Columbia and Brown are paying millions to resolve their disputes Columbia agreed to pay about $200 million to the US Treasury Department over the next three years, as well as another $21 million to address alleged civil rights violations of its Jewish employees. Congress will then have the power to appropriate those funds — though it's unclear what they will be used for. In exchange, Columbia will receive many of the research grants the government had previously canceled as early as March, and resolve violations of the law alleged by the federal government. The administration had frozen 'the majority' of the school's $1.3 billion in federal funding, Columbia's president said. Advertisement Brown, meanwhile, pledged to give $50 million to state workforce development organizations in Rhode Island that are 'operating in compliance with anti-discrimination laws' over the next 10 years, avoiding making a direct payment to the Trump administration. In exchange, the federal government would restore Brown's funding — the government had put The schools agreed to other changes Columbia agreed to implement an outside monitor to oversee whether it was complying with the changes it had promised the government, such as to reform disciplinary measures for student protesters and remove diversity-related policies. Brown said it would not perform gender-affirming surgeries on minors — which Brown's medical school has never done — or prescribe puberty blockers. It adopted the Trump administration's definitions of 'male' and 'female,' sparking outrage among current and former students who say that change harms transgender and nonbinary students who are excluded from those definitions. The two schools also took different approaches to addressing antisemitism: Columbia's measures included adopting a controversial definition of antisemitism and a review of its programs related to the Middle East. Brown, meanwhile, said it would commit resources to support programs related to Jewish students, as well as conduct a campus climate survey in 2025 that would include information about the climate for Jewish students on campus. Both schools also said they would share admissions data about applicants' standardized test scores and grade point averages, as well as demographic data such as their race. On Thursday, the administration made that a Advertisement Neither agreement, however, appeared to place any restrictions on what or how the school teaches, avoiding infringement on academic freedom many critics of the Trump administration had feared. The schools negotiated under different circumstances Many critics of Trump's war on higher education viewed Brown's agreement to invest in local education as more aligned with its mission as a university, rather than simply paying a fine for the government to use as it sees fit. Some have also voiced concerns the implementation of an outside monitor at Columbia could allow the federal government to infringe on its independence, despite the deal they had reached. The arrangements reflect differences in the amount of pressure the administration had applied to each school, down to the number of pages in the deal — Columbia's deal was 22 pages long, while Brown's was nine. Columbia had seen among the most high-profile protests against the war in Gaza and was the first institution to face government sanctions, beginning in March with the cancellation of more than $400 million in funding. The federal government has since found it in violation of civil rights law for allegedly acting with 'deliberate indifference' to harassment of Jewish students. The administration's investigation into Brown's alleged civil rights violations, however, was ongoing at the time the deal was struck. What the Trump deals could mean for Harvard The Trump administration has quickly touted each agreement as a victory. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon called the Columbia settlement a 'roadmap for elite universities' and President Trump declared on Truth Social 'woke is officially DEAD at Brown' after announcing that deal. Advertisement Still, some worry any agreement with the administration only opens the door to further coercion if the federal government finds something else it doesn't like at any of the schools it is dealing with. Trump and his allies have long seen Harvard, the nation's wealthiest university, as its best opportunity to influence higher education and have aimed to force an agreement by canceling more than $3 billion in funding, threatening international students' statuses, and levying a number of civil rights complaints against the school. In response, the school has put up the most forceful legal and public relations fight against the federal government, meaning any agreement it reaches could reverberate further than that of its peers. The government is 'getting whatever they can get so they can make the announcement — it's all about the noise, it's not about the substance in any way," said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, which represents 1,600 universities. 'If they reach a settlement with Harvard, they will do just what they did in the other cases: Make a big, splashy, noisy thing about it and not even refer to the actual details of what they've done. ... It's just generating news cycles, that's all they care about.' Anjali Huynh can be reached at
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump could be ‘wild card' in NFL, ESPN media deal: 5 things to know
A blockbuster deal between the NFL and ESPN that would clear the way for the Disney-owned sports network to purchase several of the league's top media assets could face a key hurdle before it clears: President Trump. The deal is part of a pivotal move further into streaming for Disney — the parent company of ABC News, which Trump and his allies have regularly attacked over its coverage of his administration and its corporate diversity policies. Here are five things to know about the ESPN-NFL deal and the scrutiny it could face from the Trump administration. Disney is betting big on a streamed future As the value of its traditional broadcast channels and assets has declined, Disney has for years poured hundreds of millions of dollars into livestreamed sports, scripted entertainment offerings and non-linear news coverage. The company plans to launch a new ESPN direct-to-consumer streaming platform this fall, and its deal to acquire the NFL's 'RedZone' brand and other broadcast assets is being widely seen as Disney's biggest bet yet that increased pro football coverage will lure new subscribers. But Trump looms large over the deal, which is expected to need approval from the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission given the 10 percent stake in ESPN the NFL is set to receive. 'Trump clearly is the wild card in this whole thing,' said Dan Rayburn, a consultant specializing in streamed media. 'We already know how he likes to throw his weight around, and he's had some problems with Disney in the past. So, there's only so much they and the NFL can control here.' When the two sides announced the agreement, which some analysts have estimated could be valued at more than $1 billion, Disney and the NFL did not indicate how quickly the deal would close, an omission seen by some in the business as an acknowledgement it could face roadblocks. As of Friday, Trump had not weighed in publicly on the proposed deal, and the White House declined to comment on any potential involvement from the president when asked by The Hill. A number of MAGA figures quickly voiced opposition to Disney getting into deeper business with the NFL, turning the headline-grabbing megadeal into a political football in a matter of hours. Trumpworld pushes back This week, several conservative pundits and political operatives have suggested the president should use the proposed deal between ESPN and the NFL as leverage over both sides. 'Given ABC News's consistent bias against President Trump why should his administration allow this Disney media purchase to occur?,' asked the right-wing sports media pundit Clay Travis in a social media post. 'Trump's FCC should zealously review any merger request and at minimum insist Disney/ESPN reject all DEI programs and pledge to provide content viewpoint diversity on ABC, ESPN & the NFL Network going forward.' Ari Fleischer, a Fox News contributor and former White House press secretary during the Bush administration, also predicted the president could get involved. 'Given his interest in the NFL, and his history of using media mergers for leverage, it's hard to see him not playing around with this,' Fleischer told Front Office Sports. 'I doubt this will be a straightforward commercial transaction.' Trump and his allies have taken issue with ABC for years. The network paid Trump $15 million to settle a defamation suit last year, an episode the president celebrated and doubled down on by suggesting ABC Late Night comic Jimmy Kimmel, a frequent critic, could soon be taken off the air. The network fired longtime reporter Terry Moran after he criticized Trump aide Stephen Miller in a social media post, and White House officials regularly bemoan segments on the network's daytime table talk program 'The View.' Threats to have the FCC to scrutinize ABC's broadcast license and Trump's repeated attacks against Disney's 'woke' corporate diversity policies could leave some investors in the company nervous the president may use the NFL, ESPN deal as another weapon against the conglomerate. Trump feels he's 'on a roll' against media The president has sued and successfully extracted settlement payments out of several leading media companies during his first seven months in office. Trump has litigation pending against Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal and made a habit of boasting in social media posts and speeches about holding news outlets 'accountable,' for coverage he feels is unfair to him. His FCC chair, Brendan Carr, has likewise slammed major news networks and praised 'New Paramount,' the newly formed Hollywood giant which owns CBS News, for making a commitment to represent a more 'diverse set of viewpoints' in its news coverage. 'New Paramount,' took heat from critics for agreeing to scale back its diversity, equity and inclusion efforts as it worked to win approval of its merger with Skydance from Trump's FCC. 'Trump thinks he's on a roll against the media, and you can see why,' one national Republican strategist told The Hill in recent days. Others say Trump's complicated relationship with the NFL, rather than Disney, could nudge him toward intervening in a deal seen as critical to both sides' future. Trump and the NFL have a history Trump, a former New York City businessman and real estate mogul, has tried several times since the 1980s to purchase an NFL franchise. He once led a lawsuit by the now-defunct USFL to merge with the NFL, and called for a boycott of the league during his first term over players who protested for racial justice during the National Anthem before games. Most recently, Trump threatened to hold up a deal to build a new stadium in Washington, D.C., for the Washington Commanders if the organization did not revert to the team's original name. Some of the president's supporters have suggested the Commanders' name change could be used as a bargaining chip in the regulatory approval process for NFL-ESPN media rights deal. Given the NFL's broad popularity, and the president's desire to drive headlines on cultural touchstones, allies of the president see the league's blockbuster deal as an opportunity for the president to turn the heat up on both sides. War between tech, media companies grows hotter Legacy media companies like Disney have seen their bottom lines and audience shares threatened by a growing number of major tech and streaming companies like Apple, Amazon and Netflix, all of which have disrupted the live sports broadcasting market in a big way. Disney's ceding of 10 percent of its crown jewel in ESPN is being seen by industry observers as a firm return punch, one that signals the Bob Iger-led company believes it can shore up its relationship with the country's most popular sports league at a time of growing threats from Big Tech. Irwin Kishner, a trade attorney who specializes in sports law, called Disney's deal with the NFL a 'defensive move' against Silicon Valley and predicted Trump throwing up a roadblock to the deal would be a major setback for the company. 'Professional sports programming is the most valuable content you can have,' Kishner told The Hill. 'For traditional media companies, who also provide news coverage and other content, there are always many factors going into deals like this. So, it's a balancing act when it comes to dealing with this or any administration.'
