日本語
한국어
Tiếng Việt
简体中文
A controversial $500 million investment by the Trump administration into a universal flu vaccine project is raising eyebrows among scientists and pandemic preparedness experts. The grant, championed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., favors a vaccine development program utilizing what some call outdated technology, sparking debate and scrutiny.
Concerns Over Scientific Policy and Conflicts of Interest
While the commitment to vaccine research is welcomed by some, the decision to allocate such significant resources to a single vaccine candidate, especially one relying on older methods, is being questioned. Critics argue that this approach deviates from established scientific policy and could potentially lead to conflicts of interest, a recurring theme during President Trump’s tenure.
“Focusing vast resources on a single vaccine candidate is a little like going to the Kentucky Derby and putting all your money on one horse,” commented William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University professor.
“Last-Generation” Technology?
The vaccine in question uses technology largely abandoned in the 1970s, opting out of advancements made in recent decades through significant investments from HHS and the Defense Department. Rick Bright, former head of BARDA, described the technology as “so last-generation, or first-generation, it’s mind-blowing.”
The Scientists Behind the Project
The vaccine is being developed at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) by Jeffery Taubenberger, recently appointed acting chief of the institute, and Matthew Memoli. HHS has dubbed the initiative “Generation Gold Standard,” touting it as a move towards transparency and effectiveness.
Is a Universal Flu Vaccine Possible?
The goal of creating a single vaccine that protects against all flu strains is not new. Former NIAID Director Anthony Fauci launched a similar initiative in 2019. Currently, over 200 flu vaccines are in development worldwide, many utilizing more modern technologies. The Trump administration, however, insists their approach is the “most promising,” despite limited published data.
Transparency and Public Accountability
HHS emphasizes that developing the vaccine in-house ensures transparency and freedom from commercial conflicts. However, experts like Greg Poland express concern over the lack of detailed plans and data available for review.
A Blast From the Past?
While mRNA vaccines represent cutting-edge technology, the Taubenberger-Memoli vaccine uses inactivated influenza viruses with a chemical called beta-propiolactone, a method used since the 1950s. Concerns have been raised about potential side effects associated with this older approach.
Despite the concerns, some experts acknowledge the potential benefits of a universal flu vaccine. However, the technology and the large sum of money allocated to this particular project remain a point of contention.
Paul Friedrichs, a retired Air Force general, described the $500 million upfront investment as “unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”
The Future of Vaccine Research
The decision to prioritize this vaccine project raises questions about the future of other research efforts, particularly those focused on COVID-19 and emerging diseases. With funding potentially being diverted from programs like Project NextGen, the scientific community remains divided on the best path forward.
Ted Ross, director of global vaccine development at the Cleveland Clinic, expressed hope for respiratory vaccine investment but cautioned against relying on a single approach. Many researchers now face uncertainty as funding cuts impact their work.