There is a direct line between the conspiracy theories that circulated about COVID-19 vaccines in 2021 and the situation in which research into mRNA vaccines for cancer finds itself today. It is not a line that defenders of these theories would voluntarily draw, but it is real and has consequences that go far beyond health policy.
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced last year that it would stop funding mRNA research through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), canceling 22 separate research contracts. More recently, the FDA canceled its review of Moderna's mRNA-based flu vaccine, although it later agreed to reconsider it after criticism from the scientific community. The set of these decisions creates a climate of institutional uncertainty for a technology that, precisely now, is demonstrating its greatest potential.
The paradox: the most promising technology, under political suspicion
The emergence of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines into the political debate was, in a way, inevitable. When the largest vaccination campaign in history is carried out with relatively new technology, in record time, in the midst of a polarizing pandemic, doubts are understandable. What was not inevitable was that these doubts would become institutional health policy that stops the use of the same technology to develop cancer treatments.
Data from Moderna and Merck's personalized melanoma vaccine show a 49% reduction in the risk of relapse or death at five years. It is not a theoretical promise: it is data from a clinical trial with long follow-up that demonstrates a real and lasting benefit. That technology is mRNA. The same mRNA that the current American political environment views with suspicion.
Policy restrictions on mRNA research — US 2025–2026
- HHS/BARDA: cancellation of funding for mRNA research — 22 contracts canceled
- FDA: canceled review of Moderna's mRNA flu vaccine (later reconsidered)
- Effect on recruitment in trials: researchers report difficulties due to mistrust of potential participants
- RFK Jr. as HHS Secretary: skeptical position towards mRNA vaccines publicly documented
- Estimated impact on development timelines: potential delay of 2–5 years in approvals
Ryan Sullivan, director of the Melanoma Center at the Brigham Cancer Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, described the problem directly: "Most people don't have major concerns, but some people are reluctant." In oncology, where recruiting participants in clinical trials can be the bottleneck that determines when a promising treatment becomes approved, even a reluctant minority can significantly delay timelines.
The global implications
The impact of American regulatory and financing decisions is not limited to the United States. The FDA is the most influential regulatory agency globally: its approvals and rejections largely determine the timing of access to new treatments around the world. If the American political climate delays the approval of the personalized mRNA vaccine for melanoma—and potentially other types of cancer—that delay is directly transmitted to patients in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the rest of the world who are waiting for these treatments.
In Europe, the position is different: the EMA continues to evaluate data on mRNA cancer vaccines without the political component that characterizes the American debate, and the EU Biotechnology Law is positioning the continent as a strategic player in the development of these technologies. But the scale of investment in American biomedical R&D is so superior to that in Europe that even with regulatory goodwill in Brussels, delays in the United States are felt everywhere.
Share this article
