Introduction to the Trump Team’s Vaccine Initiative
The Trump administration’s unprecedented $500 million grant for a broadly protective flu shot has confounded vaccine and pandemic preparedness experts, who said the project was in early stages, relied on old technology, and was just one of more than 200 such efforts. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shifted the money from a pandemic preparedness fund to a vaccine development program led by two scientists whom the administration recently named to senior positions at the National Institutes of Health.
Background on the Vaccine Development
While some experts were pleased that Kennedy had supported any vaccine project, they said the May 1 announcement contravened sound scientific policy, appeared arbitrary, and raised the kinds of questions about conflicts of interest that have dogged many of President Donald Trump’s actions. 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,” said William Schaffner, a Vanderbilt University professor and past president of the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases. “In science, we normally put money on a number of different horses because we can’t be entirely sure who’s going to win.”
Concerns About the Vaccine Technology
Others were mystified by the decision, since the candidate vaccine uses technology that was largely abandoned in the 1970s and eschews techniques developed in recent decades through funding from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Defense Department. “This is not a next-generation vaccine,” said Rick Bright, who led HHS’ Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, in the first Trump administration. “It’s so last-generation, or first-generation, it’s mind-blowing.” The vaccine is being developed at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases by Jeffery Taubenberger, whom Trump named as acting chief of the institute in late April, and his colleague Matthew Memoli, a critic of U.S. COVID-19 policy whom Trump picked to lead the NIH until April 1, when Jay Bhattacharya took office.
The Vaccine Development Process
Taubenberger gained fame as an Armed Forces Institute of Pathology scientist in 1997 when his lab sequenced the genome of the 1918 pandemic influenza virus, using tissue samples from U.S. troops who died in that plague. He joined the NIH in 2006. In a May 1 news release, HHS called the Taubenberger-Memoli vaccine initiative “Generation Gold Standard,” saying it represented “a decisive shift toward transparency, effectiveness, and comprehensive preparedness.” Bhattacharya said it represented a “paradigm shift.” But the NIH vaccine-makers’ goal of creating a shot that protects against multiple or all strains of influenza — currently, vaccines must be given each year to account for shifts in the virus — is not new.
Comparison to Other Vaccine Initiatives
Then-NIAID Director Anthony Fauci launched a network of academic researchers in pursuit of a broadly protective flu vaccine in 2019. In addition to that NIH-led consortium, more than 200 flu vaccines are under development in the U.S. and other countries. Many use newer technologies, and some are at more advanced stages of human testing than the Taubenberger vaccine, whose approach appears basically the same as the one used in flu vaccines starting in 1944, Bright said. In the news release, HHS described the vaccine as “in advanced trials” and said it would induce “robust” responses and “long-lasting protection.” But Taubenberger and his colleagues haven’t published a complete human study of the vaccine yet. A study showing the vaccine protected mice from the flu appeared in 2022.
Expert Opinions on the Vaccine Initiative
For Operation Warp Speed, which led to the creation of the COVID vaccine during Trump’s first term, government scientists reviewed detailed plans and data from academic and commercial laboratories vying for federal money, said Greg Poland, a flu expert and president of the Atria Health Academy of Science and Medicine. “If that’s happening here, it’s opaque to me,” he said. When asked what data beyond its press release supported the decision, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon pointed to the agency’s one-page statement. Asked whether the decision would curtail funding for the Fauci-created consortium or other universal vaccine approaches, Nixon did not specifically respond. “Generation Gold Standard is the most promising,” he said in an email.
Concerns About Funding and Conflicts of Interest
Taubenberger did not respond to a request for comment. Nixon and NIH spokesperson Amanda Fine did not respond to requests for an interview with Taubenberger or Memoli. The HHS statement stressed that by developing the vaccine in-house, the government “ensures radical transparency, public accountability, and freedom from commercial conflicts of interest.” While any vaccine would eventually have to be made commercially, NIH involvement through more stages of development could give the government greater influence on any vaccine’s eventual price, Schaffner said. If the mRNA-based COVID shots produced by Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech represented the cutting edge of vaccine technology, applying ultra-sophisticated approaches never before seen in an inoculation, the approach by Taubenberger and Memoli represents a blast from the past.
The Vaccine’s Technology and Potential Risks
Their vaccine is made by inactivating influenza viruses with a carcinogenic chemical called beta-propiolactone. Scientists have used the chemical to neutralize viruses since at least the 1950s. This whole-virus inactivation method, mostly using other chemicals, was the standard way to make flu vaccines into the 1970s, when it was modified, partly because whole-virus vaccines caused high fevers or even seizures in children. The limited published data from the Taubenberger vaccine, from an initial safety trial involving 45 patients, showed no major side effects. The scientists are testing the vaccine as a regular shot and as an intranasal spray with the idea of stopping the virus in the respiratory tract before it causes a broad infection.
Conclusion
The Trump team’s $500 million bet on an old vaccine technology has puzzled scientists and raised concerns about the allocation of funds and potential conflicts of interest. While the goal of creating a broadly protective flu vaccine is commendable, the approach taken by Taubenberger and Memoli has been criticized for being outdated and potentially risky. As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether this investment will pay off or if it will be a costly mistake.
FAQs
Q: What is the Trump team’s $500 million vaccine initiative?
A: The initiative is a vaccine development program led by scientists Jeffery Taubenberger and Matthew Memoli, aiming to create a broadly protective flu vaccine using an old technology that was largely abandoned in the 1970s.
Q: Why are scientists concerned about the initiative?
A: Scientists are concerned because the technology used is outdated, and the approach has been criticized for being potentially risky and less effective than newer technologies.
Q: How does the initiative compare to other vaccine development efforts?
A: The initiative is one of over 200 flu vaccine development efforts, many of which use newer technologies and are at more advanced stages of human testing.
Q: What are the potential risks associated with the vaccine?
A: The vaccine uses a carcinogenic chemical to inactivate influenza viruses, which has been associated with high fevers and seizures in children in the past.
Q: What is the current status of the vaccine development?
A: The vaccine is in early development, with limited published data available, and its effectiveness and safety in humans are yet to be fully determined.
