America Is Giving Up a Lifesaving Medical Breakthrough: mRNA

In early 2020, when the first genetic sequence of the new coronavirus was posted online, scientists were ready. Within hours, they began designing a vaccine. Within weeks, clinical trials were underway. That unprecedented speed, which saved millions of lives, was possible only because years earlier, the United States invested in a vaccine technology called mRNA. Today that work is being sidelined and, with it, our best chance to quickly respond when the next threat emerges.

The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced it would wind down 22 mRNA vaccine development projects under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, halting nearly $500 million in investments. This decision undercuts one of the most significant medical advances in decades, technology that could protect millions more people from the threats ahead.

I know the stakes because I was BARDA’s director when the United States made the decision to invest heavily in mRNA. That investment did not begin with Covid-19. It began in 2016, when we faced the Zika virus outbreak. We needed a way to design a vaccine in days, not years, to protect pregnant women and their babies from devastating birth defects. Older vaccine approaches were too slow. The solution was mRNA: a flexible, rapid-response technology that could be reprogrammed for any pathogen once its genetic sequence was known. That early investment laid the groundwork for the lightning-fast Covid-19 response four years later.

BARDA wasn’t the only government agency making early investments in mRNA research. The Department of Defense and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency had already recognized mRNA’s potential for swift action against emerging biological threats, including those that might be weaponized. Globally, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the World Health Organization and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation committed substantial resources to advance the technology for viruses with pandemic potential. These combined efforts created a scientific and manufacturing foundation that allowed the world to move at warp speed when Covid-19 emerged.

During the pandemic, mRNA vaccines went from the genetic sequence of the virus to human trials in under 70 days. They were evaluated in large, rigorous trials, meeting the same safety and effectiveness standards as other vaccines. By the end of 2021, they had saved an estimated 20 million lives globally, including more than one million in the United States. They reduced hospitalization and death rates, lowered the risk of long Covid and helped economies and communities reopen sooner.

The mRNA technology is not a single vaccine. It is what scientists describe as a platform, which can be adapted quickly for new or mutating viruses, combined to target multiple variants and manufactured through a streamlined process that reduces reliance on fragile global supply chains. It is now being tested for personalized cancer vaccines, autoimmune therapies and treatments for rare diseases. It is under study to protect against pathogens like the Nipah, Lassa and Chikungunya viruses, threats that could cause the next global emergency.

Like every technology, mRNA has limitations. Vaccines meant to protect against respiratory infections, whether developed through mRNA or older technologies, are generally better at averting severe disease than preventing infection. It is a scientific challenge we can address with next-generation vaccines. The answer to limitations is improvement, not abandonment.

Political narratives about mRNA have fueled confusion, which leads to mistrust, yet the scientific evidence consistently shows that this technology is safe and effective and holds enormous potential for future vaccines and treatments. Some have claimed mRNA encourages viral mutations or prolongs pandemics. Research says otherwise. Mutations arise when viruses replicate. Vaccination can help reduce the chances of virus replication, which would reduce opportunities for mutation. Other critics point to safety concerns. With more than 13 billion Covid‑19 vaccine doses administered globally, including hundreds of millions of mRNA doses, the evidence shows that serious complications are very rare and occur at rates comparable with those of other vaccines. Most side effects are mild and short‑lived.

If the United States abandons mRNA, it will not simply be forfeiting a public health advantage. It will be ceding a strategic asset. In national security terms, mRNA is the equivalent of a missile defense system for biology. The ability to rapidly design, produce and deploy medical countermeasures is as vital to our defense as any military capability. Adversaries who invest in this technology will be able to respond faster to outbreaks, protecting their populations sooner than we can. Right now, the United States has a decisive advantage in mRNA science, manufacturing capacity and regulatory expertise. But in an era when biological threats can be engineered, losing this competitive edge would leave the United States vulnerable and dependent on others for lifesaving tools.

The consequences of canceling mRNA contracts will affect more nations than just the United States. Many countries have been building regional mRNA manufacturing capacity. For a leader like the United States to pull back now undermines that effort and weakens our collective ability to respond to the next outbreak. It means choosing to face the next biological threat with fewer defenses and slower tools while others build speed and strength.

There is a better path forward. The Department of Health and Human Services can work with scientists, public health experts and security leaders to refine and improve mRNA technology while preserving critical programs and production capacity. By recalibrating rather than severing support, we can keep this powerful tool ready for the time it is needed most. The next crisis will not wait for us to rebuild what we have thrown away.

Rick Bright (@RickABright) is the chief executive of Bright Global Health, a global strategic advisory organization focused on improving responses to public health emergencies. He advises the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the World Health Organization African Regional Office and the global 100 Days Mission.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.