U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Aug. 5 that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated an Emory University grant for mRNA research.
While HHS terminated the Emory grant as part of a “coordinated wind-down” initiative to end funding for 22 mRNA vaccine development projects, Philip Santangelo, the lead researcher for the grant and professor in the Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology School of Engineering and Emory University School of Medicine, said the Emory grant did not involve vaccine development.
mRNA is a type of ribonucleic acid that carries the genetic information needed to make proteins. Vaccines that utilize mRNA technology instruct the body to make specific proteins that mimic those of pathogens. When mRNA vaccines enter the body, a person’s immune system is trained to fight against the pathogen. Kennedy expressed opposition to the development of mRNA vaccine technology, stating that the vaccines “fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.”
The grant, from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, allotted $750,000 to develop an inhalable dry powder that doctors could use to treat patients for influenza and COVID-19.
Santangelo emphasized that this differs from a preventative vaccine since it uses mRNA to treat patients after a virus has infected them.
“Probably the most important thing that I want people to understand is that it was not a vaccine,” Santangelo said.
Santengelo also mentioned that in case of an outbreak or pandemic, the powder would be easy to stockpile and is potentially effective against many variants and strains of pathogens.
“[The treatment] works against a wide range of influenza A’s, and then we had a version that would also work against influenza B and a version that would work against COVID,” Santangelo said. “We were combining all of those so that you could treat influenza A, B and all the COVID variants.”
According to Santangelo, the grant research explored mRNA technology as a safe and efficient tool for treating viruses.
“The reason why mRNA is useful is that it’s easy to make,” Santangelo said. “It’s easy to formulate, relatively speaking, and you can use it for lots of different applications. It doesn’t take a huge infrastructure to be able to make a reasonable amount of it.”
Emory School of Medicine Sumner Thompson III Distinguished professor of Vaccinology and Infectious Diseases Nadine Rouphael described the termination of mRNA grants as a “setback.”
While Rouphael was not involved in the Emory mRNA grant, she previously participated in mRNA research at Emory and stressed the importance of mRNA technology. Rouphael shared her worries about the funding cuts to mRNA research.
“It’s a technology where improvements could be made, but again, it’s being taken away, or at least the message is being sent that this is not a priority platform to invest in,” Rouphael said. “We’re losing a tool that could be helpful to us.”
HHS is terminating the Emory mRNA grant near the middle of the project’s original timeframe, according to Santangelo. The team began research around November 2024 and planned to continue until about March 2026.
At the time of its termination, the research team was making significant progress in developing the mRNA inhalable treatment technology, according to Santangelo.
The recent cuts in mRNA research follow HHS’s defunding of scientific research across the country.
In an Aug. 21 email to The Emory Wheel, Assistant Vice President of University Communications Laura Diamond touched on the University’s readiness to adjust to potential government funding changes.
“We continue to monitor actions from HHS as it relates to Emory’s research and remain in communication with government officials,” Diamond wrote. “Emory will adjust as needed to pursue our research goals and ambitions.”
Rouphael emphasized how the negative messaging of the mRNA grant cuts could affect future research.
“I’m just afraid that the cuts of funding could signal that this is not a tool that we could use moving forward, which is a shame because we need more tools, rather than less,” Rouphael said.
