When news broke this week that the Department of Health and Human Services was allocating half-a-billion dollars to a National Institutes of Health project to develop a vaccine platform for potential pandemic-causing pathogens, the reactions from the scientific community were varied.
Many scientists working in the field of vaccinology viewed the continued investment in efforts to create vaccines that could mitigate the impact of future pandemics as a positive step. However, there was a significant amount of skepticism surrounding the decision to use whole killed viruses as the basis for these vaccines.
One scientist, who specializes in vaccine development, expressed confusion at the choice of using a technology that dates back 70 years, referencing Jonas Salk’s use of this method to create the first polio vaccine in the 1950s.
Another scientist, familiar with ongoing research to develop a universal flu vaccine, criticized the decision, stating, “There is incredible work going on. This is not it.”
Several scientists who spoke to STAT for this article requested anonymity, citing concerns about potential repercussions for criticizing the plan, given that the NIH is a major funder of scientific research worldwide.
Many scientists questioned the substantial investment in a vaccine production method that has been surpassed by more advanced and efficient processes. Some likened the decision to a step backward in vaccine technology. Renowned vaccines researcher Arnold Monto described the approach as “not a eureka moment.”
The press release announcing the project did not disclose the exact amount allocated for the work, but a Wall Street Journal article estimated it to be $500 million based on internal emails shared with the publication.
There were also concerns raised about the way the funding was awarded, as the project is led by in-house NIH scientists, bypassing the typically rigorous peer-review process that external researchers have to undergo to secure NIH funding. This lack of external review led to criticism from some scientists who described the process as “incestuous.”
Stanley Plotkin, a co-developer of vaccines against rubella and rotavirus, expressed reservations about the project’s vetting and the appropriateness of the allocated funds. He emphasized the need for a better influenza vaccine but questioned whether this project would achieve that without a detailed examination.
Initial results from a Phase 1 trial of the NIH group’s universal flu vaccine, which only targets four flu subtypes, left some scientists unimpressed. While the injected version of the vaccine showed moderate increases in antibodies, the intranasal version performed less effectively.
The project, named Generation Gold Standard, aims to develop a vaccine platform using whole, inactivated, or killed viruses to protect against pandemic-prone viruses. This method of vaccine production, while common in the early days of vaccine development, has been largely replaced by newer, more efficient approaches.
Despite the press release suggesting long-lasting protection from whole killed virus vaccines, the need for annual flu vaccine updates due to evolving influenza strains raises questions about the effectiveness of this approach.
With advancements in vaccine design leading to faster production, fewer side effects, and stronger immune responses, the decision to invest in a technology that has fallen out of favor in the field raised concerns among scientists. While some vaccines, like the rabies vaccine, are still made using whole killed viruses, critics of the plan noted the limitations of this approach.
With the continuous evolution of technology, it is no surprise that the field of medicine is also looking to adapt and improve with newer technologies. The recent announcement of a groundbreaking project by Director Jay Bhattacharya has sparked excitement and anticipation in the scientific community. This project promises to revolutionize vaccine protection by extending it beyond strain-specific limits and preparing for future viral threats using traditional vaccine technology brought into the 21st century.
The ambitious project aims to deliver a flu vaccine that can protect against multiple strains of influenza, as well as a vaccine that can protect against a variety of coronaviruses. The ultimate goal is to develop a universal flu vaccine that could potentially be approved as early as 2029. This is a complex challenge that has eluded researchers for years, but with the advancements in technology and research, it seems that a breakthrough may be on the horizon.
However, not everyone is convinced of the potential success of this project. Some scientists have raised concerns about the funding reallocation from other vital research programs, such as the development of next-generation countermeasures for Covid-19. The decision to shift funds from these programs to support this new vaccine development method has sparked debate and skepticism within the scientific community.
Critics argue that the focus on this particular vaccine development method may signal a move away from using messenger RNA vaccines for pandemic preparedness. Messenger RNA vaccines have played a crucial role in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic and have shown great promise in developing effective vaccines rapidly. It is essential to continue funding research into various vaccine platforms to ensure that we have a diverse arsenal of tools to combat future threats.
While the potential of the new project is exciting, it is important to consider other promising platforms, such as mRNA vaccines, that can deliver multiple vaccine antigens simultaneously. This diversity in research and development is vital to ensure that we have the most effective and efficient tools to respond to emerging infectious diseases.
Despite the potential benefits of the new vaccine development method, there are still questions about how the vaccines produced using this platform will be deployed. It is crucial to understand the logistics and practicality of implementing these vaccines in real-world scenarios to ensure that they can be effectively utilized in times of need.
In conclusion, while the new project holds great promise for the future of vaccine development, it is essential to continue supporting a diverse range of research efforts to prepare for the ever-evolving landscape of infectious diseases. By harnessing the power of newer technologies and innovative approaches, we can better equip ourselves to address the challenges that lie ahead. The newer version of the vaccine, although made a different way, is not as protective as the former whole cell version. However, it does not cause the rates of high fever, febrile seizures, prolonged crying, and injection site reactions seen with the previous version. According to Garcia-Sastre, the newer vaccines are more immunogenic and likely better at protecting individuals. However, too much immunogenicity may lead to adverse events in some people.
To address this issue, the Generation Gold Standard team is exploring intranasal vaccines developed using whole viruses. Garcia-Sastre emphasized the need for careful monitoring of adverse events such as Bell’s palsy, a condition characterized by temporary partial paralysis of facial muscles. Bell’s palsy has been linked to at least one intranasal influenza vaccine that is no longer on the market, although it was not made with whole killed viruses. Garcia-Sastre stressed the importance of evaluating the safety of intranasal vaccines with reactogenic properties.
In conclusion, while the newer version of the vaccine may offer improved protection, it is essential to consider the potential risks of increased immunogenicity and adverse events. The development of intranasal vaccines using whole viruses shows promise but requires thorough safety evaluations to prevent any potential complications. By prioritizing safety alongside efficacy, researchers can continue to advance vaccine technology and protect public health.
