Nobel Laureate Warns of Risks of Political Interference in US Vaccine Approvals

Drew Weissman, a Nobel Prize-winning scientist recognized for his pioneering work on mRNA vaccines, voiced serious concerns on June 26, 2025, about the potential for vaccine approval delays or cancellations in the United States due to political interference. During an interview in Mexico City, Weissman highlighted fears that appointed vaccine skeptics, aligned with the current administration led by Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr., could hinder the approval process of new vaccines. This apprehension coincided with the first meeting of a newly formed US vaccine review panel, whose members were recently replaced, raising alarms within the scientific community.

Kennedy—who previously led efforts to spread vaccine misinformation before his appointment—dismissed the existing panel, citing conflicts of interest, and replaced them with new members, including controversial figures like Robert Malone, known for spreading anti-vaccine claims.

The upcoming decision by this panel involves the recommendation of a new antibody shot for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in infants, a key step in vaccine approval. Weissman and other distinguished scientists, including many Nobel laureates, expressed their opposition by sending an open letter to the Senate, criticizing Kennedy's appointment due to his anti-vaccine stance and lack of relevant credentials.

Weissman emphasized that this is the first time a government has appointed someone with anti-vaccine beliefs to oversee vaccine approval, calling it hypocritical and dangerous. He provided a stark reminder of the consequences of vaccine hesitancy, citing the resurgence of measles in the United States from near eradication to widespread outbreaks caused by declining vaccination rates.

He stated, "We need a government that recognizes the importance of vaccines, not one that promotes anti-vaccine agendas. The health of millions depends on objective, science-based approval processes."

This controversy underscores the ongoing conflict between scientific consensus and political influences over public health policies, jeopardizing the progress made in combating preventable diseases in the US. For more details, visit source.