Science Friday
Hosted by Flora Lichtman and Ira Flatow
The plan raises some eyebrows, as some in the Trump administration have been skeptical of vaccines and moved to limit vaccine access.
5,369 words · 8 speakers
Speaker names marked ? are inferred from speaking time and the show’s known hosts — they are not voice-verified.
WNYC is supported by Bear. Science is about asking questions, testing, trying again. It's not easy, but it's relentless. It evolves, and that's why science delivers. Learn more at sciencedelivers.com.
Support for Science Friday comes from USA for UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. Here's a problem. How do you keep a house above freezing when the windows are gone and the power is out for 16 hours a day? In Ukraine this winter, the answer fits in a box. Reflective insulation, plastic sheeting to cover broken windows, draft blockers for the doors. Simple materials installed the same day a team arrives. Your gift delivers them, and until December 31st, it's matched. Donate at unrefugees.org/friday.
Science Friday is supported by MathWorks, creator of MATLAB and Simulink software for technical computing and model-based design. MathWorks, accelerating the pace of discovery in engineering and science. Learn more at mathworks.com.
Science Friday is supported by Dell. Gifts mean more when they have the power to unwrap more of who you are. This Black Friday, give a gift that goes beyond the box. The Dell XPS 13 laptop. It's the thinnest, lightest XPS laptop yet, with a long battery life, beautiful design, and powerful performance with Intel Core processors. The XPS laptop unlocks more of what you love. Plus, at dell.com, you'll find perks like Dell Rewards, fast free shipping, and flexible financing, and big savings on monitors and accessories. Head to dell.com/deals. That's dell.com/deals.
This is Science Friday. I'm Ira Flatow.
And I'm Flora Lichtman.
Today in the podcast, scientists have been trying and failing to make a universal flu vaccine for years. What's the holdup? Could a new NIH vaccine plan solve the problem?
What's fact from fiction? What's public relations versus what is really the message that there is good science out there, and what is it accomplishing?
Just yesterday, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the CDC would stop recommending COVID vaccines for both pregnant women and healthy children. And last week, the FDA announced plans to restrict access to the COVID vaccine for people under 65 or without preexisting conditions. These steps, which have raised a lot of concern from vaccine experts, come just a few weeks after the NIH announced a new vaccine initiative, Generation Gold Standard. They say the goal is to make a next-generation, universal vaccine platform that could work for influenza and COVID using, quote, "traditional vaccine technology." Now, for decades, scientists have been chasing this holy grail of universal vaccines, like
a one-and-done flu shot, so that instead of schlepping to the pharmacy every winter, you get one vaccine, maybe a booster, and you're immune for years, maybe forever. But Ira, so far, that super shot has been elusive.
It certainly has, and the question is, will this program have more success? That is the, literally, $500 million question. So where is the science on this? How does it square with the administration's other efforts to limit vaccine access? We invited someone from NIH to join us today, and they have declined. Now, let me introduce our guests. Michael Osterholm is the Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, or CIDRAP. He's based at the medical school at the University of Minnesota, and he's joining us today from Minnesota Public Radio. Welcome back to Science Friday.
Thank you. It's great to be with you again, Ira.
Nice to have you. Ted Ross is the Global Director of Vaccine Research at the famous Cleveland Clinic, Florida Research and Innovation Center. He joins us from his lab in Port St. Lucie, and I want to thank you for talking with us, Dr. Ross.
Thank you for inviting me.
Nice to have you. All right, let's begin with the questioning, because, you know, the NIH proposals, Generation Gold Standard, what do you think of that, Michael? What does that even mean?
Well, let me just begin by saying, in the 50 years I've been in this business, I've never seen more vaccine chaos and confusion than exists right now. And unfortunately, so much of it's not necessary or surely not helpful. I think the administration has laid out its priorities more in the realm of public relations than surely within terms of science. And what I mean by that is they keep talking about, we need this new level of gold standard science that we implying it hasn't happened before. Well, you know, to date, 174 scientists at NIH or their research was supported by NIH have been the sole or shared recipients of 104 Nobel Prizes.
I'd kind of tell you, that sounds to me like that's pretty good gold standard science. So I think what we need to do today, Ira, is really try to separate out what's fact from fiction, what's public relations versus what is really the message that there is good science out there and what is it accomplishing.
Ted Ross, what's your take on this?
No, I agree. There's been quite a bit of research into developing new vaccines, next generation vaccines for influenza and other pathogens. And so a lot of that work's been ongoing. It's actually been quite fruitful and brought many different products forward. But it's not an easy task and it takes time and it takes resources in order to get this accomplished.
Now, let me see if I understand this because according to the NIH HHS press release, Generation Gold Standard is using what's called a BPL inactivated whole virus platform. I mean, isn't this something we have been using since polio to make vaccines? And what's wrong with that? Dr. Otho-Hom?
Okay, sure. Well, first of all, let me just point out that the information that's actually available about this particular project and this vaccine is actually extremely limited. Very little has been done, very little has been published about it. And while it may actually hold some possibilities that are not just the same as we saw in the 1960s and 70s when this research was going on, but this is a long, long ways from Being an answer to what the challenge we have. You know, our center at the University of Minnesota actually tracks vaccines that are in the research and development pipeline, including Ted's vaccines, the COBRA vaccines, which surely holds some real promise. And today, we now have 229 different vaccine candidates that clearly could,
through ongoing research, turn out to be one that is going to give us a much better vaccine. What the NIH has done is without any input, no review, they've just taken this $500 million and allocated it from what was COVID vaccine research to this particular project. And that has been terribly unfortunate. That is not the way to do good science. And so I think, again, we have to come back to the fact that, as Ted just pointed out, there's a lot of research ongoing right now. There has been. We're making advances, but we're still a long ways from a touchdown. And it's issues like we just saw just now with this particular vaccine from the NIH getting all this money is not helping to really further science.
Can we get into some of the like nerdy biology of how these vaccines work and and the differences between viruses? I mean, I would love to understand why for some illnesses you can get one vaccine and you're done for life. And for others, you need an annual shot. Is that about virus biology?
Yes, a lot of it is about the biology of the virus. Some pathogens, there's a limited number of diversity in their genome, which doesn't make a lot of strains, which makes it a lot easier for us to design a vaccine that will be effective and elicit a lifetime immunity. But something like influenza, for which the virus is constantly evolving, and we keep getting introductions of new variants that come from zoonotic sources, means we're always seeing something new and our immune system cannot always react to that. And we have to have a new vaccine that is designed specifically for those strains that are circulating.
Is it realistic then to imagine we might ever have long lasting perfection protection for something like influenza?
I think it's an aspirational goal, which we would all love to have. But what we're trying to do really is to get better next generation vaccines that will be effective for longer term periods of time and also reduce the number of vaccine shots one has to get. And so that would be a tremendous improvement over what we're doing today. If we can actually have a vaccine that will recognize all strains that are circulating now and in the next five to 10 years, without having to update the vaccine, that would be a great improvement with eventually having, trying to get a goal of something of like lifetime immunity.
All strains of influenza or all strains of influenza plus coronaviruses plus something else?
You could apply that to all these pathogens that have quite a number of diverse variants of their, uh, their family.
There seems to be like a, uh, from what I'm reading, a sort of a disconnect here. For years, we've heard about a pushback, uh, from people who don't want to get vaccinated because they don't want their kids to get six shots at once. You know, six different needles, six different things. They think there's something wrong with those vaccinations. And yet now we're hearing from basically the same people that we want to create a vaccine that does the same thing, but in one shot. But you're going to be getting all those same kinds of inputs, aren't you?
Well, let me just say, first of all, what you're really addressing right now is a very, very critical issue that's happening worldwide, not just in the United States, is vaccine hesitancy. And one of the challenges we have is that, you know, the whole world of vaccine work is somewhat complicated. We're just talking about the fact with influenza that in this particular case, the virus changes enough that in fact you have to stay current with it. We see the same thing with, in fact, COVID. And trying to explain to a parent that versus say measles vaccine where, you know, basically two doses over a childhood period. yields a lifetime of protection. And so one of the challenges we have is just having parents understand what we're trying
to do and why. And there's a distrust today that's immense. Anything that has to do with often government, with pharmaceutical companies are seen as suspect. And we see physicians and nurse practitioners and other nurses in general really challenged today because young adults come in with their paperwork that they've gotten off the internet with their child and saying, well, I'll do my own research. I'll decide whether or not my child gets vaccinated. And that is where we're headed right now in terms of more and more outbreaks. As listeners, I'm sure are sure are aware of the fact with measles and what's happened recently in this country. And so the bottom line message is, you're right, Ira, we have a real problem in our
hands and it's not just about vaccines, it's about vaccination. Because a great vaccine doesn't do you any good if you can't get it in somebody's arm.
I recall sitting at this microphone 15 to 20 years ago and having this discussion with a woman who called in, spoke for eight straight minutes, let her talk about why she's not vaccinating her children and what she feared. And we talked about all the research that showed that there was not any connection between vaccinations and diseases. And I finally said, is there any amount of research I can give you that will change your mind? And it was very quiet. And she said, Ira, I just don't trust anything my government tells me. How are you going to get past that?
I think it's a real challenge. And I think that one of the issues we have today, though, is we have to address that very question. One of the things that doesn't help is to have a Secretary of Health and Human Services who says on one hand, yes, measles vaccines are what you need to do for an outbreak, but on the other hand, and I quote, but we don't know what's in those vaccines, okay? Then he turns around and says, go do your own research. And so the messages that are coming out of this administration right now have never been more anti-vaccine than in any time, I think, in any of us our careers. And so we also have to fight that because that comes across as somehow a bully pulpit that says, oh, he must know something we don't know, when in fact, what he is saying is not true at all.
And do you find that there are enough scientists who are stepping up to push back?
Well, this has been a challenge. There's been a lot of scientists that have been instructed by their institutions to keep their head below the table. And there are some that haven't. And I think, you know, people are probably familiar with those of us who are willing to stand up and speak out. But I think the real message here is, is also, not only are we trying to help parents understand why vaccination is so important, but also supporting the medical community in terms of all the interactions they have to have. I've had more and more physicians say to me, what used to be a 15-minute visit could turn into an hour visit now because of the whole discussion need, et cetera. And that's really creating a real challenge.
All right. We'll talk more about that challenge after the break. Stay with us.
Science Friday is supported by PBS, presenting Going Wild. If you love learning about the natural world and meeting the scientists who help us understand it, be sure to check out the new season of Going Wild with Dr. Ray Wynn Grant. It's the chart-topping and Webby Award-winning podcast from the folks at Nature on PBS, now with a video companion series. In this season of Going Wild, host acclaimed wildlife ecologist Dr. Ray Wynn Grant heads out into the field to explore the animals, people, and stories that make nature worth saving. Stops include a hibernating black bear den in Arkansas and an underwater shipwreck site off the Florida coast. If you're looking for a place to start, check out the season's debut episode, where Ray joins beloved biologist and influencer Jordan
King in the Florida Everglades to learn about his unlikely journey into science and how to study a wetland when it's not very, well, wet. So don't miss out. Follow Going Wild with Dr. Ray Wynn Grant on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. WNYC Studios is supported by Odoo. When you buy business software from lots of vendors, the costs add up and it gets complicated and confusing. Odoo solves this. It's a single company that sells a suite of enterprise apps that handles everything from accounting to inventory to sales. Odoo is all connected on a single platform in a simple and affordable way. You can save money without missing out on the features you need.
Check out Odoo at O D O O dot com. That's O D O O dot com. WNYC is supported by Bear. Every day in America, science delivers, not just in the headlines, but in the moments that matter most. Science is a journey, one of curiosity, persistence, and progress. It's about asking questions, testing, learning, and improving again and again. Science delivers harvests that feed families, tools that help farmers grow more with less, and new ways to protect land for generations to come. Let's keep asking, keep testing, keep discovering, so science can keep delivering. Learn more at sciencedelivers.com. Support for Science Friday comes from the William K. Bose Jr. Foundation.
Ted, tell us about this COBRA program that Michael mentioned.
Oh, I'd be happy to. We have been working on trying to design a vaccine based upon computational algorithms for many years. And now with AI, we've been able to increase that to come up with a vaccine that will identify the most significant portions of a pathogen. And mostly, we work with influenza viruses, but we've tested this for Dengue virus and COVID and other viruses. And we generate essentially what is the most immunogenic parts of that molecule? And
The parts that are going to create an immune response, in other words?
Make an immune response against all different strains of the pathogen, or as many strains of the pathogen as we can get. And so it's been quite successful in small animal models. And it's been used now as one of the platforms for the NIH's civics program, which stands for the Collaborative Influenza Vaccine Innovation Centers. And so we've been working on this since 2019. We're at the manufacturing stage and we're actually taking that into the clinic in 2026, as long as we continue to get funding from the NIH.
Is there something past mRNA, something new on the horizon?
There's, right now, there's a lot of different platforms out there that work. And vaccines can be delivered to the immune system in a variety of different ways, whether that's viral vectors, live attenuated viruses, DNA, RNA. There's a lot on them that can be used. And what's nice about the kind of thing that we designed is that they're gene sequences, which means we can insert them into whatever platform any company has proprietary backing on.
Is this open source, this sort of thing? Anybody free to use it, any of these companies?
Anyone can use it if they understand how to design it. And that usually means they have to work with us in order to figure that out.
Right. All right, let's go to the phones. Lots of people interested. Let's go to David in Orlando. Hi, David.
Hi, how are you?
Hi, go ahead, please.
Well, I'm an ortho, I'm an orthopedic surgeon. And I just remember during the pandemic, I personally was vaccinated with the initial vaccines. But I think one of the biggest problems with this pushback from people in this country is, you know, the government came out with these vaccines and was very adamant about forcing people to take the vaccines or making it very difficult to, to, to keep their job without taking the vaccines. And there's certain population of people that had severe reactions or couldn't take it for various reasons. And that was sort of, people's concern was sort of put by the wayside.
And especially this idea that some politician would sort of just say, you know, you have to take this vaccine. Why aren't you taking it? Which is, I'm paraphrasing Joe Biden.
By saying that, but you know, people did not like that reaction.
Mm hmm.
And I think all this, all this sort of fed into ultimate conspiracy theories and a lot of distrust from the government. And I think also, which also, one other thing that sort of strikes my mind that plays a role in all this is the fact that the CIA used, I think it was smallpox vaccines to capture DNA from Osama bin Laden back in, whenever it was, 2013 or.
Let me get, let me get an answer. Michael, how do you answer this?
Well, he's absolutely correct in the fact that what happened during COVID did amongst a very sizable part of the population, caused them to actually reject or at least challenge the idea that we should be vaccinated. One of the things we did not do a good job of, and in retrospect, I think hopefully that doesn't happen again in the next pandemic, and that is laying out what we were trying to do and what it would look like as we unfolded that program. What I mean by that is, is that understanding that mRNA technology had been around for quite some time and was being researched for a number of different kinds of vaccines. It wasn't brand new.
Number two is if we look at coronavirus protection, meaning the immunity, Ted's just talked about the waning immunity with influenza and coronaviruses, you know, and I'll just say these are good vaccines, but not great, meaning that you can get protection against hospitalization, serious illness and death for up to six, six months after a dose of vaccine. That's great, but it means, wouldn't you like to have that last a much longer time period? And we didn't see that. What we should have done is actually after the initial data was available on the mRNA technology, where we found 94% of people at two months were protected, what if we had said to people, this is what we know now at two months. Every month, we're going to tell you as we continue to follow this study, does it continue to protect at that level?
Or do we see waning immunity over time? And then we're going to have to make a recommendation on a booster. I think if we had done that, that would have handled a lot of the issues around people feeling as if somehow they were not told the truth about these vaccines because many people who had been vaccinated twice ended up getting COVID, you know, six months, a year later. I think the second piece of this, though, also is this idea of mandates. And I think hopefully we will understand the need to go back and re- really evaluate what happened with COVID and learn from it, much like the 9/11 report, which gave us incredibly important information about how to prevent another 9/11. Nobody's done that. The government hasn't done it.
We just have not had that kind of review that would have looked at what did we accomplish with mandates versus not doing mandates? So I just want to say, I think the caller is right on the mark with that.
Michael, I want to ask you about some other news that was out this week, that the FDA is looking to change access to COVID vaccines, allowing them for people over 65 or with pre-existing conditions, but restricting them for everyone else. And the op-ed in the New England Journal of Medicine that laid this out, the rationale for this was that, you know, we don't actually know if the boosters every year for healthy people under 65, if they're doing anything useful. Is that true? Do we not know that?
No, simply not true. And I think that this was a really unfortunate way to develop a new public policy position on vaccines, is to do an op-ed piece in the New England Journal of Medicine by just two individuals. Both of these are people who have had major challenges with the COVID vaccine before they came into office. They have a very specific philosophical bent on this issue, and they just are wrong. For example, we have a number of studies that have been done, what we call vaccine effectiveness studies, which just supported what I just said earlier about the reduction in serious illness hospitalizations and deaths, both in healthy people and people with underlying immune conditions. We have seen that the vaccine can be very effective in children, and people say, oh,
well, we don't want to vaccinate children. Well, the hospitalization rates for kids four years and under during the most recent respiratory virus So this past winter, not not two years ago or three years ago, it was roughly the same for COVID-19 as it was for influenza, meaning that in fact, they had the same number of hospitalizations per population. Now, we all recommend influenza vaccine for children. We're very clear about that. So should we at least not make it permissive for parents to get access to a COVID vaccine? Should if someone who is otherwise healthy, but potentially living with someone who may be at risk of serious illness with COVID, at least allow them to get the vaccine? And what they're really purporting here is that we're just going to take that away. Now, don't we all remember Secretary Kennedy saying
he was never going to take vaccines away from people? That's exactly what's happening right now. And it's not based on good science, and it's a terrible way to run public policy development. They went around the FDA advisory group that normally would weigh in on this. They went around the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Community Immunization Practices, which historically, the FDA has made a decision to license a vaccine or not based on safety and work. And then CDC's committee makes recommendations how to use them. These two guys, just on their own, with an op-ed piece, came up with this new approach. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
I'll just say that we did ask the FDA to join this conversation, and they declined. You know, I just, when it comes to science, so far, this administration has mostly cut back, right? And before we we leave this this conversation behind, I just want to ask a little bit more about Operation Gold Standard, because here is an example, it seems, of a proactive project, which is refreshing to me. What am I missing? I mean, could it work?
Well, I, I, no, sorry, go ahead, Michael, if you want to go first.
I'm just going to say, I think, first of all, let me just be really clear. Operation Gold Standard, or however you want to call it, is a tagline that comes out of PR. It's not out of science, okay? I've already laid out the fact that the best science in the world had been occurring in the United States with US-supported activities at the places like the NIH. What this administration has done is gutted that. They have basically taken much of the research money away from institutions around the country that have been working on these. Remember, I mentioned earlier that we're now looking at 229 different vaccine candidates for influenza. The COVID ones are similar in terms of numbers.
The point being is that they have dismantled the very system that was bringing these new vaccines together, and they've put all their money on one vaccine that, basically, we have no evidence yet is even what would be a leading candidate for accomplishing what we're trying to do here. So, again, we can't be confused by public relations. Science is all about telling the truth. Science is the pursuit of truth. And I think, right now, I'm watching us very quickly slip into the dark ages of modern science.
Ted, are scientists leaving who want to work on this stuff?
There's definitely fear among scientists. People are looking for new jobs. Several are looking to leave the country. We're concerned that this is not just the first, this is like the first round, and there could be additional rounds over the years of cuts, and this is going to severely affect research across the board, not just in infectious disease, but in all areas. And vaccines have been one of the highlights of infectious disease research now for quite some time at reducing incidence of disease. And I think losing that and losing people that know how to do that is really going to be devastating to the research community.
Let me see if I can fit in one more call before the break, and that would be to Augusta, Georgia. And Maggie, hi, welcome to Science Friday.
Thank you so much for having me on and answering my question.
What question was that?
So, I was speaking to the woman that had fielded the call. And my question was about pediatric vaccines and weight. And what I explained to her was that I now have a 16 and 18 year old. And they were born with different extenuating circumstances. My 18 year old was born premature and I had to have labor stopped multiple times before he was finally delivered. And my 16 year old was born full term, but unfortunately very small. He was, his weight and his height were very, very small. And what gave me pause about the vaccines was that everything in Peds is based off weight, except for the vaccines.
And so, I had a great pediatrician. She worked with me. I was privileged enough to keep them home. So, I didn't have to expose them to childcare and, and, you know, diseases out there. And they were eventually fully vaccinated. We just went at a much slower pace. I didn't do the cocktails. I would do individual vaccines. As soon as the COVID vaccine came out and it was available to kids, I made sure they got vaccines. So, I'm definitely not anti-vaccine. But I would love more information from the experts on why in pediatrics do we not base our vaccines on the child's weight?
Good question. Let's see if we can get an answer. Michael?
Well, first of all, what we're really addressing is really the immune response of the child. In other words, what is their actual birth age relative to their immune age? Meaning how the maturity of the immune system occurs. And so, sometimes with preemies in particular, you'll see some postponement of that issue in terms of when vaccines are given. But in general, these vaccines are very effective when given, when decisions are made, whatever weight or however. And the challenge we have right now is, one, is for example with measles, is that's a vaccine where the mom, if she has been infected or previously vaccinated-
Will actually have antibody in her blood that will transfer them to the baby before it's born. And so, and the baby is born, they have protection often for five or six months. And if you vaccinate during that time, you actually kind of have a negative impact because the immunity will actually fight off the protective effect of the vaccine. So we also do look at, do, in this particular infectious disease, does the antibody carry over? And if it does, it will wane within six months. So that's, that's one of the biggest concerns we have.
I want to get into the, go ahead.
I'd like to, yeah. So one of the aspects of the center that I'm running is that we're trying to design vaccines for all populations of people. So if you're going to have a universal vaccine, if that's your aspiration, it's got to work in everybody, whether you're infants, elderly, immunocompromised, various comorbidities, pregnant women. And so it's quite conceivable that there might be different vaccines that work in those different populations. And you have to have the research in place to, to determine what's the best strategy for infants, particularly different types of infants with different situations, or the elderly, or people that have heart disease or diabetes, et cetera. And so I think that's where a lot of the research also needs to go into universal and more, and better vaccines across the board.
Well, we have to take a break. I want to thank our guests for the segment. Michael Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, and Ted Ross, the Global Director of Vaccine Research at the Cleveland Clinic Florida Research and Innovation Center. Thank you both for joining us today.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And that is about all we have time for. Lots of folks helped to make this show happen, including
John Dankoski. Annie Nero. Jason Rosenberg.
Rasha Urdi. I'm Flora Lichtman. Thanks for listening.
Page updated November 3, 2026 · transcript and summary are machine-generated