U.S. Government cancels $766 million Moderna contract to fight pandemic flu
The company said it was notified Wednesday (May 28, 2025) that the Health and Human Services Department had withdrawn funds awarded in July 2024 and in January to pay for the development and purchase of its investigational vaccine.
The funds were awarded through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA, a program that focuses on medical treatments for potential pandemics.
The new vaccine, called mRNA-1018, utilises the same technology that enabled the rapid development and rollout of vaccines to combat COVID-19.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has expressed deep scepticism regarding mRNA vaccines, despite real-world evidence that the vaccines are safe and have saved millions of lives.
The cancelation came as Moderna announced positive interim results from an early-stage trial of the vaccine that targeted H5 bird flu virus, tested in 300 healthy adults.
'While the termination of funding from HHS adds uncertainty, we are pleased by the robust immune response and safety profile observed in this interim analysis," the company said in a statement.
H5N1 bird flu viruses spread from wild birds into cattle in the U.S. last year, infecting hundreds of animals in several states. At least 70 people in the U.S. have been sickened by bird flu infections, mostly mild. One person died. Scientists fear that continued mutation of the virus could allow it to become more virulent or more easily spread in people, with the possibility that it could trigger a pandemic.
Moderna received $176 million in July 2024 and $590 million in January. The January award would have supported a late-stage clinical trial that could have determined the vaccine's efficacy against pandemic viruses, including bird flu, a company spokesman said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
India is exporting doctors and nurses. The country needs them too
The demand and supply of health workforce across countries continues to be a daunting problem, with most countries lacking adequate numbers of doctors and nurses and a projected global shortfall of 18 million health workers by 2030. Health workers migrate across countries, with the flow typically being from countries in the Global South to those in the North. The countries from which health professionals migrate are also those that face internal supply constraints. Sri Lanka, for instance, witnesses extensive outmigration, which is (partially) addressed by getting professionals from other countries. An estimated 10-12 per cent of foreign-trained doctors and nurses come from countries that are known to have a shortage of local healthcare workers. OECD data estimates suggest that between 2009 and 2019, 25 per cent to 32 per cent of doctors in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US were medical graduates from South Asia and Africa. Indian doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals migrate to countries across the world — almost 75,000 Indian-trained doctors work in OECD countries, and an estimated 640,000 Indian nurses work abroad. The Philippines is another example – the country is renowned for its large-scale export of nurses and other health professionals. Over 193,000 Philippines-trained nurses work abroad, constituting about 85 per cent of all Filipino nurses worldwide. Economics and geopolitics influence the extent and nature of such migration through a combination of push and pull factors. Limited career growth and lower wages are key economic push factors. Political instability and conflict in the source country are often political push factors. Trade agreements that encourage migration, health crises that pull health workers to some areas and international recruitment policies are all pull factors, which, in turn, contribute to shortages in source countries. Countries like the Philippines and India have formalised policies to encourage the export of health workers, viewing them as sources of remittances and economic benefit. Yet, both countries have an acute shortage of health professionals. Despite potential gains in the form of remittances and skill development, the loss of workforce capacity in countries already facing shortages outweighs the gains. What is needed, therefore, is a balanced domestic and international policy response that focuses on the needs of the individual, the national health system and global equity. Cross-country migration is often leveraged for diplomatic gains. India, already known as the pharmacy of the world, leverages such migration to foster international partnerships, promote economic gains through remittances and investments, enhance its global influence in health sectors, and manage the challenges of the brain drain through policies encouraging circular migration and bilateral cooperation. It enhanced medical diplomacy during the Covid pandemic by deploying medical professionals to neighbouring and African countries. What is needed now is a greater focus on negotiating more comprehensive — and enforceable — bilateral agreements between source and destination countries, which can potentially include compensation mechanisms, targeted investments in medical education, health infrastructure, or technology transfer, to offset the loss of skilled workers. The WHO code is a starting point in rebuilding such agreements. Ageing populations alongside declining birth rates are leading to growing demands and acute shortages of healthcare professionals in developed countries. India and other countries hold the potential to supply healthcare professionals. India could maximise gains through improved institutional mechanisms, such as establishing a centralised agency to manage workforce mobility. Kerala's experience with setting up agencies to coordinate overseas employment, address grievances, and support returnees can inform national approaches. So can the experiences of the Philippines' Department of Migrant Workers. Diplomacy or economic gains cannot override the workforce agenda of individual countries or take priority over the strength of their health system. Countries exporting health workforce could benefit from greater attention to building a cadre of health professionals, developing the health workforce industry and addressing the need for retaining professionals. This will require expanding the health education infrastructure and increasing its economic viability, improving working conditions and providing incentives to retain talent and encourage circular migration, rather than permanent outflow, leveraging digital tools to enable Indian health professionals to provide services globally, where possible, without physical migration, ensuring accountability of international agreements and exploring regional approaches towards enhancing production capacity such as jointly developed and owned mechanisms of workforce production. Amplifying regional voices could potentially increase the bargaining power of workers from developing countries. By combining investment in workforce capacity, strategic international agreements and policies that maximise economic, knowledge, and social gains, India and other southern countries can transform the migration of healthcare workers from a challenge into a multifaceted opportunity for national development. The rise of agencies in the Global South can mean that countries like the Philippines, Sri Lanka and India are active architects of workforce strategies that balance domestic needs and global engagement. They should be seen as not just exporters of workers or victims of the brain drain. Venkateswaran is commissioner, Lancet Citizens' Commission on Reimagining India's Health System and Monteiro is a researcher on Global Health
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Trump asks Supreme Court to approve cuts to health grants tied to diversity
The Trump administration urged the US Supreme Court to allow it to carry out major funding cuts to National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, arguing that current diversity-related programmes are 'undisputedly counter to the administration's priorities.'The move is the latest in President Donald Trump's ongoing push to reduce federal spending and eliminate government support for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — including those related to biomedical research and transgender Justice Department filed an emergency request to the court, seeking to lift a June order by U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston. That ruling blocked the administration's plan and ordered the government to restore access to more than $783 million in NIH grant funding. The lawsuit was brought by researchers and 16 Democratic-led states, led by Massachusetts. In its filing, the Justice Department argued that the district court's injunction forces the government to 'continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the administration's priorities.'The NIH, considered the world's largest biomedical research funder, has come under increasing pressure since Trump's return to the presidency in January. Critics say his administration's broad effort to dismantle diversity and health equity programs is politicizing science and jeopardizing public health.'The cuts harm the health of Americans and people across the globe,' warned an open letter signed in June by dozens of NIH scientists and staff. The signatories accused the agency of turning its back on inclusive research and of being complicit in 'a political agenda that undermines evidence-based health policy.'The Trump administration has frequently turned to the Supreme Court — now dominated by a 6-3 conservative majority — to clear legal roadblocks to its sweeping policy changes. So far, the high court has largely sided with the administration on most contested issues since request in the NIH case could have long-term consequences for government-funded research programs, particularly those aimed at addressing racial, gender, and LGBTQ+ disparities in health ruling came in two lawsuits challenging the cuts. One was filed by the American Public Health Association, individual researchers and other plaintiffs who called the cuts an "ongoing ideological purge" of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI "or other vague, now-forbidden language." The other was filed by the states, most of them Democratic-led.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
India Today
5 hours ago
- India Today
US birth rate hits rock bottom; government pushes IVF, cash offers to boost numbers
The fertility rate in the United States has dropped to its lowest point in history. In 2024, the average number of children per woman in the country fell below 1.6, according to new data released by the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on number is far below what experts call the "replacement rate" -- around 2.1 children per woman -- which ensures that each generation can replace itself. The US once stood apart from other developed countries by meeting or exceeding this level. But over the past two decades, the rate has steadily to experts, more women are delaying motherhood, and some are opting not to have children at all. The World Bank data states the current fertility rate in the US is comparable to that of many western European RESPONDS WITH FERTILITY PUSH The Trump administration has begun to act in response to the ongoing decline. In an effort to lower the cost and increase access to in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the government recently issued an executive order. Additionally, there is support for a "baby bonus."The goal of providing financial assistance is to encourage more families to expand, particularly as the cost of raising a child in the US these efforts, some experts say there's no need to panic.'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay,' said Leslie Root, a population policy researcher at the University of Colorado Boulder. 'We know that the US population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths.'MONEY, MARRIAGE, AND MODERN CHALLENGESSocial scientists believe the reasons for this decline are complex. Many women are postponing childbirth until their 30s or 40s. Some never become parents at all. Financial concerns are a major factor.'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. 'People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance, and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment.'The Trump administration's strategy might not go far enough, Guzzo added. IVF and baby bonuses might benefit some people, but they don't address more serious issues like the lack of paid parental leave and reasonably priced child care.'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she CDC's new report also found that there was a 1% increase in the total number of babies born in the US last year — about 33,000 more than the previous year. That brought the total number of births in 2024 to slightly over 3.6 there's a twist. Earlier provisional data suggested women in their late 20s and 30s were having more children. But the more complete review of birth certificates painted a different picture: birth rates actually declined for women in their 20s and early 30s, and remained the same for women in their late caused the change? According to the CDC, the difference came from updated population estimates from the US Census, which are used to calculate birth rates.- EndsWith inputs from Associated Press
