Moderna, the biotechnology company renowned for its COVID-19 vaccine, is currently grappling with a significant terminology dilemma as it expands its research into cancer therapies. The firm has encountered setbacks from vaccine skeptics within the federal government, resulting in canceled contracts and regulatory hurdles that threaten its future endeavors in mRNA vaccine development. Notably, high-profile figures, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have publicly criticized mRNA technology, leading to the withdrawal of vital funding for numerous projects, including a substantial $776 million grant for a bird flu vaccine.
Amidst these challenges, Moderna’s partnership with Merck has shifted focus to utilizing its mRNA technology for cancer treatment. The companies are exploring an innovative approach known as individualized neoantigen therapy (INT), which aims to target and destroy tumors. This technique involves sequencing a patient’s cancer cells to identify unique surface markers, called neoantigens. By delivering the genetic code for these neoantigens via an injection, the patient’s immune system is instructed to target and eliminate cancerous cells. Despite the therapeutic nature of this treatment, Merck has refrained from labeling it a vaccine, emphasizing its classification as a therapy to avoid the stigma associated with the term.
This rebranding effort aligns with broader shifts in nomenclature among companies engaged in similar research. Moderna’s CEO noted that the renaming aimed to provide a clearer depiction of the program’s objectives. However, this move has sparked criticism from some medical professionals who argue that patients might be misinformed about the treatment due to its reclassification. Concerns have been raised regarding whether patients might refuse essential cancer treatment simply due to its association with vaccines. Nonetheless, some experts argue that the name change may be a strategic necessity to ensure continued progress in cancer research, especially in an environment where vaccine hesitancy has been exacerbated by political rhetoric. While Moderna’s latest findings on the therapy have garnered attention, the company has strategically avoided using the term ‘vaccine’ in its formal communications, suggesting a conscious effort to distance itself from the controversies surrounding vaccines while still pushing forward with groundbreaking cancer treatments.
Source: What’s in a name? Moderna’s “vaccine” vs. “therapy” dilemma via MIT Technology Review