From Misinformation To Medicine: Forging Bipartisan Support to Reverse Anti-mRNA Policy
By Anna Rose Welch, Editorial & Community Director, Advancing RNA
“We always envisioned communications would be a key function of the Alliance for mRNA Medicines,” AMM’s Morrie Ruffin said right off the bat during his panel “Meeting the Moment in mRNA” at the AMM ASCENT conference last month. But as he went on to admit, “What we didn’t realize was that we’d be doing crisis communications in response to a news cycle that is happening at light speed.”
Even if you’ve been living off the grid or choosing to live under a rock (like me), there’s a great chance you’ll know that topsy turvy policy changes from the U.S. government have translated to several rough months for mRNA. As I’ve clarified in past articles, the very fact that you, dear reader, are part of the Advancing RNA community, indicates you already know mRNA is the next best thing since [insert your favorite thing here]. Hence why I haven’t spent a huge amount of time arguing against these policies — I’d be preaching to the choir. And as Jeff Coller of Johns Hopkins University emphasized throughout this panel, preaching to the choir (a.k.a. The NYT, The Washington Post, our LinkedIn followers) is the last thing we need to be doing as an industry to make progress.
What I’m here to do instead is share what we as an industry can do, whether it be through the work of AMM, our own companies, or ourselves. In this article, I’ll share some of the progress AMM has made and the barriers the organization/our industry is still facing in our efforts to reverse the policy decisions that have been made against mRNA today. Throughout the panel, the speakers also shared their thoughts on the types of messaging we should be considering and/or have started to see making an impact.
Cracks in the Dam: Building Bipartisan Support to Protect the Future of mRNA
As I shared in part one of this two-part article, the pressure from U.S. policy upheavals is pushing our industry to adapt in two important ways. One, we are realizing the importance of seeing the predominantly theoretical/abstract promise of mRNA as a therapeutic move into the concrete realm. In fact, Leavitt Partners’/AMM’s Sara Singleton homed in on the importance of having “a really compelling” data point (or points) that will help humanize/translate the work we’re doing with mRNA.
But disseminating this information to the House and Senate has required a certain level of “strategery” to do so effectively. After all, there are 435 members of the House and 100 members of Congress. As Singleton admitted, it’s not going to be possible to reach them all. In turn, this means having to identify and prioritize the members that will have the greatest influence. On this front, I was heartened to hear that we are starting to see some traction.
“I wouldn’t say the dam has broken yet,” Singleton admitted. “But there are signs of a leak. We’re ready to shift the environment.”
Another challenge facing us is creating an environment that will empower members of congress and the senate to approach President Trump privately or publicly to voice support for the work we’re doing as an industry and/or to express dissension to the policies that are taking shape. As Singleton went on to share, it’s not just Democrats that are uncomfortable with current policies and the government’s position around mRNA/scientific innovation; this discomfort is also shared on the right side of the aisle.
“We need to hep create an environment where they can voice their discomfort with the current positioning,” Singleton added. “I felt encouraged to see that there are a number of Republicans very uncomfortable about where we are now, as well.”
That said, there’s still a lot of work to be done — and not just in the upper echelons of the government. It has been just as challenging to secure alignment and/or steady support from those within other levels of the government (e.g., regulators, NIH). Since the new administration took office in January, the government has undergone quite a few rounds of musical chairs — whether it be due to reductions in force, voluntary retirements, or general turnover of staff for alternative opportunities. Not only does this turnover add instability, but AMM is also witnessing a certain amount of hesitance amongst government employees to speak out — even amongst those who have worked with mRNA or understand the importance of its tenure in the biopharmaceutical industry.
“That’s the challenge of meeting the moment right now,” Singleton added. “How do we figure out how to cement mRNA as what it is: As the future of medicine, as the fourth pillar of medicine?”
Talking Points: Leveraging The Desire To Lead Global Access To mRNA
Over the past few years, we’ve been able to rely quite heavily on our success with mRNA during the pandemic. However, as Coller pointed out, the COVID vaccine narrative has become more hurtful than helpful.
“Unfortunately, we’re stuck in 2020,” he explained. “Though no one had heard of mRNA before the pandemic, the term has now become equated with mask mandates, lockdowns, and school closures. We have to remind them that there’s more to mRNA than that — including the work we’re now doing on the next generation of mRNA in the realms of oncology and rare disease.”
As Coller went on to explain, AMM’s work on the Hill and with journalists over the past few months has solidified a few important takeaways — including which types of information are the most impactful.
In some cases, it comes down to repetition of basic facts — for example, that it’s not mRNA that causes myocarditis, but the spike protein. Changing the protein we’re encoding for eliminates that risk and combats misconceptions that this is an inherent problem for all mRNA technologies.
In other instances, AMM has seen traction in messages relaying the chilling effect a lack of support from the federal government can have on the industry itself. As Alspach went on to explain, information about the effect certain policies can have on investors or on a CEO “carries a lot of weight.” The threat of seeing the U.S. cede its leadership in biomedical innovation has also been another argument that has slowly started to have an effect. For example, though we were at one point facing 40% cuts to the NIH, actions by the Senate and the House ultimately resulted in a flat/slightly increased budget.
“We are fortunately seeing Congress pushing back against ceding American leadership to other nations in the biotech space, but it’s taking a long time to move that ship away from the trajectory established by the administration,” Coller added.
Looking beyond the companies/industry itself, I also appreciated an offering from one Canadian event attendee who posed the particularly loaded question: “Do American’s want to get in line for access to this technology, or do they want access to this technology?” Despite the fundamental work Canada has done on mRNA-LNP technology in the past, the nation (and many others) ultimately had to “get in line” for the vaccine.
Alspach reaffirmed that such an argument is already gaining traction across both sides of the aisle. “Americans do not want to wait,” he said. “It doesn’t matter where the politician sits on the ideological spectrum; they do not want America to be second.”