Could The NIH Plan For A ‘Universal Vaccine’ Really Work?

IRA FLATOW: This is Science Friday. I’m Ira Flatow.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And I’m Flora Lichtman. Later in the hour, we’re going to check in on the latest from the James Webb Space Telescope. But first, vaccines. Just this week, the FDA announced plans to restrict access to the COVID vaccine for people under 65 or without pre-existing conditions.

Meanwhile, a few weeks ago, 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 coronavirus 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.

IRA FLATOW: 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? If you have questions about this, give us a call. Our number is 877-4-SciFri. 877-472-4374. 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.

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: Thank you. It’s great to be with you again, Ira.

IRA FLATOW: Nice to have you. Ted Ross is the global director of vaccine research at the famous Cleveland Clinic and 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.

TED ROSS: Thank you for inviting me.

IRA FLATOW: Nice to have you. All right, let’s begin with the questioning, because the NIH proposals, Generation Gold Standard. What do you think of that, Michael? What does that even mean?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: 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 is not necessary or surely not helpful. I think the administration has laid out its priorities more in the realm of public relations than surely with in terms of science. And what I mean by that is they keep talking about we need this new level of gold standard science, implying it hasn’t happened before.

Well, today 174 scientists at NIH or the research was supported by NIH, have been the sole or shared recipients of 104 Nobel Prizes. I’d 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.

IRA FLATOW: Ted Ross, what’s your take on this?

TED ROSS: 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 has 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.

IRA FLATOW: 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. Osterholm?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: OK, 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 the challenge we have.

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 to date, 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 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.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Can we get into some of the nerdy biology of how these vaccines work 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?

TED ROSS: 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.

FLORA LICHTMAN: Is it realistic, then, to imagine we might ever have long lasting protection for something like influenza?

TED ROSS: 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 5 to 10 years without having to update the vaccine, that would be a great improvement with eventually trying to get a goal of something like lifetime immunity.

FLORA LICHTMAN: All strains of influenza or all strains of influenza plus coronaviruses plus something else?

TED ROSS: You could apply that to all these pathogens that have quite a number of diverse variants of their family.

IRA FLATOW: Our number, 877-4-SciFri. 877-472-4374. There seems to be, from what I’m reading, sort of a disconnect here. For years we’ve heard about a pushback from people who don’t want to get vaccinated because they don’t want their kids to get six shots at once. 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. You’re going to be getting all those same kinds of inputs, aren’t you?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: 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. This is vaccine hesitancy. And one of the challenges we have is that the whole world of vaccine work is somewhat complicated. We’re just talking about the fact with influenza that this particular case, the virus changes enough that, in fact, 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 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, who 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 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 on 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.

IRA FLATOW: I recall sitting at this microphone 15 or 20 years ago and having this discussion with a woman who called in, spoke for eight straight minutes. I 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?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: Well, 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 what’s in those vaccines.”

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, when in fact, what he is saying is not true at all.

IRA FLATOW: And do you find that there are enough scientists who are stepping up to push back?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: 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 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 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.

IRA FLATOW: All right. Well, we’ll talk more about that challenge after the break. Talking with Michael Osterholm and Ted Ross. And if you’d like to get in on the discussion, 877-4-SciFri. That’s our phone number. 877-472-4374. Here with Flora Lichtman. We’ll be right back after this break. Stay with us.

This is Science Friday. I’m Ira Flatow.

FLORA LICHTMAN: And I’m Flora Lichtman. We’re talking this hour about universal vaccines and the latest vaccine news. If you have a question, our number is 877-4-SciFri. That’s 877-472-4374. Our guests are 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. Ted, tell us about this COBRA program that Michael mentioned.

TED ROSS: 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 it would generate essentially what is the most immunogenic parts of that molecule and–

FLORA LICHTMAN: The parts that are going to create an immune response, in other words?

TED ROSS: 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.

IRA FLATOW: Is there something past mRNA, something new on the horizon?

TED ROSS: 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 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.

IRA FLATOW: Is this open source, this sort of thing? Anybody free to use it, any of these companies?

TED ROSS: 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.

IRA FLATOW: All right, let’s go to the phones. Lots of people interested. Let’s go to David in Orlando. Hi, David.

AUDIENCE: Hi, how are you?

IRA FLATOW: Hi, go ahead, please.

AUDIENCE: Well, 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 the government came out with these vaccines and was very adamant about forcing people to take the vaccines or making it very difficult to keep their job without taking the vaccines.

And there’s a certain population of people that had severe reactions or couldn’t take it for various reasons, and that was people’s concern was put by the wayside. And especially this idea that some politician would just say you have to take this vaccine. Why aren’t you taking it? Which is I’m paraphrasing Joe Biden by saying that. But people did not like that reaction. And I think 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, whatever it was, 2013.

IRA FLATOW: Let me get an answer. Michael, how do you answer this?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: Well, he’s absolutely correct in the fact that what happened during COVID did, amongst a very sizable part of the population, cause 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 that understanding the 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. 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 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 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 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.

FLORA LICHTMAN: 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 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?

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: 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 who had 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 season, so this past winter, 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 vaccines 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’s advisory committee on 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 on 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.

FLORA LICHTMAN: I’ll just say that we did ask the FDA to join this conversation, and they declined. Let’s go to the phones. Chelsea in New Mexico.

AUDIENCE: Hello, am I on Science Friday?

FLORA LICHTMAN: You’re on Science Friday.

AUDIENCE: Awesome. I just wanted to let your listeners know that today, May 23, is the last day for public comment to the FDA that you would like to keep COVID vaccines in the United States. There is a website through regulations.gov. If you want, I can give you the whole website, but there are some numbers. Would you like me to say?

FLORA LICHTMAN: I think people can Google it. What should they Google?

AUDIENCE: OK, I think if you go to regulations.gov, well, it’s so much easier if I just say it.

IRA FLATOW: Go ahead. Get it off your chest.

AUDIENCE: Or can I give it to you to put on your site?

IRA FLATOW: When you say it, we’ll have it.

AUDIENCE: OK. Regulations.gov/document/fda-2025-n-1146-001. Very long website.

IRA FLATOW: Obviously, they don’t want you to get there to voice your opinion.

AUDIENCE: And you can’t Google it. That’s the problem. But you can give a public comment before midnight Eastern time that you would like to keep COVID vaccinations in the United States.

IRA FLATOW: Well, thanks for that recommendation or that news. Ted, would this do any good, do you think?

TED ROSS: I think it’s always good for the public to express themselves. So if you can express yourself to our leaders, that would be a great thing to do. We don’t know whether it’s going to have any impact on the final outcome.

FLORA LICHTMAN: When it comes to science, so far this administration has mostly cut back. And before we leave 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?

TED ROSS: Sorry, go ahead, Michael, if you want to go first.

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: No, that’s fine. 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. 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 has 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.

IRA FLATOW: Ted, are scientists leaving who want to work on this stuff?

TED ROSS: 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 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 how to do that is really going to be devastating to the research community.

IRA FLATOW: 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.

AUDIENCE: Hey, thank you so much for having me on and answering my question.

IRA FLATOW: What question was that?

AUDIENCE: 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. 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 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?

IRA FLATOW: Good question. Let’s see if we can get an answer. Michael.

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: Well, first of all, what we really are 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 at 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 when 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 in this particular infectious disease, does the antibody carry over? And if it does, it will wane within six months. So that’s one of the biggest concerns we have.

IRA FLATOW: I want to get into– go head.

TED ROSS: 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 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 better vaccines across the board.

IRA FLATOW: 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.

TED ROSS: Thank you.

MICHAEL OSTERHOLM: Thank you. Thank you very much.

Copyright © 2025 Science Friday Initiative. All rights reserved. Science Friday transcripts are produced on a tight deadline by 3Play Media. Fidelity to the original aired/published audio or video file might vary, and text might be updated or amended in the future. For the authoritative record of Science Friday’s programming, please visit the original aired/published recording. For terms of use and more information, visit our policies pages at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/policies/