Is it the Department of Defense or the Department of War? The Gulf of Mexico or the Gulf of America? A vaccine—or an “individualized neoantigen treatment”?
That’s the Trump-era vocabulary paradox facing Moderna, the covid-19 shot maker whose plans for next-generation mRNA vaccines against flus and emerging pathogens have been dashed by vaccine skeptics in the federal government. Canceled contracts and unfriendly regulators have pushed the Massachusetts-based biotech firm to a breaking point. Last year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., head of the Department of Health and Human Services, zeroed in on mRNA, unwinding support for dozens of projects—including a $776 million award to Moderna for a bird flu vaccine. By January, the company was warning it might have to stop late-stage programs to develop vaccines against infections altogether.
That raises the stakes for a second area of Moderna’s research. In a partnership with Merck, it’s been using its mRNA technology to destroy tumors through a very, very promising technique known as a cancer vacc—
“It’s not a vaccine,” a spokesperson for Merck jumped in before the V-word could leave my mouth. “It’s an individualized neoantigen therapy.”
Oh, but it is a vaccine. And here’s how it works. Moderna sequences a patient’s cancer cells to find the ugliest, most peculiar molecules on their surface. Then it packages the genetic code for those same molecules, called neoantigens, into a shot. The patient’s immune system has its orders: Kill any cells with those yucky surface markers.
Mechanistically, it’s similar to the covid-19 vaccines. What’s different, of course, is that the patient is being immunized against a cancer, not a virus.
And it looks like a possible breakthrough. This year, Moderna and Merck showed that such shots halved the chance that patients with the deadliest form of skin cancer would die from a recurrence after surgery.
In its formal communications, like regulatory filings, Moderna hasn’t called the shot a cancer vaccine since 2023. That’s when it partnered up with Merck and rebranded the tech as individualized neoantigen therapy, or INT. Moderna’s CEO said at the time that the renaming was to “better describe the goal of the program.” (BioNTech, the European vaccine maker that’s also working in cancer, has shifted its language too, moving from “neoantigen vaccine” in 2021 to “mRNA cancer immunotherapies” in its latest report.)
The logic of casting it as a therapy is that patients already have cancer—so it’s a treatment as opposed to a preventive measure. But it’s no secret what the other goal is: to distance important innovation from vaccine fearmongering, which has been inflamed by high-ranking US officials. “Vaccines are maybe a dirty word nowadays, but we still believe in the science and harnessing our immune system to not only fight infections, but hopefully to also fight … cancers,” Kyle Holen, head of Moderna’s cancer program, said last summer during BIO 2025, a big biotech event in Boston.
Not everyone is happy with the word games. Take Ryan Sullivan, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital who has enrolled patients in Moderna’s trials. He says the change raises questions over whether trial volunteers are being properly informed. “There is some concern that there will be patients who decline to treat their cancer because it is a vaccine,” Sullivan told me. “But I also felt it was important, as many of my colleagues did, that you have to call it what it is.”
But is it worth going to the mat for a word? Lillian Siu, a medical oncologist at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, in Toronto, who has played a role in safety testing for the new shots, watches US politics from a distance. She believes name change is acceptable “if it allows the research to continue.”
Holen told me the doctors complaining to Moderna were basically motivated by a desire to defend vaccines—which are, of course, among the greatest public health interventions of all time. They wanted the company to stand strong.
But that’s not what’s happening. When Moderna’s latest results were published in February, the paper’s main text didn’t use the word “vaccine” at all. It was only in the footnotes that you could see the term—in the titles of old papers and patents.
All this could be a sign that Kennedy’s strategy is working. His agencies often appear to make mRNA vaccines a focus of people’s worries, impede their reach, devalue them for companies, and sideline their defenders.
Still, Moderna’s strategy may be working too. So far, at least, the government hasn’t had much to say about the company’s cancer vacc— I mean, its individualized neoantigen therapy.
This article first appeared in The Checkup, MIT Technology Review’s weekly biotech newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Thursday, and read articles like this first, sign up here.
