New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

FDA won’t consider a new mRNA vaccine for flu despite the technology’s life-saving promise

The U.S.’s drug safety agency declined to review a next-gen flu vaccine that uses the same tech as the coronavirus shots

A lab tech in a white coat with a pipette

An assistant conducts cancer vaccine research in the lab at the Moderna headquarters in Cambridge, Mass.

Bloomberg/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is refusing to consider a new mRNA flu vaccine made by Moderna, the company revealed in a statement on Tuesday.

The vaccine uses mRNA to inoculate the recipient—the same technology used in the Moderna and Pfizer coronavirus vaccines. The way these vaccines work is by delivering a copy of messenger RNA, which acts like a blueprint for cells to make proteins. In the vaccines’ case, the mRNA carries the instructions the body’s cells need to make a protein that can trigger an immune response to the targeted virus.

The FDA’s decision didn’t identify safety or efficacy concerns, according to Moderna. It was based on complaints about the studies Moderna conducted to assess the vaccine, the company said, citing a letter signed by Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) director Vinay Prasad.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“This was a clinical trial performed with the FDA’s blessing,” says Angie Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan. “The top U.S. vaccine regulator should make decisions based on a thoughtful, systematic, transparent review of the evidence that relies on diverse expertise. Based on Prasad’s refusal-to-file letter, this was not informed by any type of advisory or review process other than Prasad deciding it was insufficiently controlled.”

On a press call Wednesday, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said that the FDA rejected Moderna’s application “because the company refused to follow very clear FDA guidance from 2024 to test its product in a clinical trial against a CDC-recommended flu vaccine to compare safety and efficacy. Moderna exposed participants age 65 and over to increased risk of severe illness by giving them a substandard of care against the recommendation of FDA scientists.”

The FDA’s decision comes amid a broader campaign, spearheaded by HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to remake America’s vaccine schedule. Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic, has repeatedly criticized mRNA technology.

This year’s flu season has been remarkable in its severity, driven in large part by the arrival of flu variant subclade K. So far, influenza has sickened at least 22 million people in the U.S. and killed 12,000. Rasmussen notes that mRNA vaccine technology is extremely flexible and adaptable, and shots could be quickly formulated using it to help fight new virus variants like subclade K.

“If we had recognized that [subclade K] was going to be driving things, and we were using mRNA vaccines instead of conventional flu vaccine technology platforms, we would potentially be able to make an updated flu shot in time for flu season,” Rasmussen says.

This is a breaking news story and may be updated.

Additional reporting by Lauren J. Young.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe