Since the Trump Administration took office on Jan. 20, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), they have terminated 2,100 research grants totaling about $9.5 billion, and an additional $2.6 billion in contracts. Now, the administration has proposed significant cuts to the NIH budget, potentially reducing it by 40%.
One of the research topics that has been met with much criticism since January is vaccines, especially mRNA technology. Last month, for example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., announced the end of a $750 million-plus contract to develop Moderna’s mRNA-based bird flu vaccine.
"This is not simply about efficacy — it's about safety, integrity and trust," Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement. "The reality is that mRNA technology remains under-tested, and we are not going to spend taxpayer dollars repeating the mistakes of the last administration, which concealed legitimate safety concerns from the public."
In light of these cuts to mRNA vaccine research, companies and manufacturers have been stepping in to bridge the funding gap wherever possible. TriLink BioTechnologies, for example, commenced a significant donation to top academic labs across the U.S. and Europe to “fuel the future of mRNA research.”
The donation commemorates the launch of TriLink’s first mRNA synthesis kit featuring CleanCap capping technology, an all-in-one kit with its innovative products in one box at a competitive price. Seven academic institutions will receive 10 kits each that can yield up to a combined 250 mg of capped mRNAs, enabling and encouraging further discovery and development in the field of mRNA-based medicine.
In this article, Labcompare interviews Jeff Franz, Senior Director of Product Management at TriLink, as well as Gene Yeo, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego, about their take on the current mRNA research landscape and what scientists can expect when facing these extreme budget cuts.
Q: How did you choose the academic institutions that received the 10 kits?
Jeff Franz (JF): We prioritized academic institutions with demonstrated a strong commitment to RNA research, and have innovative curricula to ensure they have ready access to the latest industry-grade tools. By equipping a broad range of universities, we aim to democratize access to next-generation technologies and inspire the next wave of scientists and biotech leaders.
Q: Why is it important to continue to drive progress in RNA therapeutics and build a strong future for the field?
JF: RNA therapeutics represent one of the most transformative advances in modern medicine. Unlike traditional small molecules or biologics, RNA-based approaches allow us to directly program the body to make its own medicine. We're just beginning to tap into the potential—not only for vaccines, but also for treating rare diseases, cancer, and even regenerative medicine. Instead of delivering proteins directly or manipulating DNA permanently, mRNA offers a transient, controllable way to trigger the body’s own processes. Continued progress across all these areas ensures that we continue the voyage of discovery and unlock the full potential, reaching more patients faster, with more precise therapies.
Gene Yeo (GY): RNA therapeutics encompasses a wide array of different modalities from mRNA medicines to treat autoimmune diseases and cancer, antisense technologies that prevent the production of disease-causing genes, to small molecules that target RNA molecules for neurodegenerative diseases. I think it’s a no-brainer that we want multiple shots on goal when developing new therapeutics for the future.
Q: What would you say to undergraduate, graduate and post-doctoral researchers who are worried about whether they should continue their scientific pursuits?
GY: The world will continue to need innovations in science and engineering. Diseases are still here to be cured, especially with an aging population. I would encourage the trainees to continue to strengthen their scientific training and experiences and explore options globally for opportunities.
Q: What about midcareer and senior scientists who are also questioning their role in U.S. research at this time?
GY: Midcareer and senior scientists should take the opportunity to improve their interactions with the general public and societal leaders to emphasize the impact their research has on US health.
Q: Amid proposed funding and personnel cuts, what scientific fields are you most worried about?
GY: I worry about the future of basic research in most fields, but particularly research and efforts to combat infectious diseases and climate change.
Q In a broad sense, what’s at stake given proposed NIH funding and personnel cuts?
JF: NIH funding isn’t just a line item in the budget—it’s the backbone of America’s biomedical innovation. Cuts risk stalling vital research, delaying medical breakthroughs, and driving talented scientists out of the field, or out of the country. Over time, this erodes our capacity to respond to public health challenges, weakens biotech entrepreneurship, and cedes ground to countries that continue to invest in scientific excellence.
Q: What about mRNA technology, specifically?
JF: mRNA technology is still in its early chapters. It’s a platform, not just a product. NIH-funded basic research laid the foundation for its success and continuing that pipeline is crucial for its evolution. From next-generation cancer vaccines to protein replacement therapies and immunomodulation for rare diseases, the possibilities are vast—but they require sustained scientific investment to fully materialize.
Q: In spite of these funding and personnel cuts, what can scientists do to continue their critical work?
JF: Scientists are resilient by nature. In challenging times, collaboration becomes even more essential—across labs, institutions, and even industries. Open science, resource sharing, and mentorship can help maximize impact despite limited resources. It’s also vital to engage the public and policymakers to underscore why science matters and ensure research stays on the national agenda.
Q: What is your main concern (or two) if the U.S. begins to lose its global position in scientific innovation and leadership?
GY: I believe we are already seeing a major brain drain when it comes to onshore scientific leadership, and my main concern is whether that directionality will reverse, even if policies that precipitate this change are ameliorated over time.
JF: First, we risk losing the pipeline of life-saving innovations that improve health outcomes globally and drive economic growth domestically. Second, the U.S. could become a follower rather than a leader in setting scientific and ethical standards for emerging technologies. Once that leadership is lost, it's difficult to reclaim—and the consequences could reverberate across industries for generations.
About the interviewees
Jeff Franz is a seasoned product management leader with over two decades of experience driving innovation across life sciences, molecular biology, and diagnostics. Currently Senior Director of Product Management at TriLink Biotechnologies, he oversees strategic planning and execution for mRNA-based GMP and catalog product lines. Jeff has held senior roles at companies including Thermo Fisher Scientific and Promega Corporation, where he has led multiple cross-functional teams in bringing RNA and synthetic biology solutions from concept to commercialization and scaled automation-driven solutions for genomic workflows. He holds a B.S. in Zoology with an emphasis on Cell & Molecular Biology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Dr. Gene Yeo is a Professor of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), specializing in RNA biology and post-transcriptional gene regulation. He holds dual degrees from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, a Ph.D. in Computational Neuroscience from MIT, and an MBA from UCSD. Dr. Yeo's research focuses on RNA-binding proteins and their roles in gene expression, contributing significantly to understanding diseases like neurodegeneration and cancer. He is Director of the Center for RNA technologies and therapeutics at UCSD and Scientific Director of the Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine. He is also Chief Scientist of Sanford Laboratories for Innovative Medicines.