The World Health Organization (WHO) is moving forward with its plans to scale up mRNA technology with a high-level virtual event titled “Achieving Sustainable Pandemic Preparedness by Design” to be held on 12 June 2025. The conference, co-hosted by the G20 Health Working Group, aims to showcase the progress of the WHO mRNA Technology Transfer Program since 2021 and mobilize new international support. But cracks are clearly visible behind the diplomatically polished facade of global “solidarity”.
Notably, the United States has withdrawn not only from the WHO but also from central review of mRNA-based health interventions—a change led by new health and human resources chief Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This change comes at a time of growing skepticism about the role of new technologies in health—particularly in low- and middle-income countries that continue to suffer from unequal access, vaccine hesitancy, questionable efficacy, and ongoing safety concerns.
The WHO Technology Transfer Program, once considered a flagship initiative for democratizing mRNA vaccine production, was originally based on Afrigen Biologics, based in South Africa. The goal was to increase manufacturing capacity in the global south. Despite technical advances and high-profile partnerships—such as with Biovac, SAMRC, and the Pharmaceutical Patent Pool—the initiative now faces significant questions about its relevance.
The provider moves forward, the market lags behind
Global demand for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has plummeted. Countries that once desperately sought access now face expiring doses. Yet the WHO clings steadfastly to the narrative that mRNA is the future of pandemic preparedness—without addressing key issues such as long-term safety, logistics and storage infrastructure, cost-benefit, or the ethical implications of abandoning traditional vaccination platforms in favor of patent-laden biotechs.
The WHO leadership is also ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room – the decline in public trust. After years of emergency authorizations, ever-changing efficacy claims, and documented side effects, trust in health institutions has been massively damaged. This trust cannot be restored by investment in mRNA centers alone – at least not without transparency and scientific humility.
As the WHO and its South African partners present their progress on June 12, an important question arises: is this really about strengthening pandemic preparedness, or rather about protecting a political investment in a technology platform whose shine is already fading?
The United States’ absence from this event could be more than a diplomatic signal – it could mark a tectonic shift in global health strategy.
Because if pandemic preparedness is truly sustainable, it doesn’t start with PR campaigns and donor conferences. It starts with accountability, solid evidence, and an honest analysis of the lessons of five years of pandemic policy.
