In a long-overdue move, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) slashed funding for at least 33 research grants aimed at studying vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccine uptake, while nine others have been placed under review. Scientists began receiving letters terminating their grants on Monday evening.
According to Science, the letter informed investigators that their award “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” and it is the “policy of NIH not to prioritize research activities that focus on gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment.”
The letters further instructed grant recipients not to waste time attempting to alter their research because no project modification could “align with agency priorities.”
Of the 33 terminated grants, 14 were funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and focused on vaccines for diseases such as mpox, human papillomavirus, chickenpox, and COVID-19. One project explored a hypothetical gonorrhea vaccine. It was included on the termination list due to its goal of assessing healthcare workers’ and potential patients’ attitudes toward accepting a gonorrhea vaccine if one were developed.
The NIH is also reportedly requesting lists of projects involving modified RNA (mRNA) vaccines because they believe, based on credible evidence, that the shots could modify DNA or cause numerous health issues.
A Shift in Priorities: From Promotion to Accountability
For years, millions of taxpayer dollars have been funneled into research trying to answer a question that already has an obvious answer: Why are people hesitant to take mRNA COVID-19 vaccines? The truth is, we don’t need more studies—we need accountability, transparency, and a shift in funding priorities to research that actually improves public health.
Vaccine hesitancy isn’t some mysterious psychological phenomenon requiring endless behavioral studies. The reasons people reject or question mRNA vaccines have been well-documented since the pandemic began. They boil down to distrust in government and pharmaceutical companies, concerns over safety and efficacy, and frustration with the coercive tactics used to push these products onto the public.
Yet public health agencies have been operating under the assumption that vaccine hesitancy is a problem to be “fixed”—and have poured over behavioral science models, trying to crack the code on how to make people more compliant. F
or example, millions in taxpayer funds have been wasted on studies examining everything from social media influence to message framing, with little to show for it. The reality is, no amount of carefully crafted messaging will erase the experiences of those who suffered vaccine injuries, nor will it undo the loss of credibility that public health institutions inflicted upon themselves by downplaying risks and censoring dissent.
At its core, the push to study vaccine hesitancy has been less about understanding people’s concerns and more about developing ways to override them. It has never been about honest scientific inquiry; it has been about control. But as trust in institutions continues to erode, the American public has made one thing abundantly clear: They are done being manipulated.
Of course, some in the scientific community are outraged by the NIH’s decision, claiming that cutting funding will stifle research and leave us ill-prepared for future public health challenges. But this argument fails to acknowledge a fundamental truth—public health should not be about changing people’s minds through psychological tactics; it should be about ensuring people have accurate, unbiased information and the freedom to make their own decisions.
The pandemic exposed many uncomfortable truths about the intersection of government, pharmaceutical companies, and academia. The cozy relationships, the financial incentives, the conflicts of interest—these factors played a significant role in shaping the public’s distrust. Rather than wasting resources on more studies aimed at deciphering vaccine hesitancy, the focus should shift toward restoring integrity in public health. That means funding research into vaccine safety, long-term effects, and the mechanisms behind adverse reactions—issues that have been conveniently brushed aside in favor of behavioral studies designed to increase uptake.
The NIH’s decision to cut funding for vaccine hesitancy research is not just a victory for fiscal responsibility—it’s a step toward realigning research priorities with what truly matters: transparency, safety, and trust. If public health officials want to regain credibility, they need to start listening to the people instead of trying to reprogram them.
