Image Source: Getty Images
This essay is part of the series: World Health Day 2026: Standing with Science in an Age of Shared Risk
Since 2018, India has faced periodic outbreaks of the deadly Nipah virus (NiV), most recently in West Bengal in February this year. Marked as a priority pathogen by the World Health Organization (WHO), NiV serves as a critical example of the One Health approach, which emphasises interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health in addressing global health and disease. With no licensed vaccines or therapeutics available, advances in mRNA vaccine research offer an encouraging pathway for response, including efforts led by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovations (CEPI) and India’s Gennova Biopharmaceuticals Limited to develop an mRNA vaccine candidate. However, scientific progress alone is insufficient. As the WHO marks this year’s World Health Day under the theme, “Together for Health. Stand with Science”, it serves as an opportunity to recognise that the challenge involves not only developing medical countermeasures, but also ensuring that societies are willing to trust science and accept its applications.
Misinformation Economy
Vaccine hesitancy, a major threat to global health, has been exacerbated by a rapidly evolving information economy. Misinformation casts doubt on the safety and efficacy of vaccines and thrives in an ecosystem where social media amplifies both factual and false information. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the WHO labelled the information overload as an infodemic. Research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that false information travels faster than factual content on social media, particularly when it evokes strong emotional responses such as fear. Repeated exposure to misinformation from a credible authority can reinforce belief in it and facilitate its spread.
Misinformation casts doubt on the safety and efficacy of vaccines and thrives in an ecosystem where social media amplifies both factual and false information.
Post-truth Dynamics
Anti-vaccine narratives utilise this ecosystem by applying conspiracy theories, misrepresenting studies through cherry-picking, and amplifying voices that discredit evidence-based science. False information influences public opinion, creating fear over vaccine safety. For instance, claims that Covid-19 mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancers’—aggressive forms of cancer—gained significant traction online, despite having no scientific basis. In a post-truth world, where objective facts are increasingly found to be less influential in shaping public opinion than methods that appeal to emotion and personal belief, doubt and confusion are created. This leads to erosion of collective decision-making abilities, a decline in trust in science, and the widespread social acceptance of misinformation.
In a post-truth world, where objective facts are increasingly found to be less influential in shaping public opinion than methods that appeal to emotion and personal belief, doubt and confusion are created.
Its impact is evident in the resurgence of vaccine-preventable diseases across the world. Ongoing measles outbreaks in the United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK), and European countries demonstrate how declining vaccine uptake can rapidly cause outbreaks and contribute to shrinking herd immunity. This is concerning as it raises the possibility of a surge in severe measles infections, which has alarmed the medical community. A complication from measles—subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE)—which typically appears a year after infection, can lead to disability, paralysis and often fatality. This trend highlights how misinformation can directly transform into debilitating public health threats.
Politics of Health
Vaccine hesitancy is further complicated by the politicisation of science. It involves overemphasis on the inherent uncertainty of science to undermine existing scientific consensus. In the US, during the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccines were associated with political identity. Attitudes towards vaccine acceptance ranged from outright refusal to hesitation, to immediate vaccine uptake, with partisanship acting as a critical determinant. Studies suggest that political affiliation influenced susceptibility to misinformation and responsiveness to pro-vaccination campaigns. In this manner, politicisation can reinforce the acceptance and spread of misinformation.
This dynamic is now evident in the US childhood immunisation schedule. Recent attempts to alter the schedule—including shifting vaccines for rotavirus, meningitis, and hepatitis A and B from ‘routine administration’ to ‘shared clinical decision-making’, in which a patient or parent and clinician discuss the risks and benefits of vaccination—represent a significant policy change. Without a robust scientific rationale or review, it risks increasing childhood infections and hospitalisations. Although these attempts have been blocked by a federal judge, these shifts indicate how such policies can destabilise trust in science. Further, this discourse may potentially impact the course of scientific innovation.
Future of Innovation
The course of mRNA vaccine technology provides a notable illustration of the tension between scientific progress and public trust. In August 2025, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) abruptly terminated funds dedicated to mRNA vaccine research, including the cancellation of 22 contracts granted by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) valued at US$ 500 million. These cuts are likely to result in severe health and economic consequences, given that mRNA vaccines are estimated to prevent US$ 75 billion in economic costs each year. In addition to pandemic preparedness, mRNA platforms hold transformative potential for treating diseases such as cancer, making investment crucial.
In August 2025, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) abruptly terminated funds dedicated to mRNA vaccine research, including the cancellation of 22 contracts granted by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) valued at US$ 500 million.
This decision has been justified by concerns about vaccine effectiveness and safety, although the studies used to support these claims focus heavily on in vitro studies, which do not adequately reflect clinical outcomes. Concomitantly, claims linking the sudden death of young healthy adults and mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines have circulated widely, prompting further scientific scrutiny. Existing studies do not establish COVID vaccines as a causative factor. Studies have identified rare occurrences of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart) following vaccination; however, evidence suggests that these risks are higher following COVID-19 infection. Further, vaccine-induced inflammation is not unique to mRNA vaccine platforms but may occur with less public attention and scrutiny.
These concerns now extend to regulatory agencies. Moderna’s mRNA-based flu vaccine (m1010) recently came under the limelight when the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially declined to review its application. Though the FDA has since agreed to proceed, with a decision expected in August this year, Moderna indicated that it will wait for this outcome before proceeding with its combined flu-COVID-19 vaccine (m1083), which has already been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). These developments, along with speculation around future funding for mRNA vaccine research, have created uncertainty around the vaccine innovation ecosystem and its impact on health.
Rebuilding Trust in Science
The WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) is tasked with ensuring that vaccination policies are grounded in evidence-based decision-making. However, translating these measures into effective public health outcomes requires a pragmatic approach that enables meaningful public engagement with science. Addressing vaccine misinformation requires a shift towards scientific empowerment rooted in sustained trust-building. This includes clear science communication that counters false claims with accurate, evidence-based information. Pre-bunking—warnings issued before exposure to misinformation—can help reduce its impact. Misinformation can be debunked through multiple strategies, including myth–fact corrections, fact-only messaging, or ‘sandwiching’ myths between facts. While some studies suggest that corrective messaging may occasionally backfire, the notion that truth cannot catch up with ‘flying falsehoods’ reflects a resigned stance that is ultimately counterproductive to public health communication.
Integrating scientific expertise into policymaking must be reinforced through evidence-based measures. Engagement should include both scientific experts and non-scientific voices to bridge gaps in understanding and to reduce feelings of alienation.
Strengthening science literacy through formal and informal education can help individuals better understand the benefits of science and enhance their decision-making. Integrating scientific expertise into policymaking must be reinforced through evidence-based measures. Engagement should include both scientific experts and non-scientific voices to bridge gaps in understanding and to reduce feelings of alienation. Community outreach activities should include trustworthy communicators to ensure credibility and relevance. Collectively, these approaches tackle the misinformation ecosystem head-on to cultivate a more informed public and strengthen trust in science.
Conclusion
Addressing vaccine hesitancy is not only a scientific endeavour but also a political and social one. Emerging global threats such as the Nipah virus (NiV) underscore that medical countermeasures alone are insufficient; success depends equally on public trust. In a post-truth world, where social media amplifies both factual and false information, building confidence in science requires sustained commitments to communication, education, and inclusive engagement. The year’s World Health Day theme, “Together for Health. Stand with Science”, emphasises the need to build collective trust and acceptance of medical technologies to ensure societies are not vulnerable to both existing and emerging health threats.
Lakshmy Ramakrishnan is an Associate Fellow with the Centre for New Economic Diplomacy at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.