Cancer Vaccines, CMV & mRNA Medicine: Finding Neutral Ground in a Polarized Era

Future of Cancer Vaccines – 

Over the past several years, we’ve all watched vaccine conversations become increasingly polarized. Discussions that should be grounded in science and public health have instead become emotionally charged and political. At the same time, national attention turned toward cancer vaccines again this year, especially after Larry Ellison’s appearance at the White House, where he spoke about AI-enabled personalized cancer vaccines that could be designed within 48 hours. That moment made clear that the public is paying attention, and it also created an opportunity to reframe vaccine conversations in a more constructive, evidence-based way. With that in mind, we brought together three leaders from academia, biotech, and industry: Dr. Mark R. Schleiss, Deborah Barbara, and Dr. Ken Carter, for a candid discussion on CMV, mRNA vaccines, cancer prevention, and how this space can help rebuild trust around vaccines more broadly.

One of the most illuminating parts of the conversation came from Dr. Mark Schleiss, who has spent decades studying cytomegalovirus (CMV). He reminded us that many people don’t realize we already have anti-cancer vaccines. HPV and hepatitis B both prevent cancer, yet the public rarely makes that connection. Mark walked us through the emerging evidence linking CMV to certain cancers, including glioblastoma and childhood leukemias, and how congenital CMV infection may have long-term consequences that intersect with oncology. He also discussed earlier attempts at therapeutic CMV vaccines for GBM, noting that even though some of those programs stalled, the concept remains scientifically compelling. What struck me most was the realization that if we can frame a future CMV vaccine as a cancer-prevention tool, it becomes a powerful communication bridge. It’s a way to talk about vaccination without triggering the typical culture-war reactions that accompany infectious-disease vaccines.

Deborah Barbara added another layer of insight by describing why the world needed an Alliance for mRNA Medicine (AMM). Before 2020, the mRNA ecosystem lacked infrastructure, regulatory clarity, supply-chain coordination, workforce training, and public literacy. Deborah explained that mRNA’s rapid rise during the pandemic exposed these gaps dramatically. To support the field, especially as mRNA expands into oncology, AMM was created to provide harmonized frameworks, build educational pipelines for clinicians, and help the public understand what mRNA actually is. Her comments reinforced that vaccine innovation isn’t just about scientific breakthroughs; it requires ecosystems, standards, and communication channels that can support widespread adoption.

Dr. Ken Carter brought decades of experience from immuno-oncology and vaccine development. He reminded us that cancer vaccines are not new; companies like Neon, Gritstone, BioNTech, VBI, and others laid the foundation long before AI became part of the narrative. Ken gave a candid history of neoantigen efforts and how the field learned, sometimes painfully, that designing cancer vaccines is not simply about picking mutations and packaging them into a platform. Biology, tumor evolution, and immune system complexity all play roles. Still, he emphasized that the tools have finally caught up with the vision. Sequencing, computational biology, and mRNA platforms give us the chance to translate decades of foundational immunology into real-world therapies.

A major theme that emerged was the idea of cancer vaccines as “neutral ground.” Unlike conversations about measles, COVID boosters, or routine childhood vaccines—topics that immediately evoke political or emotional reactions—cancer is universal. It affects everyone, across ideologies, demographics, and backgrounds. That universality makes cancer vaccines a unique opportunity to reintroduce the public to concepts like immunity, prevention, biologic platforms, and risk-benefit reasoning without triggering polarization. I shared with the group that this felt like an actionable pathway for rebuilding trust. If people can understand and engage with cancer vaccines, especially those built on the same platforms used in infectious-disease vaccines, they may become more open to broader conversations about vaccination.

We also discussed how messaging around cancer vaccines needs to strike a balance between hope and realism. When Larry Ellison stood at the White House and talked about ultra-fast AI-driven personalized vaccines, it captured public imagination. But without context, moments like that can also create unrealistic expectations. Mark noted that even physicians struggle to stay up to date on vaccine science and that many turn to TikTok for quick information—something that should concern all of us. Deborah shared that AMM is already working to build partnerships with Medscape and WebMD to scale clinician and public literacy. Ken emphasized that while the progress is exciting, cancer vaccines are not a silver bullet. Communication must be clear, transparent, and grounded in evidence to avoid over-promising.

This first conversation set the tone for the broader series. It underscored that advancing cancer vaccines is not only a scientific challenge but also a communication challenge. We need to educate, contextualize, manage expectations, and rebuild trust—all while celebrating the remarkable progress unfolding in the field. As we move into Part 2 (neoantigen cancer vaccines) and Part 3 (communication, trust, and public engagement), it’s clear that this work sits at the intersection of science, storytelling, and societal readiness.

To hear the full conversation—including insights from Ken, Deborah, and Mark—you can watch Part 1 of our Future of Cancer Vaccines series here:  https://youtu.be/Ec_TDFYE8l0