This summer, RFK Jr. cut half a billion dollars in funding for 22 RNA research projects. These were not failed science experiments, but programmes of national importance. No complete list of these projects has been made public, but as a broad technology RNA represents a path to radically improving the way we fight cancer, vaccinating against humanity’s most evasive viruses, and protecting biodiversity in our agricultural systems.
RFK Jr.’s move has been cast as both a political and economic decision, but ultimately, it is a failure of storytelling. The public and the people they vote for have not been told about the extraordinary – and within reach – potential of the technology to improve their own lives. If you asked your neighbour what they thought of RNA technology, it’s likely they would draw a blank, or worse still, recall a tired 2020 conspiracy theory.
The first real-world application of RNA technology came during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it enabled the fastest vaccine development in history. This was a triumph of science that saved millions of lives, yet it became mired in viral conspiracy – tales of the vaccine rewriting our DNA, being a stealth delivery for microchips, and even causing so-called “turbo cancer” ran rampant. The truth is far less cinematic. What makes RNA technology special is how simply it works with our body’s natural processes. Most techniques work by delivering short-lived “instructions” (messenger RNA) that tell our cells how to make a chosen protein of therapeutic benefit. This offers a level of precision, adaptability, and safety many traditional scientific tools can’t match.
Image credit - Milad Fakurian Unsplash
Image credit - Milad Fakurian Unsplash
If RNA technology faces an existential threat, then, it’s one of brand. RNA’s brand — our shared understanding of its promise – is exceptionally weak. No one in the public sphere has been telling a story about this technology. Nothing has been done to instil confidence, imagination, or excitement for it in public thought. Both its dizzying potential and its impressive safety profile are hidden. This is the only reason that RFK Jr. has been able to make this decision without causing widespread outrage – and why this moment will only be remembered as a single blip in a waterfall of controversial decisions.
The greatest risk to breakthrough science isn’t that the science will fail, it’s that the story will. And breakthrough science is bad at telling its own stories. The qualities that make a good researcher – data-led, cautious, methodical – are at odds with what make a great storyteller. More often than not, science is afraid to look up and make a promise for the future. Too focused on the research to realise that winning hearts and minds is a fight it must also win.
Unfortunately, the forces working against scientific progress today — the Trump administration included – aren’t hindered by the same impulses. They understand storytelling and the power of brand all too well. They know that emotion will triumph over logic; that fear, uncertainty, and blame will beat statistics and studies. They understand the power of villains and victims, and that perceived injustice will hold more sway over people than all the published research in the world.
It’s not hard to find other examples of science losing this fight. Nuclear power, once imagined as the limitless energy of the future, has become synonymous with meltdown and disaster. Despite still being the most viable and effective route we have to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, we still see programmes being cut around the world. The progress of childhood vaccination, arguably one of humanity’s greatest achievements, has been eroded by decades of misinformation. This year marked a 33-year high for measles cases in the US.
So if breakthrough science is to survive, if it is to deliver the solutions that our world so desperately needs, it must learn to go toe-to-toe in the arena of brand. Conspiracy, misinformation & sheer ego cannot be countered by the current scientific temperament. Science needs to be able to take an idea out of the lab and show what it will mean for people’s lives. It needs to understand how to hero complex science with simple magnetic ideas. It needs to have vision, and to paint a picture of a world that people refuse to live without.
I would argue that the space race remains the best example of what science can do when it tells a truly great story. In this case, one bold enough to rally nations and unlock a moonshot budget. It worked because it was simple: humanity would put a man on the moon. Technical achievement became a backdrop to a story of hope, of humanity willing itself into the future.
It is possible that many scientists will read this and disagree. They may insist that science cannot play in this realm. That its foundations mean that even its storytelling must stick only to what is certain and provable and found in data. But I would argue this isn’t a matter of indulgence but one of survival. Today, breakthrough science like RNA technology needs the same courage and cut-through that carried us to the moon. It doesn’t just need research. It needs brand — or it will fail.
