Driven by a deeply antiscientific political agenda, the current U.S. government is not just sabotaging some of the most groundbreaking technology that has been developed in the past decades. It is also destroying the country’s past successes, such as measles elimination and the reduction of hepatitis B infections in infants to near zero.
Then there were three. With the administration’s Dec. 19 announcement of most-favored-nation (MFN) pricing deals with nine more biopharmas, only three of the 17 companies on the receiving end of U.S. President Donald Trump’s July 31 MFN ultimatum have yet to finalize terms with the White House – Abbvie Inc., Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
In 2025, science saw its breakthroughs, which BioWorld will be covering as part of our end-of-the-year wrap-up. But the biggest science story of 2025 is not about any scientific advance. It is the politicized destruction of U.S. science, and the dismantling of a scientific ecosystem that has been the envy of the world since it emerged after Germany destroyed its own pre-eminence in the 1930s.
A group of eight Democratic senators is asking biopharma companies to spill the beans about their private most-favored-nation pricing deals with U.S. President Donald Trump. Led by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, the senators sent letters Dec. 11 to Astrazeneca plc, Eli Lilly and Co., Novo Nordisk A/S and Pfizer Inc. seeking the details of those deals. While it’s difficult to discern how the deals will benefit patients, it’s clear the companies stand to gain a lot from the agreements, the letter asserted.
As the systematic dismantling of the U.S. vaccine schedule escalates, the demands to hold Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy accountable are growing. Claiming that Kennedy has turned his back on science and is endangering public health, Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., formally introduced articles of impeachment against him Dec. 10 for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Under the Constitution, federal officials can only be impeached for treason, bribery and “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Individual liberty and choice vs. wider public health became one predictable hinge upon which swung the often-acerbic debates at the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting, which took up – again – the matter of hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccine scheduling, a day after the panel voted not to vote on such guidance.
Disorganization resulting from last-minute changes to voting questions involving new recommendations for hepatitis B virus vaccines created a moment of déjà vu Dec. 4 when the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) voted 6-3 to once again delay its votes on whether the current recommended birth dose should be pushed back.
“Do not take us backwards,” many doctors and other stakeholders implored the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices ahead of its meeting that starts Dec. 4 with a day-long discussion and votes on whether the current recommended birth dose of the hepatitis B virus vaccine should be delayed.
Both the FDA and the CDC’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices are on the threshold of revising how vaccines are approved and used in the U.S., but whether that opens to a precipice or a new era of stronger evidence and safer use is in the telling of the beholder.
The Sept. 4, 2015, at-risk launch of Sandoz Inc.’s Zarxio as the first biosimilar to hit the U.S. market came several months after the FDA had approved the filgrastim biosimilar due to a court battle over the requirements of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which laid out the rules of the road for the new class of follow-on drugs. Ten years later, biosimilar developers are still struggling with some of those rules that were drafted by Congress in an effort to balance competition with innovation in the biologics space. Insulin biosimilars may be the hardest hit.
RSS
