Building Trust in Immune-based Innovations – Access to Innovation Q&A
At our 2026 Access to Innovation Conference, one of the most thought-provoking sessions of the day centered on science communication. We ran out of time before we could get to Q&A. Rather than let those questions go unanswered, we captured them all.
Dr. Kelley Lee, Jia Hu, and Rackeb Tesfaye of the Bridge Research Consortium generously provided detailed follow-up responses covering everything from how Canada can protect trust in mRNA technology amid US political turbulence, to lessons learned from the pandemic, to the perennial challenge of competing with voices like Joe Rogan. Their answers are candid, evidence-based, and deeply relevant to anyone working at the intersection of life sciences, public health, and communication.
Can the panel give us some thought about what we can do here in Canada to support the use of mRNA technology in the next few years given the US situation?
Amid anti-vaccine rhetoric and partisan politics in the U.S., it is important to proactively understand how these trends are influencing public perspectives in Canada. Survey data collected by the Bridge Research Consortium (BRC) suggest that, while many people in Canada are aware of how partisan politics is impacting decision-making on mRNA technology in the U.S., this is not necessarily a strong influence of behaviours, attitudes and perspectives towards the technology in Canada. A survey, conducted by the Canadian Medical Association, suggests trust in U.S news sources is even declining in Canada. While these are encouraging findings, we must continue to monitor trends proactively.
Importantly, we would be wise to take existing public concerns about mRNA technology in Canada seriously, particularly within high-priority populations. These include, but not limited to, parents with younger children, religious groups, Indigenous communities, and right of centre voters. Working with trusted sources (e.g, healthcare providers, religious leaders, community members), we need to meaningfully engage and co-create strategies that strengthen or build trust. This is a different starting point from simply informing or correcting people. There will be some groups, such as those vocalizing extreme views, who may be inappropriate to engage with at this time. Finite resources should be focused on people in Canada who are uncertain and seek trusted information to make informed choices.
Other considerations when seeking to build trust in mRNA technology: a) earlier sharing of information, about the potential uses of mRNA technology, as the science unfolds rather than upon application (e.g., during a pandemic); b) setting realistic expectations by explaining more fully the balance of risks and benefits of mRNA technologies, along with any challenges to affordable access, compared to other platforms or disease outcomes; and c) highlighting Canada’s growing domestic capacity and role as a global leader in advancing mRNA R&D and biomanufacturing.
Do you have any reflections about approaches institutions used that caused a massive loss of trust during the pandemic.
It is important to recognize that public institutions across Canada were stress tested on many fronts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Practical action was needed in real time to save lives, during a rapidly unfolding public health emergency, while the evidence to inform decision making was evolving. The immediate challenge was to understand the direct health risks posed by SARS-CoV-2. But it was soon clear that broader societal impacts from the virus, or the public health measures adopted, could also be severe. In this context, urgent decisions involving trade-offs were made more difficult (e.g. close schools to limit a not entirely quantified risk of infection in children). Where stringent measures (e.g., vaccine mandates) were deemed necessary, to mitigate risks and protect vulnerable populations, these also needed to be calibrated against diverse values and cultural beliefs.
While there was a decline in trust during COVID-19, research which BRC Scientific Co-Director Eve Dube contributed to found that “public trust during the pandemic in Canada was highly dynamic and subjective, and was greatly informed by histories, lived experiences, and preconceptions about various institutions, such as the government, public health officials, and scientists” (https://link.springer.com/article/10.17269/s41997-025-01121-6). There were thus multiple factors shaping public trust and no one way of addressing the challenges we see today.
Among the key lessons is the need for public officials to more fully explain to the public how hard decisions are made. Policy is not just about “following the science”. Social context, competing interests, and core values are also important considerations. The unavoidable need for trade-offs, how different options are weighed, and what parts of society gain and lose helps people to understand policy decisions, even if they don’t necessarily agree with them. People want to see how the policy sausage is made. During an unfolding health emergency, public engagement will be curtailed. During interpandemic periods, however, there are opportunities to engage with the public to better understand what factors are most important to consider when making decisions in future.
On vaccines specifically, some people felt that institutions oversold the promise of COVID-19 vaccines for ending the pandemic. Many believed that the vaccines would prevent infections. The need for continuous boosters further undermined public trust. What is known and not known about efficacy and duration of new vaccines, alongside the risks from infection by a pandemic pathogen, needs fuller but careful messaging. Managing public expectations amid uncertainty is critical to protecting public trust.
Does Canada/BC have an opportunity to frame vaccines as defence infrastructure to boost funding for research, programming, communication, etc?
The framing of vaccines, and biomanufacturing more generally, as part of Canada’s national defence infrastructure would certainly align with the current political climate and domestic spending priorities. The concept of health security has long been used to advocate for increased funding of key public health infrastructure such as laboratories and disease surveillance systems. Then, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada had to import needed vaccines, many from the US, which required competing with other countries for foreign-produced supplies. If this was necessary today, trade tensions with the US would put Canada in a vulnerable position. Investments along the therapeutic pipeline, to bolster domestic R&D, re-establish production capacity, and secure supply chains has thus become an important issue of national interest.
At the same time, we must be mindful that militarized language can land differently in varied communities, increasing rather than building public trust. There are examples around the world where military operations have been associated with vaccination campaigns resulting in the erosion of public trust. In Canada, communities with a history of oppression or marginalization may feel threatened by a closer alignment between vaccines and the defence sector. People who are concerned about government overreach, especially in light of immigration enforcement in the US, may also be wary of such framing.
With careful framing, there is an opportunity to strengthen public support for domestic vaccine R&D and biomanufacturing. The term “vaccine sovereignty” is a more unifying way of describing these efforts. We can also celebrate the world class research being undertaken in Canada, and the government’s commitment to supporting R&D at a time when science is under attack elsewhere. Finally, an emphasis on the economic benefits to Canada from the sector – employment, exports, and healthcare cost savings, for instance – should be strongly emphasized.
Alberta and Quebec have lower COVID vaccine uptake. They are the only provinces/territories in Canada that ended universal access in 2025. How do access and program simplicity drive vaccine engagement?
Public funding for vaccines helps improve uptake, not only by ensuring people do not have to pay (hence reducing financial barriers), but also signalling that the vaccine is important. Many studies show that vaccines that are not publicly funded tend to be seen as less essential by the public.
Alberta and Quebec are quite different. The Alberta government policy is from an ideologically-based aversion to COVID-19 vaccines. The Quebec government based its decision on effectiveness/cost-effectiveness grounds. Other jurisdictions (e.g., UK) do not universally recommend COVID-19 vaccine for similar reasons.
In general, program simplicity is helpful for uptake. When vaccine programs are designed, public health officials try to be mindful of balancing simplicity with who benefits the most from the vaccine. This includes considerations of equitable access. Accessibility proved a barrier for many high-priority populations during the pandemic. Access must thus be embedded in program design so that diverse communities have ready access to vaccines as a part of daily life.
If transparency and authenticity are required to build trust, how can we break down the barriers for public health and industry to collaborate publicly?
According to the Edelman Trust Barometer (2025), “62% of Canadians express a moderate or high sense of grievance, characterized by the belief that governmental and business actions complicate their lives, serve narrow interests, and that the affluent unfairly benefit while ordinary individuals face hardships” (https://www.edelman.com/ca/trust/2025/trust-barometer). In this lower trust environment, good governance of the relationships between public and private institutions are more important than ever.
Collaborations along the therapeutic pipeline, between the life sciences and industry, are well-established. For example, industry plays an essential role in clinical trials, regulatory approvals, and manufacturing. Healthcare services, even those publicly funded, maintain a variety of relationships with medical equipment and goods suppliers, pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance providers. All of these relationships must be carefully regulated and monitored to ensure that the public interest is not compromised by for-profit motives.
The relationship between public health and the private sector is more limited and, where products and services cause harm to population health, is directly oppositional. Worldwide evidence from the study of the commercial determinants of health in recent decades, spanning the tobacco, alcohol, food, gambling, pharmaceutical and other industries, has heightened sensitivities towards public health engagement with the business sector.
Yet, it is also important to ask what genuine opportunities exist to protect and promote population health through engagement with parts of the business sector. As the Edelman Trust Barometer concludes, “All institutions must collaborate to deliver equitable outcomes, mend the social fabric, advocate for reliable information, and restore economic optimism.” A key starting point is addressing the lack of trust within the public health community towards industry which remains strong. Achieving a shared understanding of the reasons for this distrust might be advanced through deliberative dialogues where there is no expectation of behavioural change, but rather transparency and the identification of root tensions and areas of common ground. If there is an identification of shared interests, this might be the basis of potential engagement. Importantly, all relationships between public and private institutions should be subject to close public scrutiny. How appropriately these relationships are governed have direct consequences for public trust more broadly.
How do you compete with social media stars like Joe Rogan?
So much of the world today engages online in ways very different from the past. We thus need to engage our audiences – as scientists, healthcare providers, public officials, and industry representatives – in ways that align with these changes. This means a different way of communicating that is not largely based on our credentials, scientific expertise, institutional affiliation or company brand. These attributes matter less than identity, personal connection and emotional resonance.
Influential communicators, like Joe Rogan, are skilled at connecting with their audiences. They are seen as authentic and real. Engagement is not about delivering polished statements or scripted information, but co-creating content through two-way interactions that are conversational. This is especially so when communicators are seen as providing a platform to voices that do not feel listened to or have a sense of aggrievance.
While few experts from across research, policy and practice aspire to be social media stars, collaborating with trusted influencers online is one great option. We can also invest in socially and ethically attuned science communication training to enable science and health experts to engage with public(s) online directly. Dedicated roles and teams should be created within institutions focused on effectively communicating in these online spaces. This is especially important where there are information deserts, such as rural and remote communities in Canada, and where these voids are being filled by non-expert voices. Local community and grass-roots approaches are essential, in these cases, to ensure people meaningfully connect to communicators.
Vaccines are a cornerstone of global public health. How can we encourage governments to fund more vaccines in public health programs?
Vaccines are one of the most impactful public health interventions in history, saving an estimated 154 million lives over the past fifty years. Vaccines have reduced infant deaths by 40% globally. Yet they remain a perennial hard sell. Political cycles mean that disease prevention is often overshadowed by public spending on healthcare infrastructure and clinical services. This is partly because averted illness and death can take years to demonstrate, and are difficult to capture in photo ops compared to shiny new hospitals.
During the current period of financial austerity, we can use health economics data to remind governments that funding vaccines results in significant returns on investment. A 2024 study by the Adult Vaccines Alliance (AVA) found that adult vaccination alone saves over $2.5 billion annually in direct healthcare costs and lost productivity. Adult vaccination programs can generate returns of up to 19 times their initial cost (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/13/5/479). Globally, every $1 spent on childhood immunization results in $11 in averted treatment costs and lost productivity. Other economic arguments could be harnessed. Reduced per unit cost for vaccines, employment creation, and reduced dependence on imports are all benefits from expanding vaccination.
Finally, how domestic and global health needs are simultaneously served by equitable access to vaccines must be better recognized. We need to reframe Canada’s contributions to global immunization programs, from development aid to cost-effective investments in reducing disease threats for everyone including Canadians. This includes vaccines for pathogens with pandemic potential.