Ed’s stories explore prescription drug pricing, affordability and access, as well issues surrounding patents, litigation, and legislation. He is also the author of the morning Pharmalittle newsletter and the afternoon Pharmalot newsletter.
European Union antitrust regulators accepted concessions from Sanofi to settle an investigation into an allegedly “misleading” campaign that disparaged the only rival flu vaccine recommended for vulnerable patients at risk for developing the illness. In doing so, the company avoided being fined.
The European Commission had suggested that Sanofi portrayed the Fluad vaccine marketed by CSL Seqirus as inferior to its own Efluelda vaccine in a communication campaign that primarily targeted health care professionals in Germany and France. Sanofi holds a dominant position in both countries, according to the EC.
To resolve the probe, Sanofi committed to a corrective communication campaign rectifying its “possible disparaging behavior” and to refrain from such behavior in the future, according to Teresa Riberta, the European Commission executive vice president for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition. The agreement is legally binding.
Americans have more trust in science than most of the rest of the world, according to a new survey of people in 140 countries, a finding that may seem difficult to explain in a country deeply divided by issues such as the benefits and harms of vaccines.
According to the newest edition of the Wellcome Global Monitor, 52 percent of Americans report having “a lot” of trust in science. Across the globe, that number is a mere 26 percent.
Americans, in aggregate, are also more eager to get vaccines compared to peer nations; 45 percent of Americans say they would want to get vaccines recommended by a nurse or doctor “right away.” In Germany only 28 percent say the same.
And while the share of people globally who agree that science benefits most people in their society has dropped from 42 percent in 2018 to 37 percent in 2025, the share of Americans who agree with that statement has actually increased from 48 percent to 57 percent.
But the aggregate statistics don’t tell the whole story. STAT’s analysis of the Wellcome data demonstrates that while America may, in general, appreciate and trust science, it is also far more divided than peer nations.
Take the religious divide: According to STAT’s analysis there was, on average, a 5 percentage point gap between the percentage of religious and non-religious people in high-income nations who said science benefits most people in their country. In the United States that gap was 24 percentage points.
A similar divide — 19 percentage points — separates urban and rural Americans on the question of science’s benefits. The divide across other high-income nations is just three points. Education level divides Americans as well — just 47 percent of Americans without four-year degrees reported believing that science benefits most people, compared to 71 percent of college grads.
Wellcome, a British foundation focused on scientific research, funded the survey in 2018, 2020 and 2025. The most recent version was administered as part of the Gallup World Poll through a combination of in-person, telephone and online surveys of more than 140,000 adults. The global findings were weighted “to ensure that global estimates accurately reflect the relative populations of countries in the survey.”
The survey does not offer an explanation for why the United States appears to be outpacing its peers on trust. But at least some of Americans’ seeming polarization may be explained by Americans’ tendency toward extremes.
Americans are “more extreme responders to public opinion surveys,” said Matthew Motta, an associate professor at Boston University School of Public Health who is an expert on public opinion research.
For example, a smaller proportion of Germans than Americans said they would “not get vaccines at all.” Only 8 percent of Germans were completely anti-vaccine, compared to 13 percent of Americans. Instead, the vast majority of Germans said they would “prefer to think about it for some time.”
The survey also showed that Americans who historically have been less trusting are not necessarily souring on science and its benefits. STAT’s analysis finds that the proportion of Americans who identify as religious and who believe science benefits most people increased by four percentage points, from 46 percent in 2018 to 50 percent in 2025. Self-reported religious Americans are also more likely to report an eagerness to be vaccinated when compared to peer countries.
A similar pattern plays out with Americans without four-year degrees. The percentage of non-college grads who say science benefits most people increased by three percentage points over that seven-year period, and they too are more likely than residents of peer nations with similar education to want vaccines right away.
So what is causing America’s growing divide over trust in science? The poll shows it is growing enthusiasm for science among highly educated, secular Americans. Both reported substantial increases in their appreciation of the benefits of science: 13 percentage points for college grads, and 15 percentage points for secular Americans over seven years, the Wellcome survey found.
In short, America is divided not because certain groups are souring on science, but because others are becoming more appreciative of its benefits.
That might seem like good news. But the divide nonetheless underscores that the benefits of science are not reaching a large swath of Americans in ways they can see and feel.
“People are feeling left behind, they are not understanding how this benefits me,” said Brian Castrucci, president and CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, which focuses on strengthening public health.
Some divisions facing Americans will be difficult to combat in a country as large and diverse as the United States. City dwellers with cancer who can access care at a top-rated university medical center will inevitably see science’s impact on their lives more than people in a rural area who might have to travel a great distance for even the most basic hospital care.
Wellcome found that trust in science is closely associated with confidence in a nation’s health care systems, which presents a problem for the United States as well. Just 40 percent of Americans reported a lot of confidence in U.S. hospitals and health clinics, the same proportion as in Portugal and Uruguay.
Anti-science sentiment coming from America’s top political officials is likely playing a role too, several experts said. Diverging views on science among America’s political parties became apparent during the Tea Party movement of the 2010s and was amplified during Trump’s presidency, said Yotam Ophir, an associate professor of communication at the University at Buffalo.
But experts STAT spoke to underscored that this new data doesn’t just indicate the need for the sorts of systemic changes that can take decades to fulfill. Scientists need to hone their ability to discuss the benefits of science in people’s everyday lives, and to stop expecting the public to blindly trust them, several experts told STAT.
“What we need to do is be better communicators, not better debaters. We are not going to be able to lecture people into trusting us,” Castrucci said.
Mark Henderson, Wellcome’s executive director of corporate affairs and engagement, said scientists who wish to take steps based on the report’s findings should “meet people where they are.”
“Approach people on a level with understanding and engagement and respect, and you’re going to get a better outcome,” Henderson added. “It’s not rocket science, but it often surprises me how hard people in the scientific community find it to do that.”
About half of rural voters identify with Make America Healthy Again, a sprawling political movement championed by the Trump administration, but most said President Donald Trump’s healthcare policies have not benefited their communities, according to a new poll from The Associated Press in partnership with KFF.
About 8 in 10 rural voters — an important voting bloc for Trump and fellow Republicans in recent elections — said the Trump administration’s policies have had a negative effect or no impact on the health of people where they live. Most MAHA supporters, 68%, also feel this way, according to the national survey of more than 2,000 rural registered voters.
The findings signal an apparent disconnect between the Trump administration’s MAHA-branded policy priorities and rural America’s perception of their reach and effectiveness.
Iowa pastor Mike Jager, 58, is a registered Republican and considers himself part of the MAHA movement. The Trump administration’s health policies have had “minimal” impact on the health of his community, Jager said, but he added that Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is moving the needle “in the right direction.”
“It’s a beginning,” Jager said. “It’s a big ship to try and turn around and course-correct.”
Jager lives in Sumner, Iowa, “less than a quarter mile from where the corn ends and the city begins.” He’s seen family members and neighbors develop diseases that he believes resulted in part from exposure to agricultural chemicals and consumption of unhealthy, processed foods.
In the June Republican primary for governor, Jager voted for Zach Lahn, a businessman and farmer, who ran on a MAHA platform and beat out Trump-backed U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra. He plans to vote for him again in November.
Jager said that President Donald Trump’s health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is moving the needle “in the right direction.” (Miriam Alarcón Avila for KFF Health News)
Many Rural Voters Are Prioritizing Health Issues
About two-thirds of rural voters who support MAHA said it’s “extremely” or “very” important to them to vote for a candidate who does, too, while only 4 in 10 rural voters overall said the same.
Trump sought to seize on MAHA support during his campaign for another term two years ago. Now, amid tight midterm races, Kennedy has campaigned to galvanize the movement’s support. In May, he attended a MAHA bill signing with Iowa Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, and in August, he went fishing with Lahn, posting about it on social media.
Yet the survey indicates voters are noticing “this weird split in the Trump administration” between what Kennedy messages and what Trump says and does, said David Peterson, a political science professor at Iowa State University.
“It’s this mix of things coming out of D.C., out of different pieces of the administration, that’s confusing people,” Peterson said.
In Iowa, concerns about what’s causing rising cancer rates are “a big deal,” he said. For many people who identify with MAHA, being healthy includes taking on corporate agriculture and pharmaceutical companies that they think cause cancer, he added.
“The sort of populist messaging around that is appealing right now,” Peterson said.
In the poll, views on healthcare access and costs largely diverged along party lines. Most Democratic and independent voters said the Trump administration’s healthcare policies have had a negative impact on their healthcare costs and the health and well-being of people in their communities. Republicans were likelier to say there hasn’t been an impact.
Talking on the phone from her 200-acre farm in Carroll County, Iowa, 71-year-old Donna Klocke said that her husband had died from cancer and that she has neighbors who also have cancer.
“It’s just very prevalent,” Klocke said. “We’re in a farming community. We use chemicals and pesticides and all kinds of things that aren’t necessarily good for us.”
Klocke, a Democrat, said the MAHA movement is a good idea because she cares about being healthy, but she does not consider herself part of it and will not be voting for a candidate who represents the movement.
“Measles are coming back and polio,” Klocke said. “It’s the measles that really gets me. It’s like, do you not understand how dangerous it is?”
Donna Klocke cares about being healthy but does not consider herself part of the Make America Healthy Again movement. Her husband died from cancer after a life spent farming the family’s 200 acres in Carroll County, Iowa. (Kathyrn Gamble for KFF Health News)
Survey Reflects Angst Over Healthcare
About half of rural voters said their communities don’t have enough doctors or other healthcare providers, and even more said there aren’t enough mental health workers specifically. The share of rural voters who said their community does not have enough hospitals increased to 35% from 21% in a similar question asked in a KFF-Washington Post survey in 2017.
And as with the general population, healthcare, gas, and grocery costs are top pain points. More than 6 in 10 rural voters said they were worried about healthcare costs.
The level of worry varied based on coverage, with rural voters enrolled in employer plans or Medicare less likely to be worried. The survey found that 80% of working-age rural voters on Medicaid were very or somewhat worried about healthcare costs. Last year, Republicans passed a tax and spending bill that cut over $900 billion in projected Medicaid spending over a decade and mandated new eligibility requirements.
Among rural voters who purchase their own insurance, such as the individual coverage plans available on Affordable Care Act marketplaces, 77% said they were worried.
In the tiny community of Lipan, Texas, west of Dallas, Kim Solis and her husband have a handyman-and-home-remodel business and get their insurance on the marketplace. Since Trump was elected again, their premium payment jumped from zero to $166 a month. Their copays went up, and their deductibles each increased by $2,000.
Solis, 62, said she worries what will happen if they get a big medical bill.
“Certainly, we’d be in a world of hurt trying to take money out of savings or getting it out of our 401(k) just to be able to do something about it,” she said.
Most MAHA Voters Are Also MAGA — But Not All
Like the general population, rural voters said they trust their own doctors and healthcare providers for health information over government agencies or officials, according to the poll.
Trust in Kennedy and Trump fell largely along partisan lines. About 10% of rural Democratic voters reported having a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in Kennedy, compared with 74% of rural Republican voters. About 5% of rural Democrats and 69% of rural Republicans said they trust Trump a “great deal” or “fair amount” for reliable health information.
While Make America Great Again and MAHA identities are “linked in a lot of ways,” the rising costs of healthcare and groceries pose a challenge for those committed to the MAHA principles that Kennedy promotes, said Peterson, the Iowa State professor.
Buying healthy food “becomes, ‘I can’t afford to do that because of Trump’s policies,’” he said.
In Stamping Ground, Kentucky, Alma Johnson, 65, works as night security at a horse farm. Johnson said gas had gone up but her overall cost of living had decreased since Trump took office.
Johnson voted for Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024 and said she “pretty much” likes how Trump is running the country. But she said she is not a MAGA devotee, preferring to “think for myself.”
MAHA, however, is an easy sell for Johnson because, she said, she doesn’t think people should be able to buy junk food through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
Still, she said she hasn’t seen much impact from the Trump administration’s healthcare policies, including the new food pyramid.
“It takes a long time to change people, their habits, their thoughts, or the things they do,” Johnson said.
About the Poll
The KFF-AP Rural Voters Survey was conducted online and by telephone Aug. 12-24, 2026, among 2,241 registered voters living in rural areas, defined as census tracts that fall within codes 5-10 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2020 Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes. Voters were reached through a combination of the probability-based SSRS Opinion Panel and a registration-based sample from the L2 voter file. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, including design effects due to weighting. Error margins are larger for subgroups. In collaboration with the AP, KFF researchers worked to design the survey sample and questionnaire and analyze and report findings.
This report is from a collaboration between KFF Health News and The Associated Press.
Angus reports on the basic research, clinical science, and drug development that may transform survival and quality of life for patients, as well as developments affecting the cancer community. You can reach Angus on Signal at angus.08.
The mRNA technology that built Moderna and BioNTech’s Covid-19 vaccines and is now being used to build cancer vaccines has been through political whiplash. But now, with clinical success from Moderna and Merck on using a personalized mRNA vaccine for melanoma, experts are hoping for a more stable future for the field.
“I don’t know how this will be received among parts of our society that have become suspicious of the word ‘vaccine.’ There’s a possibility that people will say, ‘Oh, if we can vaccinate against cancer, that’s good,’” said Ryan Sullivan, a Mass General Brigham melanoma physician and immunologist who has worked with Moderna. “Maybe that will thaw some of the stigma around vaccines. I don’t think it’ll fix all of it, but maybe just a little bit helps us think of ‘vaccine’ not as a dirty word, ‘mRNA’ as not a four-letter word.”
mRNA technology allows scientists to instruct cells to construct practically any protein or protein pieces by simply rewriting the mRNA’s genetic code. That is one of the technology’s greatest strengths, and what made it possible for scientists to develop Covid vaccines in under a year. It was also possible in part thanks to Operation Warp Speed, which helped fund and push the vaccine’s development. President Trump still calls it a “monumental national achievement” of his first term.
