Opinion: What you should know about a Minnesota bill that calls mRNA a ‘biological weapon’

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As president and co-founder of the Global Healthy Living Foundation, I’ve spent more than two decades advocating for people living with chronic disease. In Minnesota alone, we represent over 5,000 patients living with conditions like cancer, autoimmune disorders and other chronic diseases — individuals whose lives depend on the next generation of science.

That’s why a bill introduced last month at the Minnesota Legislature, HF 3219 — which attempts to label mRNA technology as a “biological weapon” — isn’t just misguided. It’s dangerous.

This technology is one of the most promising medical platforms of our time. It’s being applied to the fight against pancreatic cancer, to tailor treatments for melanoma, and to build a future where rare diseases are no longer orphaned by pharmaceutical innovation. At the University of Minnesota and other leading centers across the country, researchers are using mRNA to personalize medicine and dramatically reduce time to treatment. The very idea that lawmakers would move to ban or stigmatize this technology reflects not only a failure of science literacy — but a failure of empathy.

Let’s be clear: Banning mRNA doesn’t just block vaccines. It threatens research, clinical trials and the breakthroughs that thousands of families in Minnesota — and millions more across the country — are hoping for. It sends a signal that fear is more powerful than fact, and that scientific progress can be voted down by political posturing.

I’ve spoken with patients living with autoimmune diseases who’ve spent years cycling through medications, hoping for something that finally works. Many are watching mRNA with cautious optimism. They understand that this technology could one day reset how their immune systems function — and dramatically improve quality of life. For them, this isn’t abstract. It’s personal.

I don’t live in Minnesota, but many in our patient community do. And for good reason. Minnesota has long been a beacon of health care leadership and medical innovation. From the Mayo Clinic to Medtronic to world-class research institutions, this state has shaped how medicine is practiced around the world. That legacy is something to be proud of — and something worth protecting.

HF 3219 would not only isolate Minnesota from future medical investment — it would undermine that proud legacy and signal to the world that science is up for debate. Politics should never outrank evidence. Policy rooted in fear, not fact, puts lives at risk.

We must reject that idea.

It’s time for lawmakers, industry leaders and the advocacy community to speak up — together. Patients deserve facts, not fear. They deserve access, not barriers. And they deserve to know that when science offers them a lifeline, their leaders won’t be the ones cutting the rope.

Because in the end, this isn’t about technology. It’s about people. And they’re watching.