How Government Cuts Threaten Herpes Research and Treatment
What's at Stake for Millions Living with Herpes
The narrative of the “lazy government worker” isn’t just misleading—it’s dangerous for our health.
While conservative media perpetuates the myth of government inefficiency, those of us who understand public service know a story that isn’t being told. Dedicated government scientists and researchers are the backbone of medical advancement in this country.
Growing up in the DMV (D.C., Maryland, and Virginia) as the daughter of federal employees, I witnessed firsthand the vital work happening behind government doors. My own path took me through government internships and contracts before grad school, then to a nonprofit research institute largely funded by government grants. Throughout these experiences, I saw with my own eyes how public funding drives the scientific breakthroughs that change lives.
For those who value evidence-based healthcare and research, the mass firing of experienced government employees should be alarming. These aren’t faceless bureaucrats or line items to cut. These are scientists, researchers, and public health experts whose work directly impacts our wellbeing, including our sexual health.
What Will Happen to the NIH Strategic Research Plan?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services signals a shift that could drastically undermine vaccine research and public health funding. Many don’t consider what this could mean for ongoing research, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Strategic Research Plan for Herpes Research that was scheduled to run through 2028. This important initiative is likely in jeopardy.
Last November, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) announced funding opportunities aligned with this plan. The funding would support research into better treatments that could potentially reduce outbreaks, ease symptoms, and in some exciting cases, target the virus where it hides in the body. These aren't abstract scientific pursuits—they represent real hope for the millions living with recurrent herpes infections who need more effective and lasting treatment options
With language like “sexual and gender minorities” and “women,” the Strategic Plan for Herpes Research is sure to fail the new definition of gender (which is based on a politically motivated and scientifically flawed definition). Even if it somehow passed the test, the widespread firing of federal employees makes it unlikely that the plan could reach its intended fruition.
We're at a critical juncture where the future of these promising research applications is hauntingly uncertain. Changes in leadership and funding priorities could delay or jeopardize the review process, and the scientists leading these efforts may face challenges in continuing their work.
Can Big Pharma Save Us?
You might ask, “What about Big Pharma? Well, there’s some encouraging progress happening in the private sector. Last week, Assembly Biosciences (ASMB) announced promising results for a new herpes treatment developed with Gilead Sciences. This medication, ABI-1179, represents a different approach to treating herpes.
Current herpes medications, like acyclovir and valacyclovir, are like having to take a daily vitamin, while this new while this new treatment would be more like a once-weekly booster, potentially offering longer-lasting protection with fewer doses. In early testing with healthy volunteers, the medication stayed active in the body for about four days and showed good safety results. The next phase of testing, expected in fall 2025, will involve people with herpes infections.
ASMB is also developing another medication that may remain effective for up to 20 days, potentially allowing for monthly dosing. Imagine only having to think about your medication once a month instead of every single day.
While these developments show promise, it's important to remember that private industry research often builds upon groundwork laid by government scientists. Many breakthrough medications we rely on today began in government-funded labs, with pharmaceutical companies later developing and commercializing them. Of course, even if these drugs succeed, there's no guarantee they'll be affordable or widely accessible—especially without government support for patient assistance programs.
In moments like these, the disconnect between policy decisions and human impact becomes painfully clear. Spreadsheets and budgets can't capture what's at stake when we gut research programs or undermine public health infrastructure.
When Reality Lacks the Hollywood Ending
I keep thinking about that scene from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation, where Clark Griswold doesn't receive his anticipated Christmas bonus. Clark is devastated because he's already spent the money on a pool for his family. When Cousin Eddie hears about this injustice, he kidnaps Clark's boss, wraps him in a bow, and delivers him to the Griswold home.
With police surrounding the house and chaos ensuing, the CEO has his moment of clarity. He realizes it wasn't just a line item to cut—it was people's families, their dreams, their lives. "Sometimes things look good on paper," he admits, "but lose their luster when you see how it affects real folks."
But our reality offers no such narrative satisfaction. Instead, we're witnessing something far less cinematic. Strategic research plans quietly shelved. Dedicated scientists clearing out their desks. Decades of institutional knowledge walking out the door. And what replaces them? Often nothing.
The cruel irony is that the people who most need these researchers to succeed, those living with conditions like herpes, are largely invisible in this conversation. They don't appear in political speeches about government waste. They don't have lobbyists fighting for their interests in congressional hallways.
What they have—what they had—was not overnight cures or miracle treatments, but the steady, unsexy work of scientific progress.
There won't be a heartwarming third-act revelation where decision-makers suddenly understand what they've dismantled. No wrapped-in-a-bow moments of clarity. Just the quiet reality that when we choose ideology over evidence, real people with real conditions feel the impact.
And unlike a holiday comedy, there's no guarantee of a happy ending.