Beyond Pro- and Anti-Vaccine

The Case for Personalized Vaccinology

Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. (with ChatGPT assistance)
Emeritus Professor of Theoretical Cell Biology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ

For more than a century, debates over vaccination have been polarized into two camps: pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine. This stark division has fueled endless political and cultural disputes, while leaving families and policymakers with no satisfying resolution. What if there were a third path—a scientifically grounded approach that transcends this binary?

I propose that such a path exists. Let’s call it Personalized Vaccinology.

---

1. The Problem with the Old Debate

The historical arguments typically rest on oversimplifications:

1. Pro-vaccine advocates emphasize that vaccines have eradicated or controlled devastating diseases such as smallpox, polio, and measles. They highlight public health benefits but often minimize the risk of adverse reactions.

2. Anti-vaccine advocates focus on real or perceived harms, sometimes extending genuine concerns about side effects into categorical rejection of all vaccines.

This two-sided framing generates more heat than light. It obscures the complex truth revealed by modern biomedical science:

• Vaccines are effective only for some patients for some diseases.

• Not all vaccines are harmful for all patients.

• It is in principle possible to identify those patients for whom a given vaccine may be harmful.

---

2. A New Scientific Frontier: RNA QR Codes

Recent advances in transcriptomics suggest a way forward. Every individual carries a unique “transcriptomic fingerprint”—patterns of RNA expression that reflect genetic predispositions, environmental exposures, and immune system readiness.

The RNA QR code technology under development aims to capture this fingerprint, offering a tool to identify which children (or adults) are likely to:

• Benefit strongly from a vaccine,

• Show minimal response, or

• Experience adverse effects.

While still at the early stage of validation, this technology embodies a larger paradigm shift: moving from one-size-fits-all medicine toward precision prevention.

---

3. The Three Approaches to Vaccination

We can now distinguish three broad approaches:

A. Anti-Vaccination
Rejects vaccines categorically, regardless of context or evidence.

B. Pro-Vaccination
Supports broad application of vaccines, emphasizing collective benefit while acknowledging rare risks.

C. Personalized Vaccination
Tailors vaccine recommendations to individuals using advanced biomedical technologies (such as RNA QR codes), seeking to maximize benefits and minimize harms.

---

4. Why Personalized Vaccinology Matters

The real solution to the century-old vaccine controversy is not to cling to extremes, but to embrace nuance. Personalized vaccinology provides a framework for:

• Improved safety through identification of at-risk individuals.

• Sustained public trust by addressing legitimate concerns without abandoning public health goals.

• Smarter use of technology to align medical practice with each person’s biology.

Just as precision oncology revolutionized cancer treatment, precision vaccinology has the potential to transform preventive medicine.

---

5. Conclusion

The vaccine debate will never be settled by slogans. It requires science. By recognizing the limitations of both pro- and anti- positions and advancing toward Personalized Vaccinology, we can honor both safety and efficacy, protecting not just populations but the individuals who make them up.

Perhaps this is how the century-old vaccine controversy finally finds resolution.