The editors of the title there constructed different meaning from what the text is about. It's actually about one "universal vaccine candidate." In the media, t

The editors of the title there constructed different meaning from what the text is about. It's actually about one "universal vaccine candidate." In the media, that shouldn't be called a "vaccine" in this phase of development. The authors of the paper used: "vaccine approach" in their title which is also not misleading. That title is also more informative (but also longer): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1118-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1118-7 "A chimeric hemagglutinin-based universal influenza virus vaccine approach induces broad and long-lasting immunity in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase I trial" Even that seems quite readable, as today there's much more awareness what "randomized, placebo-controlled" means and also what the phases of the vaccine development are and what "broad and long-lasting immunity" means. The title I'd suggest would be: use "vaccine approach" or "vaccine candidate" and just use "passes first clinical test" instead of: "shows promise in" it. And it seems the candidate passed it, from the abstract: "Vaccination was found to be safe and induced a broad, strong, durable and functional immune response"