The basic science and technology behind mRNA did not come easy and did not come quick. If the skeptics of Covid-19 vaccines knew this they might be less skeptical because one of the reasons they sometimes give for their skepticism is the speed with which the vaccines were developed. (Other reasons for skepticism I think are more defensible, such as the worry that the authorities downplayed the real side-effects that some vaccine recipients suffered from the vaccines. But on balance I still think the vaccines were a great achievement.) One of the heroes of the long slog is Katalin Karikó. Part of her story is sketched in the passages quoted below. She is a good example of an innovative medical project entrepreneur. When she was named a winner of the Nobel Prize she identified part of what it takes to succeed: “we persevere, we are resilient” (Karikó as quoted in Mosbergen, Loftus, and Zuckerman 2023, p. A2).
(p. A2) The University of Pennsylvania is basking in the glow of two researchers who this week were awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for their pioneering work on messenger RNA.
Until recently, the school and its faculty largely disdained one of those scientists.
Penn demoted Katalin Karikó, shunting her to a lab on the outskirts of campus while cutting her pay. Karikó’s colleagues denigrated her mRNA research and some wouldn’t work with her, according to her and people at the school. Eventually, Karikó persuaded another Penn researcher, Drew Weissman, to work with her on modifying mRNA for vaccines and drugs, though most others at the school remained skeptical, pushing other approaches.
. . .
. . . on Monday [Oct. 2, 2023], when Karikó and Weissman were awarded the Nobel, on top of prestigious science prizes in recent years, the school expressed a different perspective on their work.
The reversal offers a glimpse of the clubby, hothouse world of academia and science, where winning financial funding is a constant burden, securing publication is a frustrating challenge and those with unconventional or ambitious approaches can struggle to gain support and acceptance.
“It’s a flawed system,” said David Langer, who is chair of neurosurgery at Lenox Hill Hospital, spent 18 years studying and working at Penn and was Karikó’s student and collaborator.
. . .
Penn wasn’t the only institution to doubt Karikó’s belief in mRNA when many other scientists pursued a different gene-based technology. In a reflection of how radical her ideas were at the time, she had difficulty publishing her research and obtaining big grants—prerequisites for those hoping to get ahead in science and gain academic promotions.
Another reason her relationship with the school frayed: Karikó could antagonize colleagues. In presentations, she often was the first to point out mistakes in their work. Karikó didn’t intend to offend, she just felt the need to call out mistakes, she later said.
For the full story see:
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date October 4, 2023 [sic], and has the title “After Shunning Scientist, University of Pennsylvania Celebrates Her Nobel Prize.”)
The source of the Karikó quote in my opening comments is:
(Note: the online version of the story was updated October 2, 2023 [sic], and has the title “Pioneers of mRNA Find Redemption in Nobel Prize.”)
For more detailed accounts of Karikó’s life, struggles, and research see:
Karikó, Katalin. Breaking Through: My Life in Science. New York: Crown, 2023.
Zuckerman, Gregory. A Shot to Save the World: The inside Story of the Life-or-Death Race for a Covid-19 Vaccine. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2021.