Comments
  1. The New York Times CompanyGINA KOLATA4/8/2112 min
    2 reads3 comments
    10
    The New York Times Company
    2 reads
    10
    You must read the article before you can comment on it.
    • SEnkey2 years ago

      On Nov. 8, the first results of the Pfizer-BioNTech study came in, showing that the mRNA vaccine offered powerful immunity to the new virus. Dr. Kariko turned to her husband. “Oh, it works,” she said. “I thought so.”

      To celebrate, she ate an entire box of Goobers chocolate-covered peanuts. By herself.

      • Jessica2 years ago

        Such a precious moment!

    • Jessica2 years ago

      Dr. Kariko’s story is so endearing. In some ways, each step of her journey is a miracle.

      Her struggles with shifting from one institution to another due to lack of funding is a painful reflection of the system that governs scientific research grants. I recently read a book (Decade of the Wolf) that chronicled the introduction of Yellowstone wolves, revealing many new understandings of wolf biology and their ecological role. It was not lost on the lead researcher (Dr. Doug Smith) how modern research is always looking for short-term results because of how grant research is dispersed (often limited to a few years of funding), extremely steep competition, and the academic world of “publish or perish.” Of course it is absurd to expect to arrive at conclusions about wildlife behavior in short amounts of time. Similarly, I think of the rigor in Dr. Kariko’s studies running parallel with the early unfamiliarity (and thus hesitation) to better understand mRNA technology —the answers to these big scientific questions unfold very slowly, beyond the scope of what a short funding period can provide. The pressure to produce some “interesting” or “groundbreaking” results to be able to obtain additional funding is very stressful, especially since we often reach answers through figuring out what the answers are not.