“You’re wearing a T-shirt that says, in English: ‘If you think research is expensive, try disease.’ Is that a statement?”
“To be honest, it was the only T-shirt I had that was clean. The quote comes from Mary Lasker—a prominent health activist in the United States. There is an award for medical research named after her, which my colleague Drew Weissman and I received.”
“Let’s talk about cancer. In a sense, you’ve spent your entire life researching something that could revolutionize cancer treatment. Yet, you became well-known for developing a COVID-19 vaccine. Why did that happen so quickly, and why does it take so long to develop an mRNA-based cancer vaccine?”
“You have to understand that a COVID vaccine targets a virus—you’re attacking the root cause of a disease directly. However, there are various reasons why cells might begin to divide uncontrollably. Therefore, a cancer vaccine has to do something different than a vaccine against a virus: instead of identifying and eliminating a pathogen, it needs to target cancer cells.”
“And where do we currently stand in the development of such vaccines?”
“We’re already seeing some successes. One approach involves the development of personalized cancer vaccines. We take a sample of tumor tissue, analyze the specific mutations present, and identify the unique surface structures of the tumor cells. This information allows us to create a vaccine tailored to the individual. The goal is to train the immune system to recognize and destroy those tumor cells. For instance, BioNTech conducted a study on pancreatic cancer: eight out of 16 patients did not respond to the personalized vaccine, but the other eight did—and seven of those were still alive six years later. Now, we need to understand why some patients don’t respond to such a vaccine, and what we can do about it.
Will we ever be able to cure cancer?
I am very optimistic about that. There are 650 students here in Lindau; they will find ways. One shouldn’t say that something is impossible just because one doesn’t yet know how to achieve it. As with Covid, the first step is to gain an even better understanding of what we are dealing with.
Did you know, right at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, that we would be able to get the virus under control using an mRNA-based vaccine? Or were you afraid that it might not work?
The answer to both is no. First of all, I wasn’t afraid—though that was partly because China felt so far away. Secondly, I’m not the type of person who has grand visions. Even back when I was a student, I couldn’t have imagined what my research on lipids—as a means of transport—might eventually be useful for. I simply conducted research on the topics I was assigned.
Do you remember the moment you realized that you had found the key solution to Covid-19?
You see, BioNTech actually specialized in immuno-oncology. In 2015, Ugur Sahin came to me and suggested that we launch a project focused on infectious diseases. He noted that while it wouldn’t be profitable, we had a moral obligation to do so. Initially, the focus was on something like Ebola, but there wasn’t much interest in that. Then, in 2018, Pfizer approached us with the idea of developing an mRNA-based flu vaccine. They were surprised when we agreed. We began development that same year and conducted successful trials with monkeys. A year later, we had already received authorization for human trials. So, when the genome sequence of the coronavirus was published in January 2020, we were able to work directly with that information and move straight into testing. The influenza virus and the coronavirus are sufficiently similar.
Many people—young scientists in particular—look up to you as a role model. And not just because of what you have achieved, but also because you speak openly about what didn’t work.
Yes, we talk about difficulties far too rarely.
When we discuss the future of young scientists, one topic is unavoidable: artificial intelligence. What is your take on it? Do you think it will advance research? Or do you fear what might emerge from an uncontrolled AI?
Right now, we are primarily seeing the negative aspects. Fake videos are circulating that try to convince people I am recommending certain medications. I have received emails from people saying they bought a drug based on my recommendation, only to find it didn’t help. Ultimately, however, things will always natural intelligence and science—because, ultimately, it’s about how things really are. In the U.S., there is currently a very negative attitude toward science and scientists—and not just in politics. Politics can only take such a stance against science because many people support it. Yet, it is precisely through research that we make effective medical treatments possible. But if we don’t explain this connection to them, someone else will—and they might say things that attack us, the scientists. I think we’ve reached this point because the gap between the knowledge of a scientist and that of the average person has become so vast. We need to speak more simply and explain what we do. After all, there are always people who want to learn things for themselves, but they are often intimidated by overly complex explanations. If someone then comes along and claims that RNA can alter one’s genome, they might just believe it. Most people have never set foot in a laboratory and have no idea how difficult it actually is to change a cell’s genetic makeup. When I try to explain why that is, many people lose the thread. It’s simply easier to believe that an mRNA vaccine enters the genome and alters it.
Are you personally afraid of anything?
No. You know, I’m 71 years old now. I live my life, doing the best I can every single day. Every time I boarded a plane in Mainz, I would think to myself: "Okay, I’ve made my contribution. If it ends now, then so be it."
And do you believe in anything?
If everything in my life had gone exactly the way I wanted, I wouldn’t be here. I never would have left Hungary, because I loved living there. And if the University of Pennsylvania hadn’t kicked me out and forced me into retirement at the age of 58—if they hadn’t put my belongings out in the hallway—then the BioNTech-Pfizer vaccine wouldn’t exist. As it happens, BioNTech wasn’t actually interested in modifying nucleosides. I had maintained good ties with CureVac since 2006. When I was let go, I reached out to Ingmar Hoerr and said, "Here I am. You know that I can work with modified RNA." And he replied, "Kati [1], my team says we don’t need that." The very next day, I traveled to BioNTech and gave a presentation in Mainz. I stated the same thing again: I would only stay if I could work on nucleoside-modified RNA. It is no coincidence that things turned out this way; it was fate.” [2]
1. Katalin "Kati" Karikó is a Hungarian-American biochemist whose foundational research on nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (mRNA) enabled the development of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.
Key Details
- Nobel Prize: Awarded the 2023 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine jointly with immunologist Drew Weissman.
- Breakthrough Discovery: In 2005, she and Weissman discovered how to modify mRNA nucleosides to reduce inflammatory immune responses, making it practical and safe for therapeutic use.
- Industry & Career: Co-founded RNARx (2006–2013), worked at the University of Pennsylvania for decades, and served as senior vice president at BioNTech (2013–2022).
- Current Roles: Serves as a professor at the University of Szeged in Hungary and as an adjunct professor of neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania.
2. Wir werden den Krebs besiegen!: Sie war die gefragteste Gesprächspartnerin auf der 75. Lindauer Nobelpreisträgertagung in Lindau. Ihre Forschung führte zum ersten mRNA-basierten Corona-Impfstoff. Gibt es bald auch neue Krebsimpfstoffe? Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung; Frankfurt. 03 Aug 2026: 13.
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą