I recently read the story of how the mRNA COVID vaccine was developed, over decades of scientific investigation, by multiple scientists, and it is both fascinating in and of itself, and has real lessons in approaching the application of science to human society. This was recounted in an article in the New York Times, “Halting Progress and Happy Accidents: How mRNA Vaccines Were Made,” which gives a brief history of how this vaccine was developed, using science, and the scientific method based on scientific evidence—and I encourage readers to check it out. 

As the Times article states, “Vaccines protect people by giving the immune system a preview of an invading microbe [Ed: such as the COVID virus] so it can prepare a strong defense against the real thing.” These scientists based themselves on an advancing theoretical understanding of how viruses and the cells in the human body work. There were twists and turns, stubborn scientific work, fortuitous accidents, obstacles on various levels and in different arenas, and many examples of seizing and wrenching freedom out of seemingly crushing necessity. It was insightful both in understanding the development of the COVID vaccine, and what the scientific process can teach us about the concrete ways science actually works, including in its application to knowing and changing human society. I was struck by several points made in that article which I would like to share.

First, I want to stress a basic truth as emphasized by Bob Avakian:

… the scientific evidence—and widespread experience—is also very clear: the vaccines that have been developed to combat COVID are safe and very effective in preventing serious illness and death from this virus. And, if the great majority of people were vaccinated, in the U.S. and worldwide, this devastating pandemic could be brought under control.

Second, to step back and appreciate what science actually is. Science isn’t a set of answers, an instant answer or a predetermined solution, or just “good ideas” which scientists think up—it’s a process of understanding reality, applying a scientific method, and based on evidence—and this really comes through in the story of development of this mRNA vaccine. As Ardea Skybreak, herself a trained scientist, describes in her interview, SCIENCE AND REVOLUTION: On the Importance of Science and the Application of Science to Society, the New Synthesis of Communism and the Leadership of Bob Avakian:

… what is science, to demystify it a little bit. I mean, science deals with material reality, and you could say that all of nature and all of human society is the province of science, science can deal with all that. It’s a tool—science—a very powerful tool. It’s a method and approach for being able to tell what’s true, what corresponds to reality as it really is. In that sense, science is very different than religion or mysticism, or things like that, which try to explain reality by invoking imaginary forces and which provide no actual evidence for any of their analyses. By contrast, science requires proof. It requires evidence. It is an evidence-based process. That’s very important. Science is an evidence-based process. So whether you’re just trying to understand something in the world, or trying to figure out how to change reality—for instance, you might be trying to cure a disease, or you might be trying to understand the dynamics of a rain forest or a coral reef ecosystem, or you might be trying to make a revolution to emancipate humanity, you know, the full range of material experience–science allows you to figure out what’s really going on and how it can change.

Science isn’t based on what other people think, even what other scientists think, even though what they think is part of that process (and there are numerous illustrations of these in the story of the development of this vaccine). But it is based on reality, understanding more and more deeply how reality works, and its underlying dynamics and drivers.

Developing the Vaccine—Sketches of Insights

In terms of the process described, this really stood out as a key feature:

For years, though, the scientists who made the vaccines possible scrounged for money and battled public indifference. Their experiments often failed. When the work got too crushing, some of them left it behind. And yet on this unpredictable, zigzagging path, the science slowly built upon itself, squeezing knowledge from failure. [Emphasis added]

Parts of the process were described as “grindingly difficult.” But there were scientists, individually and in small collective groups, who worked hard towards what they saw as a solution which could change the world, with “little to no expectation of glory or profit.” The breakthroughs “unfolded over decades, little by little, as scientists across the world pursued research in disparate areas, never imagining their work would one day come together to tame the pandemic of the century.”

The necessity, the obstacles, they encountered were on different levels and at different times. The science of this work was very difficult. For example, the article describes one challenge which involved being able to map the “spike,” a protruding protein that allows the virus to invade cells, but which kept changing, as “trying to grab Jell-O.” Another big challenge was working with the molecule (mRNA) which enables the vaccine to interact with the DNA and which is instrumental in protein creation in cells (see Box). Another was developing a “delivery system” of the mRNA into the cell which the cell wouldn’t reject as an “alien” element attacking the body.

The discovery of mRNA itself gives a sense of the twists and turns of the process. For example, at a meeting in 1960 several scientists including future Nobel Prize winners Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner, “had an epiphany” when they figured out a key mechanism of how the genetic code in DNA actually results in protein creation, through a complementary short-lived molecule. They named this molecule “messenger” which we now know as mRNA (or “messenger RNA”). But the prominent scientists were more interested in DNA. As one stated, “mRNA was just annoying because it was so easily degraded [delicate, falling apart quickly].”

So for decades, mRNA was somewhat ignored. Here comes the role of accident, as the article describes. Decades later, another scientist, Dr. Drew Weissman had been working for years, unsuccessfully, on an HIV vaccine. One day in 1998 he was approached at the copy machine by another scientist, Dr. Katalin Karikó, who had been marginalized, with no permanent position, no grant money and no publications. But she was an mRNA scientist. “I can do anything with RNA.” And she wanted to work on the HIV vaccine—which was the focus of their vaccine work at that point. (Read more about her here.)

At this point the idea of a mRNA vaccine was considered a “fringe idea that few scientists thought would work,” but this pair of scientists worked for seven years on this concept. “Countless experiments failed. They wandered down one blind alley after another.” But eventually they solved the mystery and published a paper with their results. In 2005 they submitted their paper to the prominent scientific journals Nature and Science and were rejected. “Despite the naysayers, Drs. Karikó and Weissman believed their discovery could change the world.” They knew the importance of the science and the importance of developing vaccines, so they kept at it and contributed ultimately to why the mRNA vaccine for COVID could be developed so rapidly.

And then there were the obstacles, necessity, driven off the dynamics of capitalist society—for example, some scientists deciding that more money was to be made in other kinds of drugs, business disputes, an intellectual property rights fight and other “unnecessary” necessities created by capitalism-imperialism.

There is much to learn from how these scientists went at solving the problems they faced, going back to and basing themselves on what they did understand, experimenting to learn what they didn’t yet understand, working together, sharing knowledge of advances and setbacks, not being deterred by failures, or adverse “public opinion.” I was reminded of Skybreak’s emphasis: 

I read somewhere that Neil deGrasse Tyson, in popularizing the importance of science, said something like—I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something like: Science allows you to confront and identify problems, to recognize problems and figure out how to solve them, rather than run away from them.