Breaking Through: My Life in Science

by Katalin Karikó

My first message is this: We can do better. I believe we can improve how science is done at academic research institutions. For one thing, we might create a clearer distinction between markers of prestige—titles, publication records, number of citations, grant funding, committee appointments, etiquette, dollars per net square footage—and those of quality science. Too often, we conflate the two, as if they’re one and the same. But a person isn’t a better scientist because she publishes more, or first. Perhaps she’s holding back from publication because she wants to be absolutely certain of her data. Similarly, the number of citations might have little to do with the value of the paper and more to do with external events. When Drew and I published our landmark Immunity paper, it barely got any notice. It took a pandemic for the world to understand what we’d done and why it mattered. We can also expand the criteria by which we measure our scientists. Most institutions define a scientist’s value, first and foremost, by their funding. But most grants require a researcher to define at a very high level of detail what work they will do, what discoveries they might make. I’d argue that science, at its best, is about asking questions, trying things, and going wherever that inquiry takes you. It requires walking into the unknown—the unknown is the very point!