A 19-year-old won $100,000 for inventing a cheaper, faster way to make antiviral drugs out of corn husks
The 19-year-old from Dulovce, Slovakia won that sum on Friday, though, because he developed a faster and cheaper way to make an experimental antiviral drug called galidesivir, which targets RNA viruses like COVID-19, Ebola, and Zika virus.
"This could be a huge step to help prevent some of these RNA viruses," Chris RoDee, a chemist and retired patent examiner, told Business Insider.
Early studies have shown galidesivir can attack RNA viruses, but it has not undergone full clinical trials. Kovalčík thinks he can encourage further research by slashing the cost of producing the drug — from $75 per gram to about $12.50 per gram.
That's because he used corn waste to synthesize twice as much of the drug in just 10 steps, rather than the 15 steps currently required for manufacturing.
Kovalčík even went one step further: He used his method to make a new drug that could also fight RNA viruses.
Kovalčík presented his findings at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair (ISEF) in Columbus, Ohio, this week. The judging committee, which RoDee chaired, chose Kovalčík for the competition's top prize: the $100,000 George D. Yancopoulos Innovator Award.
"I cannot describe this feeling," Kovalčík told BI after receiving the award in a lively ceremony on Friday. "I did not expect such a huge international competition to be won by someone from a small village in a small European country, so it was just pure shock."
Student research at ISEF does not go through the rigorous peer-review process that studies pass before they're published in scientific journals.
However, RoDee said that Kovalčík's chemistry was "really elegant" and his presentation to the judges was "bulletproof."
From corn husks to antiviral medicine
Kovalčík's big cost-saving innovation started with corn husks.
Well, it started with furfuryl alcohol, which comes from corn husks and is relatively cheap compared to other starting points for making drugs.
One by one, Kovalčík added chemicals to a flask of furfuryl alcohol in the lab, like building blocks adding to the molecule, until he got a crucial sugar called aza-saccharide. It only took seven steps to get there.
From there, it was only three more steps to get galidesivir.
"He was able to shortcut this entire process," RoDee said. "He basically halved the number of steps because he just went in through a different door."
Kovalčík's process takes five days. The conventional manufacturing method, he said, takes nine days.
Eventually, he produced another drug, too. Based on early computer calculations, Kovalčík thinks his new molecule could be five times as effective as galidesivir against COVID-19 — binding more strongly to enzymes to kill the virus.
Big plans for drugs and perfume
Kovalčík said he's filed a preliminary patent on his drug-synthesis process.
He also plans to work more with a research group at the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, which has supported his project so far.
To be used commercially, Kovalčík's drug-manufacturing process would have to scale up. At the moment, he said, he's struggling to find a way to make more than 200 liters of galidesivir.
He also plans to work with the university researchers on improving other drug-synthesis processes.
"They actually have much more designs and much more new drugs to prepare and test," he said.
Kovalčík's ambitions don't end with advancing drug manufacturing, though. He said he also wants to use his chemistry skills and prize money to start a company that manufactures eco-friendly perfumes from corn.
"From the first time I stepped foot into a lab, I knew that I wanted to do something related to chemistry," Kovalčík said.
Now that he's won recognition for it, he added, "I feel incredible."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Couple Take 'Romantic' Beach Pic—Horror As They Fear Danger in Plain Sight
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A woman has shared a shocking story of how she believed she almost killed her husband—by asking him to pose for a romantic photo. Aslıhan, 52, who gave her first name only, is originally from Turkey but now lives in California with her family, whom she described to Newsweek as loving "snorkeling and exploring marine life." After the associated restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic came to an end, the family decided to celebrate with an unforgettable vacation to Bora Bora, a tranquil island in French Polynesia, famous for its luxury resorts and stunning marine life. And, one day, walking on the shore, Aslıhan said she "spotted a beautiful shell," which she picked up and placed on her husband's hand for a romantic photo, before returning it to where she found it. Aslıhan didn't think much of it again—until, years later, her kids saw a video "about deadly sea creatures," and appeared to recognize the shell from their parents' photo. When she later asked ChatGPT to identify the creature in the photo, it determined it "looked like a venomous cone snail." Cone snails, within the Conidae family, are predatory gastropod mollusks. The venom from just one snail is hypothesized to have the potential to kill up to 700 humans, according to a report published in the National Library of Medicine. Tourists may inadvertently pick up the creatures, thinking it is a harmless snail or a shell souvenir, and several humans have died from envenomation from the cone snail—with injuries most often occurring on the palms and fingers. Aslıhan's husband holds the shell she picked up on the beach. Aslıhan's husband holds the shell she picked up on the beach. Reddit u/KremKaramela Aslıhan was horrified, and took to Reddit's r/Wellthatsucks via her account u/KremKaramela on August 5, where she shared the photo and wrote: "I almost killed my husband. "I found this beautiful shell in Bora Bora and put it on my husband's hand we took a 'romantic' photo only to learn years later that its venom is deadly," she wrote, adding: "It gives me chills every time I think I put my husband's life in danger." Reddit users had a big reaction, awarding the post more than 53,000 upvotes; however, many commenters rushed to assure Aslıhan that she may not, in fact, have almost killed her husband. As one commenter put it: "This is a Mitra mitra. Not a cone snail, and not deadly. However, it's still a good reminder to not pick up random sea creatures." Another agreed: "Pretty sure this is just a mitra mitra shell, very commonly sold and I can't find anything about poison." Read more Woman picks up shell—only to learn it's one of the deadliest on Earth Woman picks up shell—only to learn it's one of the deadliest on Earth "It's almost definitely mitra mitra as others have pointed out. Absolve your guilt, your husband was safe," a third posted, adding: "It is best to not touch animals in the wild, because you really never know, but also because they deserve to live their lives without being bothered or handled by humans." And, in positive news, the Marine Biological Association (MBA) confirmed to Newsweek that the creature is indeed an episcopal miter, Mitra mitra. This species of large sea snail is harmless to humans. However, the MBA recommends that, if a member of the public needs to identify a shell, they should send an image, location and habitat to the Conchological Society email, marine@ Aslıhan told Newsweek it was "definitely a relief to hear it might not have been the deadly species, but I'm still upset with myself for possibly putting us at risk." "We haven't returned to Bora Bora since, but this experience wouldn't stop us from going back," she said. "That said, I'll never again pick up or handle any unknown marine life—lesson learned!"
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Long Covid's lingering financial side effects
LONG COVID'S TOLL — More than five years after the Covid-19 pandemic first ravaged the nation, many Americans are still dealing with the social and economic fallout of having contracted the disease. People with long Covid — those who have new or persistent symptoms lasting three months past infection — have experienced worse financial and employment outcomes, lasting up to three years after their initial infection, compared with people who haven't had the disease, according to a study published Tuesday in JAMA Network Open from researchers at Rush University Medical Center, Yale School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and other research institutions. Long Covid patients reported worse work impairment, missed work and financial distress compared with those who never had Long Covid, the study found. Vaccination against Covid was associated with improved work and economic outcomes. Not just physical: 'While much of the focus in Long COVID research has been on the medical impact, we must also consider the sustained financial burden faced by those whose symptoms persist,' lead author Michael Gottlieb, an emergency medicine doctor and vice chair of research at Rush, said in a statement. Addressing the financial burden of long Covid might 'require policy interventions, such as expanded disability benefits or workplace accommodations to help combat the work and financial impact of this condition,' the authors wrote. The researchers analyzed self-reported data from more than 3,600 participants in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry, a CDC-funded initiative aimed at better understanding Covid's long-term effects. Why it matters: About 6 percent of U.S. adults suffer from some form of long Covid, according to CDC estimates. The National Institutes of Health believes that as many as 23 million people have the illness, which can range in severity from mild to debilitating. The symptoms, which can include fatigue, headaches and brain fog, can be life-disrupting for many patients. Some treatments, like Paxlovid, have shown promise in reducing symptoms, but being diagnosed and finding suitable treatment can be difficult because of the disease's wide range of symptoms that often overlap with other conditions. HHS recently shut down its long Covid office, a casualty of the Trump administration's sweeping reorganization of the agency. At the time the closure was announced, an HHS employee who worked on long Covid and who was granted anonymity to share details of the move told POLITICO that abandoning work that could have cured the disease means the country's health care system will have to provide years, if not decades, of costly care for tens of millions of chronically ill people. In March, the Trump administration also canceled dozens of grants for long Covid projects, but some funding was restored after advocates fought back. WELCOME TO WEDNESDAY PULSE. I'm still reeling from Taylor Swift announcing her new album. Send your Swiftie theories, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and sgardner@ and follow along @kelhoops and @sophie_gardnerj. At the Agencies LOOMER'S LATEST PREY — After successfully ousting several members of Trump's administration for alleged insufficient loyalty, far-right activist and MAGA influencer Laura Loomer tells our colleagues at Playbook that she has her next target: Stefanie Spear, the principal deputy chief of staff and senior counselor to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The reason why, in part: 'I think that there's a clear intention by Stefanie Spear to utilize her position to try to lay the groundwork for a 2028 RFK presidential run,' Loomer alleges. Asked for comment by Playbook, a senior HHS official did not deny that Kennedy is weighing a presidential bid. Read the full story in this morning's Playbook. CDC LATEST — CDC officials held a tense all-hands meeting Tuesday in the aftermath of last week's shooting at the agency's Atlanta headquarters, Sophie reports with POLITICO's Amanda Friedman and Lauren Gardner. The meeting came as law enforcement officials revealed early Tuesday additional information about the nature of the shooting: The man who opened fire at the agency on Friday died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound and was motivated by his distrust of Covid-19 vaccines. Agency update: At the CDC's all-hands meeting, Director Susan Monarez thanked employees for their work and acknowledged that 'misinformation can be dangerous,' according to a live transcript obtained by POLITICO. 'In moments like this, we must meet the challenges with rational, evidence-based discourse spoken with compassion and understanding,' she said. 'That is how we will lead.' CDC employees were closely watching Monarez at the meeting to see how she would respond to the shooting and the news that the suspected shooter had expressed distrust of the Covid vaccine. Two CDC employees, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO that Monarez's speech was not what they'd hoped. '[Twenty minutes] of reading off a teleprompter,' one of the employees said in a text, adding that Monarez's remarks prompted an 'overwhelmingly negative response from folks in my immediate orbit.' Another agency employee said the meeting was in stark contrast to a separate meeting held for the CDC's National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases staff on Saturday, where employees could ask Monarez questions. What's next: HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said that staff would have 'continued opportunities' to voice their perspectives to CDC leadership in the days ahead. 'Friday's shooting was a traumatic event for the agency, and leadership is working to provide continued updates along with resources for healing and recovery,' Nixon said in a statement. DOGE SAVINGS — The Trump administration has drastically exaggerated how much money it has saved through DOGE-related cuts to federal contracts, including at health agencies, according to an analysis of public data and federal spending records from POLITICO's Jessie Blaeser. Through July, DOGE said it had saved taxpayers $52.8 billion by canceling contracts, but of the $32.7 billion in actual claimed contract savings that POLITICO could verify, DOGE's savings over that period were closer to $1.4 billion. Despite the administration's claims, none of that $1.4 billion will lower the federal deficit unless Congress steps in. Instead, the money has been returned to agencies mandated by law to spend it. The health claims: Under the VA, DOGE's wall of receipts reported savings of $932 million from contracts canceled through June, including awards for a cancer registry, suicide-prevention services and other health care support. Federal records show the VA recovered just $132 million from the awards, or less than 15 percent of what DOGE claimed, and that the VA reinstated the contract for suicide-prevention support. One of DOGE's largest savings claims is from a canceled contract for a shelter in Pecos, Texas, to house unaccompanied migrant children. In a post on social media platform X in February, DOGE said HHS 'paid ~$18M/month' to keep the now-empty center open. Canceling the agreement, it said, would translate to more than $215 million in annual savings for taxpayers. By the time the contract was added to the DOGE termination list, that savings claim skyrocketed to $2.9 billion. But HHS and its Office of Refugee Resettlement were not on track to spend anywhere close to the contract's $3.3 billion ceiling. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Tyler Katzenberger reports on a federal judge blocking the Trump administration from using Medicaid beneficiaries' personal data for immigration enforcement purposes. Bloomberg Law's Celine Castronuovo reports on Texas' attorney general accusing Eli Lilly of unlawfully pushing providers to prescribe its blockbuster obesity drugs and other treatments to receive Medicaid payments.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Why many Americans are rethinking alcohol, according to a new Gallup poll
WASHINGTON — Fewer Americans are reporting that they drink alcohol amid a growing belief that even moderate alcohol consumption is a health risk, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. A record high percentage of U.S. adults, 53%, now say moderate drinking is bad for their health, up from 28% in 2015. The uptick in doubt about alcohol's benefits is largely driven by young adults — the age group that is most likely to believe drinking 'one or two drinks a day' can cause health hazards — but older adults are also now increasingly likely to think moderate drinking carries risks. As concerns about health impacts rise, fewer Americans are reporting that they drink. The survey finds that 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcoholic beverages such as liquor, wine or beer. That's lower than at any other point in the past three decades. The findings of the poll, which was conducted in July, indicate that after years of many believing that moderate drinking was harmless — or even beneficial — worries about alcohol consumption are taking hold. According to Gallup's data, even those who consume alcohol are drinking less. The federal government is updating new dietary guidelines, including those around alcohol. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, government data showed U.S. alcohol consumption was trending up. But other government surveys have shown a decline in certain types of drinking, particularly among teenagers and young adults. This comes alongside a new drumbeat of information about alcohol's risks. While moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for heart health, health professionals in recent years have pointed to overwhelming evidence that alcohol consumption leads to negative health outcomes and is a leading cause of cancer. Younger adults have been quicker than older Americans to accept that drinking is harmful, but older adults are coming around to the same view. About two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds believe moderate drinking is unhealthy, according to the poll, up from about 4 in 10 in 2015. Older adults are less likely to see alcohol as harmful — about half of Americans age 55 or older believe this — but that's a substantial increase, too. In 2015, only about 2 in 10 adults age 55 or older thought alcohol was bad for their health. In the past, moderate drinking was thought to have some benefits. That idea came from imperfect studies that largely didn't include younger people and couldn't prove cause and effect. Now the scientific consensus has shifted, and several countries recently lowered their alcohol consumption recommendations. Earlier this year, the outgoing U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, recommended a label on bottles of beer, wine and liquor that would clearly outline the link between alcohol consumption and cancer. The federal government's current dietary guidelines recommend Americans not drink or, if they do consume alcohol, men should limit themselves to two drinks a day or fewer while women should stick to one or fewer. Gallup's director of U.S. social research, Lydia Saad, said shifting health advice throughout older Americans' lives may be a reason they have been more gradual than young adults to recognize alcohol as harmful. 'Older folks may be a little more hardened in terms of the whiplash that they get with recommendations,' Saad said. 'It may take them a little longer to absorb or accept the information. Whereas, for young folks, this is the environment that they've grown up in … in many cases, it would be the first thing young adults would have heard as they were coming into adulthood.' The government is expected to release new guidelines later this year, under the directive of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promised big changes. Kennedy has not hinted at how the alcohol recommendations may shift. Slightly more than half of Americans, 54%, report that they drink alcohol — a low in Gallup's data that is especially pronounced among women and young adults. Young Americans' alcohol consumption has been trending downward for years, accelerating the overall decline in alcohol consumption. In sharp contrast with Gallup's findings two decades ago, when young adults were likeliest to report drinking, young adults' drinking rate is now slightly below middle-aged and older adults. Americans' reported drinking is among the lowest since the question was first asked in 1939. For most of the last few decades, at least 6 in 10 Americans have reported drinking alcoholic beverages, only dipping below that point a few times in the question's history. Even if concerns about health risks aren't causing some adults to give up alcohol entirely, these worries could be influencing how often they drink. The survey found that adults who think moderate drinking is bad for one's health are just as likely as people who don't share those concerns to report that they drink, but fewer of the people with health worries had consumed alcohol recently. About half of those who worry moderate drinking is unhealthy said they had a drink in the previous week, compared with about 7 in 10 who did not think drinking was bad for their health. Overall, only about one-quarter of Americans who drink said they had consumed alcohol in the prior 24 hours, a record low in the survey. Roughly 4 in 10 said that it had been more than a week since they had poured a drink.
