A 19-year-old won $100,000 for inventing a cheaper, faster way to make antiviral drugs out of corn husks
Galidesivir targets RNA viruses like COVID-19, Ebola, and Zika but hasn't completed clinical trials.
Kovalčík won a $100,000 science fair award for using corn waste to synthesize the drug.
When Adam Kovalčík flew to Ohio for an international science competition, he did not expect to come home with $100,000.
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."
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.
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."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
COVID Revenge Is Supercharging the Anti-Vaccine Agenda
Four and a half years ago, fresh off the success of Operation Warp Speed, mRNA vaccines were widely considered—as President Donald Trump said in December 2020 —a 'medical miracle.' Last week, the United States government decidedly reversed that stance when Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. canceled nearly half a billion dollars' worth of grants and contracts for mRNA-vaccine research. With Kennedy leading HHS, this about-face is easy to parse as yet another anti-vaccine move. But the assault on mRNA is also proof of another kind of animus: the COVID-revenge campaign that top officials in this administration have been pursuing for months, attacking the policies, technologies, and people that defined the U.S.'s pandemic response. As the immediacy of the COVID crisis receded, public anger about the American response to it took deeper root—perhaps most prominently among some critics who are now Trump appointees. That acrimony has become an essential tool in Kennedy's efforts to undermine vaccines. 'It is leverage,' Dorit Reiss, a vaccine-law expert at UC Law San Francisco, told me. 'It is a way to justify doing things that he wouldn't be able to get away with otherwise.' COVID revenge has defined the second Trump administration's health policy from the beginning. Kennedy and his allies have ousted prominent HHS officials who played key roles in the development of COVID policy, as well as scientists at the National Institutes of Health, including close colleagues of Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (and, according to Trump, an idiot and a 'disaster'). In June, Kennedy dismissed every member of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which has helped shape COVID-vaccine recommendations, and handpicked replacements for them. HHS and ACIP are now stacked with COVID contrarians who have repeatedly criticized COVID policies and minimized the benefits of vaccines. Under pressure from Trump officials, the NIH has terminated funding for hundreds of COVID-related grants. The president and his appointees have espoused the highly disputed notion that COVID began as a leak from 'an unsafe lab in Wuhan, China'—and cited the NIH's funding of related research as a reason to restrict federal agencies' independent grant-awarding powers. This administration is rapidly rewriting the narrative of COVID vaccines as well. In an early executive order, Trump called for an end to COVID-19-vaccine mandates in schools, even though few remained; earlier this month, HHS rolled back a Biden-era policy that financially rewarded hospitals for reporting staff-vaccination rates, describing the policy as ' coercive.' The FDA has made it harder for manufacturers to bring new COVID shots to market, narrowed who can get the Novavax shot, and approved the Moderna COVID-19 vaccines for only a limited group of children, over the objections of agency experts. For its part, the CDC softened its COVID-shot guidance for pregnant people and children, after Kennedy—who has described the shots as 'the deadliest vaccine ever made'—tried to unilaterally remove it. Experts told me they fear that what access remains to the shots for children and adults could still be abolished; so could COVID-vaccine manufacturers' current protection from liability. (Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, said in an email that the department would not comment on potential regulatory changes.) The latest assault against mRNA vaccines, experts told me, is difficult to disentangle from the administration's pushback on COVID shots—which, because of the pandemic, the public now views as synonymous with the technology, Jennifer Nuzzo, the director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University School of Public Health, told me. Kennedy justified the mRNA cuts by suggesting—in contrast to a wealth of evidence—that the vaccines' risks outweigh their benefits, and that they 'fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.' And he insisted, without proof, that mRNA vaccines prolong pandemics. Meanwhile, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya argued that the cancellations were driven by a lack of public trust in the technology itself. In May, the Trump administration also pulled more than $700 million in funds from Moderna that had initially been awarded to develop mRNA-based flu vaccines. The mRNA funding terminated so far came from HHS's Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority; multiple NIH officials told me that they anticipate that similar grant cuts will follow at their agency. (In an email, Kush Desai, a spokesperson for the White House, defended the administration's decision as a way to prioritize funding with 'the most untapped potential'; Nixon echoed that sentiment, casting the decision as 'a necessary pivot in how we steward public health innovations in vaccines.') COVID is a politically convenient entryway to broader anti-vaccine sentiment. COVID shots are among the U.S.'s most politicized vaccines, and many Republicans have, since the outbreak's early days, been skeptical of COVID-mitigation policies. Although most Americans remain supportive of vaccines on the whole, most Republicans—and many Democrats—say they're no longer keen on getting more COVID shots. 'People trust the COVID vaccines less,' Nuzzo told me, which makes it easy for the administration's vaccine opponents to use attacks on those vaccines as purchase for broader assaults. For all their COVID-centric hype, mRNA vaccines have long been under development for many unrelated diseases. And experts now worry that the blockades currently in place for certain types of mRNA vaccines could soon extend to other, similar technologies, including mRNA-based therapies in development for cancer and genetic disease, which might not make it through the approval process at Kennedy's FDA. (Nixon said HHS would continue to invest in mRNA research for cancer and other complex diseases.) Casting doubt on COVID shots makes other vaccines that have been vetted in the same way—and found to be safe and effective, based on high-quality data—look dubious. 'Once you establish that it's okay to override something for COVID,' Reiss told me, 'it's much easier to say, 'Well, now we're going to unrecommend MMR.'' (Kennedy's ACIP plans to review the entire childhood-immunization schedule and assess its cumulative effects.) Plenty of other avenues remain for Kennedy to play on COVID discontent—fear of the shots' side effects, distaste for mandates, declining trust in public health and medical experts —to pull back the government's support for vaccination. He has announced, for instance, his intention to reform the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps protect manufacturers from lawsuits over illegitimate claims about a vaccine's health effects, and his plans to find 'ways to enlarge that program so that COVID-vaccine-injured people can be compensated.' Some of the experts I spoke with fear that the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee—the agency's rough equivalent of ACIP—could be remade in Kennedy's vision. The administration has also been very willing to rescind federal funding from universities in order to forward its own ideas: Kennedy could, perhaps, threaten to withhold money from universities that require any vaccines for students. Kennedy has also insisted that 'we need to stop trusting the experts'—that Americans, for instance, shouldn't have been discouraged from doing their own research during the pandemic. He could use COVID as an excuse to make that maxim Americans' reality: Many public-health and infectious-disease-focused professional societies rely on at least some degree of federal funding, Nirav D. Shah, a former principal deputy director of the CDC, told me. Stripping those resources would be 'a way to cut their legs off'—or, at the very least, would further delegitimize those expert bodies in the public eye. Kennedy has already barred representatives from professional societies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, from participating in ACIP subcommittees after those two societies and others collectively sued HHS over its shifts in COVID policy. The public fight between medicine and government is now accelerating the nation onto a path where advice diverges over not just COVID shots but vaccines generally. (When asked about how COVID resentment was guiding the administration's decisions, Desai said that the media had politicized science to push for pandemic-era mandates and that The Atlantic 'continues to fundamentally misunderstand how the Trump administration is reversing this COVID era politicization of HHS.') The coronavirus pandemic began during the first Trump presidency; now its legacy is being exploited by a second one. Had the pandemic never happened, Kennedy would likely still be attacking vaccines, maybe even from the same position of power he currently commands. But without the lightning rod of COVID, Kennedy's attacks would be less effective. Already, one clear consequence of the Trump administration's anti-COVID campaign is that it will leave the nation less knowledgeable about and less prepared against all infectious diseases, Gregory Poland, a vaccinologist and the president of Atria Research Institute, told me. That might be the Trump administration's ultimate act of revenge. No matter who is in charge when the U.S. meets its next crisis, those leaders may be forced into a corner carved out by Trump and Kennedy—one from which the country must fight disease without adequate vaccination, research, or public-health expertise. This current administration will have left the nation with few other options.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
Rudolph and all of the other reindeer are probably dying from climate change
is an environmental correspondent at Vox, covering biodiversity loss and climate change. Before joining Vox, he was a senior energy reporter at Business Insider. Benji previously worked as a wildlife researcher. It's bad enough that climate change is ruining the dream of a white Christmas for many people, as warming makes snow in some regions less likely. Now, apparently, it's coming for reindeer, too. Reindeer aren't just creatures of Christmas myth; they're real animals — a kind of deer that live in the Arctic, from northern Europe and Russia to North America, where they're commonly known as caribou. These animals are remarkably adapted to cold weather, sporting thick fur, a snout that warms the air they take in, and uniquely structured hooves that help them shovel snow to find food, such as lichen. But they've also survived bouts of Arctic warming that occurred thousands of years ago, thanks to their ability to travel long distances in search of colder habitats. These adaptations are, however, no match for modern climate change. The Arctic is warming quickly from a higher baseline temperature compared to natural fluctuations in the distant past. Wild reindeer search for food under the midnight sun on the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Circle. Ben Birchall/PA Wire Over the last few decades, wild Arctic reindeer populations have declined by about two-thirds, from 5.5 million to around 1.9 million, largely due to warming, according to previous research. Rising temperatures can affect reindeer health directly — causing the animals to overheat and get sick — and indirectly by limiting their supply of food. Now, it's clear those declines will likely continue. A new study in the journal Science Advances found that if the world doesn't quickly rein in greenhouse gas emissions, the global wild reindeer population could plummet by nearly 60 percent by the end of the century. Those declines will be far more severe in North America, where they could exceed 80 percent, according to the study's models, which reconstructed 21,000 years of reindeer population data using fossil records, DNA, and other data sources. That's because North America is expected to lose more habitat that can support reindeer to warming than elsewhere, said Damien Fordham, a study author and researcher at the University of Adelaide. Even under a more modest emissions scenario — in which countries cut back what they spew into the atmosphere — the study projects steep population declines. You can see these results in the chart below, which shows projected declines based on a high and moderate emissions scenario, respectively. 'These results are absolutely concerning,' said Jennifer Watts — Arctic program director at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, a nonprofit research organization — who was not involved in the new study. 'Given how quickly and severely the Arctic is warming at present, the results from this study are not overly surprising, and should serve as yet another wake-up call for humans to curtail anthropogenic drivers of climate warming.' The study offers yet another example of how climate change is threatening biodiversity and how those threats in turn affect humans. Reindeer are not only a critical food source for some Arctic Indigenous communities — like Alaskan Natives and the Inuit people of North America — but also a cornerstone of their culture, similar to salmon or wolves for some tribal nations in other parts of the US. If major polluting nations, like the US, China, and India don't curtail their emissions, it could further endanger the food sovereignty of those communities. Beyond their direct impact on human well-being, reindeer also shape the tundra ecosystems — quite literally making them what they are — by limiting the growth of trees and shrubs, spreading seeds, and fertilizing the soil. 'We should care about the fate of reindeer and caribou with the same concern we give to the fate of polar bears and other Arctic animals,' Watts told Vox. 'The well-being of entire ecosystems and humans living across the Arctic depend on their survival.'
