Extensive journey from 1992 breakthrough to 2024 Nobel

Back in 1992, Gary Ruvkun and Victor Ambros were not celebrated figures in their discipline when they uncovered microRNA, an achievement that would lead to the 2024 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine.

“We were doing alright. We weren’t awful,” stated Ruvkun, a genetics professor at Harvard Medical School. “However, nothing about it indicated that we were extraordinary!”

Even after the previous Harvard partners disclosed their results in the journal Cell in 1993, showcasing a new tier of gene regulation in the C. elegans roundworm, the evolutionary biology sector remained unimpressed. It was unclear if the genes identified by Ruvkun and Ambros, who is now a professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, held significance for other species, including humans.

Rather, their work, primarily financed by the National Institutes of Health, attracted attention from a smaller faction of RNA researchers and what Ruvkun refers to as the “worm community” — those engaged with the same model organism.

MicroRNA-based therapies aimed at treating heart disease, cancer, Crohn’s Disease, and Alzheimer’s are currently undergoing clinical trials.

Nevertheless, the interest in the RNA sector continued to expand. Gatherings that once attracted 100 participants swelled to twice that number within a few years. It became obvious that the same microscopic RNAs played analogous roles in plants and worms, prompting scientists from various disciplines to inquire into the same issues.

Ruvkun began to recognize, “This represented revolutionary material, and we were the sole individuals contemplating tiny RNAs globally.”

Decades of federally supported advancements have since deemed microRNAs essential to the development, maturation, and functionality of organisms — serving a pivotal role in translating genes into proteins.

Research has unveiled that the human genome harbors approximately 1,000 microRNAs that oversee most human protein-generating genes. MicroRNA-based therapies designed to combat heart disease, cancer, Crohn’s Disease, Alzheimer’s, and a host of other ailments are presently in clinical evaluation.

Ruvkun notes that approximately three-quarters of his laboratory research has received federal backing for the past four decades, averaging around $150,000 annually. This funding sustains a team of about four individuals. “It’s not like I manage a lab of 50,” he remarked.

He expresses confusion at discussions advocating cuts to federal funding, highlighting that expenditures related to scientific endeavors are far from futile. “The average compensation for individuals in my laboratory has consistently been about three times the minimum wage,” he stated. “These are scientists, and they possess substantial education. They hold Ph.D.s or are pursuing Ph.D.s, yet their earnings are just slightly superior to working at Dunkin’ Donuts.”

Ruvkun takes pride in the fact that foundational research from his area has facilitated the establishment of major pharmaceutical companies such as Alnylam, which specializes in the discovery, development, and commercialization of RNA interference treatments for genetic disorders.

“It ranks among the 10 largest corporations in Massachusetts,” he remarked, “and it didn’t even exist 20 years ago.” He is also pleased that his research has made sufficient impact that he can persist in basic science while others are concerned about business ramifications.

Among the top 500 corporations in the nation, Ruvkun notes that well over half are technology-driven — with much of the foundational research underpinning them funded by federal grants. He attributes the transformation of the U.S. into a scientific and economic powerhouse during and after World War II to federal funding.

He expresses concern that a deficiency in investment could drive members of his lab away from scientific research.

“I have all these individuals who are 25, 30 years old, and they’re pondering, ‘What career path do I have? What will I do next?’” The answer, he suggested, might mirror the post-war trend in reverse: They could leave the U.S. for more stable roles in Europe.