Challenger App

No.1 PSC Learning App

★
★
★
★
★
1M+ Downloads
What was the general response to Karikó's work before the COVID-19 pandemic?

Read the passage and choose the most appropriate answer from the options provided: ​Katalin Karikó fled Hungary in 1985 with her family. She was thirty, held a Ph.D in Biochemistry, and believed in an idea few scientists took seriously: that messenger RNA could train human cells to fight disease. It would take nearly forty years for the world to recognize her belief. ​Leaving communist Hungary, Karikó, her husband, and their two-year-old daughter arrived in the United States with no financial security. Karikó began a postdoctoral job in Philadelphia earning $17,000 a year, supporting a growing family. Early conflicts with a supervisor nearly led to her deportation, and a promised position elsewhere vanished, damaging her professional reputation. ​At the University of Pennsylvania, where she began work in 1989, Karikó persisted with mRNA research despite repeated rejection. Grant applications failed, and mRNA was dismissed as unstable and impractical. In science, the absence of funding often means invisibility. Karikó insisted the issue lay in technique, not the molecule, but few listened. Soon after, her university demanded she abandon mRNA research or accept a demotion. She chose demotion. Her salary stagnated for years, falling below that of lab technicians, and she considered leaving science entirely. ​A turning point came in 1997, when Karikó met immunologist Drew Weissman by chance at a photocopier. They began collaborating quietly, without funding or recognition. Even Weissman faced skepticism. Yet in 2005, they made a breakthrough: modifying mRNA so it would not trigger a harmful immune response. Their discovery enabled mRNA to function safely in the body. ​Top scientific journals rejected their paper, calling it incremental. It was published with little notice. Their patents were undervalued, and Karikó's work remained largely ignored. In 2013, she was forced out of the university and joined a small German biotech company, BioNTech, despite ridicule. ​Then came COVID-19. The long-dismissed technology became the backbone of rapid vaccine development. mRNA vaccines saved millions of lives. ​In 2023, Karikó received a Nobel Prize for work once deemed worthless. She had never been celebrated early, promoted, or encouraged. She persisted because the science mattered. And when the world needed it most, it was ready.

AIt was widely applied in medicine

BIt was partially accepted but underused

CIt was rejected due to ethical concerns

DIt was undervalued and largely ignored

Answer:

D. It was undervalued and largely ignored

Read Explanation:

  • The passage repeatedly emphasizes that before COVID-19, Karikó’s work was dismissed, rejected by journals, denied funding, undervalued in patents, and largely unnoticed by the scientific community.

  • Her research was considered impractical and unimportant until the pandemic demonstrated its value.


Related Questions:

The term "green light" indicates that the speaker
The opposite of the word 'valuable' is formed by prefixing it with...........
Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage: Why does the author mention protests and voting as examples?

Which of the following best describes the author's tone in the passage?

Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage:

In the tireless pursuit of achievement, the contrast between hard work and smart work appears not simply as a preference but as a subtle interplay within human productivity. Hard work-linked with sustained effort, unwavering perseverance, and sheer diligence-has long been praised as the foundation of accomplishment. Stories and biographies often glorify the individual who relies on grit and time to reach goals. Yet in a world shaped by precision tools, automation, and mental efficiency, these older assumptions are increasingly questioned. By contrast, smart work emphasizes strategic deployment of effort-using reflection, optimal resource use, and careful situational judgment. It attempts to reduce waste in labour while boosting returns on both thought and action. Smart workers examine systems, identify bottlenecks, and exploit tools-digital platforms or networks-to accelerate results. They step off the treadmill of one-direction exertion by embedding intelligence into execution.

Still, praising smart work alone creates its own weakness. Intelligence without discipline often ends in shallowness-a surface-level capability that collapses under prolonged pressure. In the same way, relentless hard work without strategic course-correction can cause exhaustion and low effectiveness. Thus, modern success demands a blend: the wise worker mixes determination with strategy, working not only harder but better. The contrast is therefore not an either-or divide but a complementary relationship. Treating either extreme as ideal ignores the complex realities of performance. In today's demanding landscape, the combined force of persistence and precision makes outcomes sustainable and impact stronger. Success, ultimately, is not produced by blind toil or cleverness alone, but by intelligent perseverance.

From a broader viewpoint, what claim does the author make about hard work and smart work?

Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage:

In the tireless pursuit of achievement, the contrast between hard work and smart work appears not simply as a preference but as a subtle interplay within human productivity. Hard work-linked with sustained effort, unwavering perseverance, and sheer diligence-has long been praised as the foundation of accomplishment. Stories and biographies often glorify the individual who relies on grit and time to reach goals. Yet in a world shaped by precision tools, automation, and mental efficiency, these older assumptions are increasingly questioned. By contrast, smart work emphasizes strategic deployment of effort-using reflection, optimal resource use, and careful situational judgment. It attempts to reduce waste in labour while boosting returns on both thought and action. Smart workers examine systems, identify bottlenecks, and exploit tools-digital platforms or networks-to accelerate results. They step off the treadmill of one-direction exertion by embedding intelligence into execution.

Still, praising smart work alone creates its own weakness. Intelligence without discipline often ends in shallowness-a surface-level capability that collapses under prolonged pressure. In the same way, relentless hard work without strategic course-correction can cause exhaustion and low effectiveness. Thus, modern success demands a blend: the wise worker mixes determination with strategy, working not only harder but better. The contrast is therefore not an either-or divide but a complementary relationship. Treating either extreme as ideal ignores the complex realities of performance. In today's demanding landscape, the combined force of persistence and precision makes outcomes sustainable and impact stronger. Success, ultimately, is not produced by blind toil or cleverness alone, but by intelligent perseverance.