Not all medical research works exactly as described in the article. Reading between the lines, Dr. Karikó had what's called a "research faculty" appointment, w

Not all medical research works exactly as described in the article. Reading between the lines, Dr. Karikó had what's called a "research faculty" appointment, which basically means you don't need to teach but do need to pay your salary (and the salary of anyone employed in your lab) from grants. This is sometimes called a "soft money" position to reflect its precarious nature. This is in contrast to standing faculty, who are paid 9 months of their salary from the university operating budget, but must teach during those 9 months, leaving less time for research. The research faculty appointments exist because NIH grant money is plentiful, allowing more positions to exist than can be supported from the university operating budget alone. Essentially, researchers are permitted to bet their job on their ability to obtain grant money. Turn off the supply of grant money and the research faculty positions go away too. Most would not be replaced by standing faculty positions. The depressing reality is that it is mostly impossible to predict which basic research projects will prove to be essential in 25 years. I think people try anyway because basing funding awards / rejections on a nominally objective evaluation of project importance lends some emotional distance to the process. If hospitals were paid by patient outcome instead by procedure, it may create a financial incentive to use some of the organization's operating budget for applied research. But that wouldn't do much to help basic research with unclear future application such as the mRNA work. https://catalog.upenn.edu/faculty-handbook/ii/ii-b/ https://catalog.upenn.edu/faculty-handbook/ii/ii-b/