November 9, 2020

1 min read

Google Logo Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

Coronavirus Vaccine Is 90 Percent Effective in Large Trial, Pfizer Says

Genetic engineering could allow for speedy production as well

By Mark Fischetti & Jen Christiansen

Jen Christiansen

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Pfizer and BioNTech announced today that their experimental vaccine against the novel coronavirus is more than 90 percent effective in preventing the disease COVID-19, based on initial analysis of results from their large phase III trial. The two companies also report that no serious safety concerns have arisen thus far. To create the vaccine, researchers genetically engineered SARS-CoV-2 genes, captured their blueprint, embedded that blueprint into an RNA molecule in solution and injected the solution into the bodies of trial participants. The full method for this approach is outlined in the graphic below (light blue boxes), which originally appeared in the June 2020 issue of Scientific American.The trial’s data have not yet been submitted for peer-review publication. If the results hold up, Pfizer and BioNTech say they could manufacture large quantities of the genetically engineered vaccine quickly.

Credit: Jen Christiansen

Read more about the coronavirus outbreak from Scientific American here. And read coverage from our international network of magazines here.

Rights & Permissions

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

Jen Christiansen is acting chief of design and senior graphics editor at Scientific American, where she art directs and produces illustrated explanatory diagrams and data visualizations. She is also author of the book Building Science Graphics: An Illustrated Guide to Communicating Science through Diagrams and Visualizations (CRC Press). In 1996 she began her publishing career in New York City at Scientific American. Subsequently she moved to Washington, D.C., to join the staff of National Geographic (first as an assistant art director–researcher hybrid and then as a designer), spent four years as a freelance science communicator and returned to Scientific American in 2007. Christiansen presents and writes on topics ranging from reconciling her love for art and science to her quest to learn more about the pulsar chart on the cover of Joy Division’s album Unknown Pleasures. She holds a graduate certificate in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and a B.A. in geology and studio art from Smith College. Follow Christiansen on Bluesky @jenchristiansen.com

More by Jen Christiansen

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe