Interview with the 2025 Nobel Prize laureate in physiology or medicine Mary Brunkow on 6 December 2025 during Nobel Week in Stockholm, Sweden.

Can you tell us about your childhood? 

Mary Brunkow: I grew up in Portland, Oregon, on the west coast of the US. I have two brothers. I’m in the middle. I had a very nice childhood. Not too much drama. We lived in basically the same house the whole time I was growing up. I went to Catholic schools for grade school and high school. I always liked math and science and just kind of science of all types in general. I didn’t have like a particular thing that I was really into. I was a good student and a good kid. In high school I tried, I tried to be athletic. I was on the track and cross country teams, but always pretty bad. I liked basketball and volleyball and stuff, but it was always just for fun. Not super competitive.

When I started making plans to go to university I really wanted to go to the University of Washington, which is up in Seattle, just a few hours away from Portland. What was really attractive to me, I think was the size of it. It’s a really huge university. High school was getting very small. It was a pretty small school I was in, and I wanted something bigger and in a bigger city. University of Washington was a great experience. I loved it. It had so much going on all the time and so many resources and things for students. 

Was there a single defining moment when you decided to pursue science?

Mary Brunkow: When I started university, I really thought I wanted to go to medical school. My paternal grandfather was a doctor and surgeon, which I found really intriguing. I really wanted to help people. I also went through a period of time when I really wanted to be a veterinarian, because I loved animals, and I really wanted to do that sort of caring and healing. Later in my years at University of Washington, I was in a upper level genetics class, and the professor, dr Sandler was just, he was so enthralling, the lectures were just amazing. I knew I really liked genetics, but the way he taught, he was also telling stories about the people who made the discoveries and all this kind of thing. 

So the genetics was exciting to me. And then I had the very good fortune of being able to do an undergraduate research project in his lab. Research honestly was not something I had ever even considered. There was nobody I knew who was a researcher. It just wasn’t anything that crossed my mind. But the minute I walked into that laboratory and saw… There was just something about the environment of people who were so into what they were doing. So excited about their projects, but also having a good time. It was a really close knit group. Dr Sandler was such a mentor and teacher and real cheerleader for people. He really took care of his graduate students and his postdocs and made sure that they were ready for the next stage. It was really through discussions with him that I decided I wanted to apply to graduate school. That launched the whole career in research, but it was really kind of a late decision, I guess, but I don’t have no regrets, it was a good way to go. 

What drew you into science?

Mary Brunkow: The thing that drew me into science and research was just a reason to really focus on something for one thing. Not everything is as interesting as everything else, you know? You have to find the thing that is of most interest. I like the idea of really diving deep into something. Science in general is really a process of seeking the truth. You would hope that the things you learn are really the way things are, as opposed to something that’s based on a belief where there’s really no proof. I like the idea of something really concrete and coming up with a discovery that proves something. The other thing that is exciting about research is that – it’s also something that makes it frustrating – is that you’re never really done. You find something, it’s a discovery and that always leads to the next hypothesis, the next question that you need an answer for. It is a constant process of discovery, which is also frustrating at times, because you don’t ever really finish anything. 

What do you think about the importance of collaboration in science?

Mary Brunkow: Collaboration is key. It may depend on the particular field that you’re in, but at least in the areas that I have had experience with, collaboration is absolutely important. Both from the point of view of just having more people to share ideas with and bounce things off back and forth. But also, honestly, you can’t be an expert in everything, so you need to bring in the different expertise. And I think it just makes it more fun as well, as long as you have good collaborators that you get along with. I have been very fortunate to be to have interacted with a lot of really great people. One person can’t do it all. I was very lucky to have a couple of really top-notch research assistants in the lab, who had magic fingers when it came to just doing the molecular biology work in the lab, but also, they were just so smart and quick. I always felt like they could make suggestions for how experiments should go and that sort of thing. I was never one who had a set way that things needed to be done, because I really trusted that they also were perfectly capable of reading the literature, coming up with new ideas for ways to do things. Besides that small core team, there were a number of other really talented people in the lab as well that would contribute their particular expertise when we needed it for a short time.

It was a really open environment where there was no sense of trying to hold on to your own little domain. No competition between groups or anything like that. Which I think again goes back to the idea that in this biotech company, the whole organisation had a single goal, and that’s what we needed to do. You couldn’t have single people who were looking to outshine. Whereas in an academic environment, there is more emphasis on truly promoting yourself, especially when you’re a graduate student or a postdoc, because you must go out into the world and get a competitive position somewhere. So it’s not uncommon at all for there to be a little bit more of a competition between people and protecting your domain and needing to excel. That’s fine in some situations. But I think in this environment where I found myself working with Fred, we would all succeed if we all worked together trying to achieve these goals. 

Is diversity in science important?

Mary Brunkow: For sure. A diverse group amongst your collaborators is key. The diversity comes from both scientific expertise, but also just the background of people. One thing that nobody ever told me when I went into science is how important personality is. When I went into science, I kind of had this sense that it’s just based on the truth. A fact is a fact and science is going to happen the way it should. But in fact, there’s a lot of influence from the people that you’re working with, and the way that discoveries are conveyed to each other and among a group. How smoothly a project moves forward depends on the personalities of the people who are working there. That was like a huge awakening for me when I finally realised that, gosh, personalities really make a big difference. It’s important to collaborate, but you also need to find the right mix of people, and you need to be a good team player yourself. 

What characteristics do you need to be a successful scientist?

Mary Brunkow: The characteristics of a successful scientist would include being curious about things and very persistent. A successful scientist can’t be afraid of losing their way or things not working every once in a while, because that’s just the fact of life in research. So you have to have persistence and courage to keep moving forward. That sense of curiosity is really important. 

What advice would you give to a young researcher?

Mary Brunkow: One of the most important things is to keep an open mind both when it comes to the science itself. Of course, discoveries come from places where you never imagined, so you have to keep an open mind and keep your eyes open to different pathways, as you’re journeying through a topic of interest, but also an open mind in terms of career path and where you go in life. I would say I’m a pretty good example of that, of one who has kind of changed directions and not stayed on one single track. I think that’s really important, because I worry about especially young people who think they have a really strong sense of where they want to be and where they’re going. Sometimes doors open off to the side a little bit. There’s nothing wrong with exploring different options. 

How important is it that we keep investing in doing basic research?

Mary Brunkow: Absolutely, I have a very strong belief that we need to keep investing in basic research. Just the nature of science, everything builds on everything else. You can’t always see the value of something at the time that you’re investing in it and working in it. But over time, over the last couple hundred years, we certainly have seen evidence that discoveries that you didn’t know how important they were, become important because they form the basis of the next discovery. So it’s absolutely critical that we keep finding ways of using public funds or philanthropic funds. There has to be a way to keep those basic discoveries coming. It’s probably a small subset of those basic discoveries that then get translated into real life applications that help people. But you can’t predict ahead of time which ones of those are the ones that are really going to be winners in the end. 

Could you describe your career path? 

Mary Brunkow: I went to graduate school at Princeton University. My other most important mentor in my career is Shirley Tillman, who I did my PhD with and really learned with. She was such a good role model, especially for young women, but really anybody in her orbit was very lucky to have her there. She’s an exceptional scientist, made us work hard, but funny and warm and a great cheerleader. I did my thesis work and then did a postdoctoral training period up in Toronto. It was kind of during my postdoc time where I was doing work that was very interesting to me, and I was surrounded by all these graduate students and postdocs who were also very enthusiastic about what they were doing.  

For the most part, people were really headed towards academic careers, but I started to feel like I would be more satisfied if I was in a situation where I was doing something that had a more direct application to human health mostly. The idea of a biotechnology company was very attractive to me. This was an exciting time in science. In the early nineties, the concept of the Human Genome Project was really taking off and new technologies and approaches to genomics was new. That was very exciting to me. When I had this opportunity to work for a small company in Seattle whose whole vision was around using genetics and gene discovery to find new drug targets, that seemed like a really nice fit.

I always felt like I was really in a place where I had the best of both worlds where we were doing really interesting basic research, that I thought was as exciting as anything I would be doing in an academic lab, but it was within the context of an organisation who had to really stick with a goal. Everybody was working towards the same goal of finding new drug targets that would eventually be hopefully developed into drugs. We weren’t around that long, I started working there in 1994. I think the labs had only been in place since 1993, and then our doors were closed in 2004, unfortunately. That’s how business goes. During that period of time, when I was working as a bench scientist at Darwin Molecular I was working super hard, to the exclusion of most everything else in my life. When the doors closed in 2004, it was kind of a forced reset.

Looking back, I am thankful actually that I had the opportunity to really reconsider how things were going in my life. I took some time to do some different things to see really where I wanted to fit. I did work again at another small biotech company and lost that job as well because of a big layoff across the board. They cut a lot of people. Now I am in a more academic setting. But I’m also working more from a project management and programme management point of view, which suits me because it’s interesting to be part of a project from a 30,000 foot level or bird’s eye view of a project and making sure that all the different parts are working together and moving forward.  

It’s also the kind of position where I have a lot of flexibility and it’s made it easier to balance work and other things in life. I just realised that that was really important to me. It’s been a satisfying way to go career-wise. I know plenty of other women scientists who have found ways to balance work and life and really challenging and high pressure jobs. I wanted to be able to do both well. 

Could you tell us about your co-laureate Fred Ramsdell?

Mary Brunkow: Fred is great. He’s become a good friend of mine over the years, and working with him during that nine or 10 year period was really great because he’s very personable, funny and warm. The people who worked for him were always extremely loyal to him, because he really cared about people and really did what he could to make sure that they were moving forward in their careers and stuff. Even as the leader of that immunology team at Darwin, he was in there still working at the bench himself. Day-to-day, he was really interacting on a very real level with the folks in his team. 

I was in a different group. I was in the genomics molecular biology group, and there was a lot of interaction between the groups. It wasn’t a very big company, everybody knew each other. On a real day-to-day basis, we interacted a lot. He’s very humble and very generous with his time. He is a very good collaborator. I think he’s a very good role model for really honestly wanting to take advantage of the experience that other people bring. He really sees the value in more brains is better than one brain. He’s very easy to work with. 

What motivates you to conduct research?

Mary Brunkow: I am motivated by a sense of helping people and supporting people. If that means contributing my intellect and expertise on something, that’s great, then that’s the way I will help. But if it means just being supportive in some other non-scientific way as well, that’s also really important to me. I am just a caring person. It brings me great satisfaction to help others to succeed. 

What do you like to do in your spare time?

Mary Brunkow: I enjoy being in the outdoors, so I enjoy like walking, hiking, biking. I don’t always find as much time doing those things as I would like. I also enjoy reading and I like films and baking. I would like to spend more time in the kitchen at some point. It’s always been a balance between work and family. Recently, my children have left the home, although I still think about them all the time and do what I can to help them out into the world. So that still takes time. I would love to travel more as well. 

What sparks your creativity?

Mary Brunkow: Baking is a place where I feel creative. I also enjoy sewing, designing and trying to solve a problem. It’s usually a problem that I’m trying to solve, turning something into a three-dimensional article of clothing. I do like the problem-solving side of that. 

How did the news of your Nobel Prize reach you?

Mary Brunkow: The morning of October 6th is etched upon my mind. The calls started coming in at about 1 a.m. I was sound asleep and my phone was near my bed. It just buzzed with a phone call. I just looked at it and it was this long international number. It did say Sweden. Every once in a while, you get the weird call from Nigeria or somewhere, and I’m not answering that. In fact, these days I don’t answer the phone if it’s not a number I recognise. I figured they’ll leave a message if they really need to get hold of me. So I put the phone down and then a couple minutes later, it buzzed again. I thought, well, usually the scam artists are not that persistent. It was 1:00 a.m., I was sleepy, so I put the phone in ‘do not disturb’ mode and went back to sleep and didn’t realise until hours later that it was also happening with my husband’s phone on the other side of the bed. 

He was also getting calls, and he also turned his phone off. A couple hours later I was aware of some activity and my husband got up. He knocked something over, he knocked a lamp over or something, but he said, it’s okay. He went out, left the room, and then I heard voices and I thought, he’s on the phone or what’s going on? Then there was a woman’s voice and I thought, what’s going on? Next thing I know, he came back in the bedroom and turned on the big overhead lamp, and he said, you’ve won a Nobel Prize. I just thought, well, that is crazy. That’s just ridiculous. He said, no, you come into the living room, and there’s this young woman, she’s got a couple big cameras slung around her neck. 

Her boss called her up at 2 a.m. or something, and said, you must go to this address and get pictures of the reaction. She was the one who actually had to tell us why she was on our front porch at 3:30 a.m. So she was taking a risk, knocking on doors, on strangers at that time of day. The only way my husband would let her in the front door is if she held up her phone to the window in our door, that had the press release. It took a couple hours before I started to realise that this was not a hoax, it was not a scam. I had Thomas Perlmann on the phone and Adam Smith. That was an amazing morning.  

How does it feel knowing that your research has helped so many people?

Mary Brunkow: That has been an amazing thing over the last two months, since the prize was awarded. I have spent a lot of time in the last two months really taking stock of what has happened in the last 20 years, since we published papers and to really see how that particular field in immunology has really taken off. So satisfying to see that things are actually being turned into potential therapies and treatments. While I am not directly involved in that work these days, it is really satisfying and it’s really humbling to think that what I would consider a kind of a small part of the puzzle I had a role in. That’s tremendously gratifying. It’s overwhelming because it’s nothing that I would’ve predicted at the time that we did the work. 

I knew it was interesting. I knew it was really interesting to me, and it was interesting to our team, but there was no sense of what’s this going to do for the world? It’s been amazing. I also have heard from an awful lot of people. I get emails from people who oftentimes is just, ‘thank you for the work you’ve done.’ But there’s also an awful lot of messages from people who are really suffering, or someone in their family is suffering from autoimmune disease or whatever, and they’re begging for help. That’s hard, because I am not a medical person and I’m not even working in that field of immunology. So that’s been really hard, because on the one hand we have contributed to these great advances, but the job is not done yet. We’re not just curing people of their autoimmune diseases. So that’s hard, but it makes me hopeful that we’re on the right track and the field will continue to make big advances, and that’s great. 

Watch the interview

Did you find any typos in this text? We would appreciate your assistance in identifying any errors and to let us know. Thank you for taking the time to report the errors by sending us an e-mail.