As an undergrad biology major at the University of Houston, Cole Woody played a pivotal role in a discovery by MD Anderson Cancer Center researchers showing preliminary data that suggests patients who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines within 100 days of starting immunotherapy were twice as likely to be alive after three years. He provided mechanistic insight into the hypothesis by measuring a significant increase in cancer-specific T cells following vaccination, providing evidence that the vaccines can train the immune system to better respond to checkpoint inhibitor treatments.While Woody acknowledges the promise of these findings, he emphasizes that no changes should be made to clinical care until the results have been validated in an upcoming phase III clinical trial. Although the study focused on two cancer types, it raises the possibility that broadly available, low-cost mRNA vaccines could substantially boost outcomes across additional cancers with similar immune evasion mechanisms. We speak with Woody to find out how it feels to have made such an early career achievement, and what he plans to do going forward.
What first sparked your interest in science, and in cancer immunology specifically? How did that develop from your undergraduate work into your current research at MD Anderson Cancer Center?
I can’t point to a specific moment, but I’ve always had a general fascination with the immune system. When I first started research, I realized how the immune system could be used as a tool to answer numerous biological questions. I fell in love with how dynamic and active it is, and I feel very fortunate to have discovered my passion for mRNA therapeutics early in my career. Over time, that interest has evolved from developing novel therapeutics to include exploring how we can repurpose existing treatments, such as mRNA vaccines, in cancer therapy.
What motivates you to tackle such large technical challenges?
Almost everything in immunology is a technical challenge, and that’s part of what keeps me so interested. The immune system is incredibly complex. For instance, cultured cells rarely behave as you expect them to, and when something finally works, you often wonder if it’s because you made a mistake!
The vastness of immunology and the ways mRNA therapeutics can be used to answer so many questions make me confident this field will be part of my life’s work. I can’t imagine a better lifelong career than in immunology.
How important have mentorship and collaboration been in your development, especially between the University of Houston and MD Anderson?
Invaluable. My first lab experience was under Dr. Preethi Gunaratne at the University of Houston Sequencing Core, where I started as an intern the summer before my freshman year. I worked 60 to 70 hours a week, not because I had to, but because I wanted to. That early dedication helped me build strong research skills and a solid foundation in immunology, which later prepared me for success when leading my own projects and collaborating at places like MD Anderson.
Are there any pivotal moments that stand out in your research experience?
One was when I was first asked to help on a single-cell sequencing project. At the time, the technology was still relatively new and extremely expensive. Often, you only get one shot with those samples, which makes it nerve-wracking.
It’s a highly technical and involved process, but that’s what makes it so rewarding when things go right. Of course, data analysis brings its own challenges; you solve one problem only to uncover ten more. Those constant roadblocks can be exhausting, but they also keep science endlessly interesting. You never reach a point where you know everything.
You’ve worked on developing custom antibodies to detect cancer-specific T cells. What challenges did you face there?
We didn’t face major issues producing the antibodies, though I may be jinxing myself by saying that! The harder part was deciding how to apply them. With flow cytometry, everyone has their own preferences: incubation times, temperatures, staining durations, and even different approaches to analyzing results.
I developed a streamlined, easy-to-follow protocol that has consistently produced strong results as long as we’ve stuck to it.
Which cancer types or immune evasion mechanisms do you think could benefit most from your research?
My focus is on refractory cancers, which don’t respond to existing therapies or evolve to evade treatment. In our recent study, we noticed an interesting trend: cancers appear to compensate for the immune activation triggered by mRNA vaccines by increasing expression of PD-L1, an immune checkpoint molecule.
This acts as a “brake” on the immune system, preventing T cells from detecting and attacking cancer cells. That’s where combining cancer vaccines with immune checkpoint inhibitors becomes crucial because they’re designed to release that brake.
What regulatory barriers do you foresee in translating your research into clinical settings?
The regulatory landscape is complex, and rightly so. Many of these rules exist because people were hurt in the past; they’re designed to protect public health. However, I think one of the biggest barriers today is social, particularly the public distrust in science. Admittedly, we as scientists sometimes contribute to that distrust by using overly technical jargon. It’s vital to communicate clearly, in plain language, to build understanding and trust. If people don’t trust a treatment, even if it works, they won’t use it, and then it helps no one.
So helping the public understand your work is a major motivator for you?
Absolutely. I’m not doing this just for myself. My ultimate goal is to help others. But if people don’t use these treatments because of misinformation or lack of understanding, not because of the science, then my research can’t reach its full impact. I want to view things from multiple perspectives: scientific, clinical, and social. That’s essential for meaningful progress.
Where do you think the pharmaceutical industry has gone wrong in its communication with the public?
I think communication with the general public has often been an afterthought. It needs to be intentional and given the proper time and resources. You can’t just continue “business as usual” and expect people to suddenly understand your work. It’s also important to make science feel human. Too often, communication is overly technical and futuristic, which can seem cold. Scientists are regular people with families, friends, and motivations rooted in wanting others to live healthy lives. When we emphasize that shared humanity, we create stronger, more unified narratives.
How do you balance high-level research with your academic studies?
Honestly, some weeks it’s impossible. During one phase of the MD Anderson project, I worked about 95 hours in a single week, all during the school year! With limited time, you have to prioritize carefully. What makes it possible is a supportive community and a deep passion for what I do. As I apply for and advance through my MD-PhD, I plan to be more intentional with my time while still enjoying research just as much as I do now.
How might your research change the way vaccines are viewed or used in cancer treatment?
Most researchers already expect cancer vaccines to be used in conjunction with checkpoint inhibitors. What’s exciting is that existing mRNA vaccines like the COVID-19 vaccine may show similar immune activation effects, suggesting the possibility of repurposing other off-the-shelf mRNA therapeutics for cancer. If validated through rigorous clinical trials, this could make treatment approaches far more accessible, both physically and financially.
How do you see your career evolving? Will you stick with academia or make the leap into industry?
I plan to focus on immuno-oncology, using the immune system to fight cancer, and eventually lead clinical trials on mRNA-based cancer therapies. I don’t see myself working in industry, but I’ll collaborate closely with it. We need industry partners to make vaccines; they excel at that.
Some might say the industry has become too good and that rapid vaccine development has led to public skepticism. What would you say to that?
That’s fair. Efficiency can sometimes be mistaken for cutting corners. It’s crucial to explain that innovation doesn’t mean sacrificing safety. When we shrink computers, everyone celebrates, but when we make medical advances faster, people understandably get cautious. Transparency is key: explaining exactly what changed, how it improved the process, and whether any new safety measures were added. Withholding information only fuels hesitation.