Akiko Iwasaki, 2023

“Long COVID has taught the world that these diseases are real, there is a biological basis for them, and we need to study them.”

Akiko Iwasaki made this statement in Yale School of Medicine’s October 31, 2023 account of Long COVID and other chronic illnesses that can follow infection. The immunobiologist was drawing attention to conditions whose persistent symptoms had often received too little recognition. Her words link two responsibilities: taking an illness seriously and investigating how it develops. The first does not require pretending that every mechanism is already understood; the second begins with the willingness to ask questions rather than dismiss an experience that remains difficult to explain. Iwasaki’s research concerns immunity, but the quotation also addresses a wider relationship between science and the people who need its answers. The year marks the published account. In this series, May 10 provides an occasion to consider that relationship without treating the calendar date as an anniversary of the statement.

The invitation to study these illnesses is particularly important because identifying a biological difference is only one stage of understanding a disease. An NIH research summary published in October 2023 describes a study, coauthored by Iwasaki, that compared immune and hormonal features in people with Long COVID and comparison groups. The work identified differences that could inform further investigation into potential markers and mechanisms. Those findings should not be confused with an established test or a demonstrated treatment. Research must determine what an observation means, how well it holds up and whether it proves useful in care. This distinction protects the value of the work: a promising result need not carry a larger claim than the evidence supports. It also helps explain how recognition and uncertainty can coexist. Accepting that people are experiencing serious health problems does not oblige a scientist to choose a premature explanation for them.

For readers, Iwasaki’s quotation challenges a familiar habit of treating an unanswered question as a reason to stop asking it. An illness can alter someone’s ability to work, maintain relationships or manage daily tasks even while the explanation remains incomplete. Respectful attention to that experience and rigorous investigation serve different but related purposes. One acknowledges what a person is living through; the other seeks knowledge that may eventually improve how the problem is understood. Neither is strengthened by reducing people to a debate about whether their difficulties count. The practical implication is a form of curiosity with responsibility attached: ask what evidence is needed, make room for affected people’s accounts and assess findings carefully as they emerge. This reading does not promise a quick solution or a single cause shared by everyone. It preserves the central demand of Iwasaki’s statement: persistent illness deserves sustained scientific attention.