Inside Cancer Careers

In this episode of Inside Cancer Careers, we hear from MK Holohan, Director of NCI's Office of Government and Congressional Relations, and Julie Nickson, Director of Federal Relations at American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACSCAN). They discuss their careers in government relations and the significant role it play in support of cancer research. Later, we hear from Dr. Roy Herbst, who is a Professor, Deputy Director, and Chief of Medical Oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital. He is also the Assistant Dean for Translational Research at the Yale School of Medicine, and we also hear from Jon Retzlaff, who is the Chief Policy Officer and Vice President of Science Policy and Government Affairs at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR). They share their career journey in cancer research, along with their work at AACR on science policy and government affairs.

Show Notes

M.K. Holohan Quattrocchi, JD

Julie Nickson

NCI's Office of Government and Congressional Relations

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)

Office of Inspector General (OIG)

NCI Tech Transfer Center

NCI Professional Judgement Budget

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN)

Black Volunteer Caucus (BVC)

Diversity in Clinical Trials Act

One Voice Against Cancer Coalition (OVAC)

American Women Quarters Program

U.S. House of Representatives Internships

U.S. Senate Internship Opportunities

ACS CAN Volunteer Opportunities

Episode 17: NCI Tech Transfer Center: Innovation through Collaboration

Exclusive Episode: Curiosity + Strategy = Progress with Dr. Karen Knudsen

Ad: Request for Information (RFI): Inviting Comments and Suggestions on the National Cancer Institute's Support of Early Career, Mentored Cancer Researchers and Trainees

Roy Herbst, M.D., Ph.D.

Yale New Haven Health, Smilow Cancer Hospital

Jon Retzlaff, M.B.A., M.P.A.

American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)

AACR Office of Science Policy and Government Affairs

AACR Science Policy and Government Affairs Committee

FDA-AACR Oncology Educational Fellowship

Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI)/AACR Hill Day

AACR Early-Career Hill Day

Rally for Medical Research

AACR Cancer Progress Report

AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report

AACR Cancer Policy Monitor Newsletter

Robert A. Winn Diversity in Clinical Trials Award Program

National Cancer Plan

Your Turn Recommendation:

On the House: A Washington Memoir by John Boehner

Angel in Mink: The Story of Mary Lasker's Crusade for Medical Research and The National Institutes of Health by Shirley Haley

The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter by Michael Watkins

Father-Daughter Duo Break World Record Canoeing Mississippi River

The Deadly Rise of Anti-science: A Scientist's Warning by Dr. Peter Hotez

TRANSCRIPT

Oliver Bogler

Hello and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host, Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers, we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today we are talking to four leaders who work in government relations, an important function in our complex democracy, and we'll learn about what they do and their career paths. Listen through to the end of the show to hear our guests make some interesting recommendations and where we invite you to take your turn.

It's a pleasure to welcome our guests for the first segment. MK Holohan, the Director of NCI's Office of Government and Congressional Relations. Welcome!

MK Holohan

Thank you.

Oliver Bogler

And Julie Nickson, Director of Federal Relations at American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, ACS CAN. Welcome!

Julie Nickson

Thank you.

Oliver Bogler

MK, I'd like to start with you. What does your team do for the NCI?

MK Holohan

Well, thank you, Oliver. We serve as the congressional liaison for NCI among other functions. Our team also has the responsibility to manage the FOIA program, which is the Freedom of Information Act statute. So we have a team dedicated to that. We manage GAO, which is the Government Accountability Office, and OIG investigations and reviews.

GAO is sometimes tasked by Congress to look into a variety of issues. It could be diversity in clinical trials. It could be animal models. It could be live animals used for research. There's sort of no, you know, any sort of topic they want to look into.

We manage in collaboration with the NCI leadership and the NIH OD, we manage developing responses from NCI to congressional interests. We prepare NCI leadership for participating in congressional briefings, hearings, and we try to make sure that our leadership is apprised of developments within Congress that can affect cancer research and the way NCI and NIH operate.

Oliver Bogler

So NCI is part of the NIH, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the executive branch. So what I'm hearing is that a lot of what you do is making sure that the other branches of government, predominantly the legislature, can get the information they need about what we're doing over here.

MK Holohan

Exactly, exactly. And we get a chance too to work with a lot of different grantee organizations, particularly cancer centers, and just really learning a lot about, you know, what their priorities are. Occasionally we'll have members of Congress visit cancer centers in their states and districts, and we will usually be part of those visits with NCI leadership. And those are just tremendous opportunities to really demonstrate the value and importance of cancer research and in training these researchers to continue this work.

Oliver Bogler

So you mentioned the Freedom of Information Act inquiries. I'm familiar with those in the context of, for example, journalists trying to understand what's going on. Where do most of the FOIAs at NCI come from?

MK Holohan

Well, there's a range. There's definitely media. There are individuals who are concerned about issues for them. Sometimes those are environmental exposures that are concerns. There's also a lot of interest in licensing, in tech transfer and licensing. And then there are grantees who are interested in what other grantees are doing in their research space. So we really have a wide range of FOIA requesters. And as you might imagine, there's also some frequent fliers who habitually file FOIAs, but there's a lot of interest in licensing technologies. And we have an expert team who do a really terrific job for NCI in being responsive to these as we always want to be.

Oliver Bogler

So we recently had colleagues from the Tech Transfer office on the podcast and then we learned a lot about how NCI works to commercialize its own inventions and discoveries. So what are the directions or the nature of these FOIA requests? Are they making sure that we are commercializing in the appropriate manner or…?

MK Holohan

Well, FOIA requests are always about documents. So typically, it would be looking for documents about an invention and if there's an NCI role and what the licensing details are. So I'll give you an example, actually, that is more congressional. And Congress doesn't have to file FOIA requests to get documents. That is more of an oversight responsibility and right that they have.

We recently had some interest in…there was press reporting about an exclusive license that was being contemplated by NCI's tech transfer. And in point of fact, once we delved into this, it was, as is often the case, there was misunderstandings about the nature of the license and where the science was. So in no way was this a drug, a therapy that was going to be held very tightly for one company for their maximizing profits. This was a technology. Our tech transfer team provides the narrowest possible use because they want to have as - this is the NIH and NCI sort of frame - is we want the best use of any of all these inventions for the most exploration, for possibly the most benefit for patients. And so I was really impressed with working with this team learning a little bit more about the nuts and bolts of the patent process.

You know, this was something that is years away from being a therapeutic, but really they approach this very narrowly. A company's not going to develop an agent unless they have a possibility of getting it on the market and making a profit. So they really are advancing the science in a way that is very mindful of the greater good and the fact that we want the best use of this technology for patients.

So the expertise we have across the Divisions, Offices, and Centers is so helpful to us as we try to deal with congressional requests because we are always looking to provide the context about things that are often very complex and not intuitive. And so in FOIA, it's just documents. You don't get a briefing or an assessment. We don't prepare documents for a FOIA. It is supposed to be a fairly specific request.

Oliver Bogler

What exists.

MK Holohan

Yeah. And we work very hard to get the requesters what they're asking for and to help them winnow down requests to something that is going to be responsive and reasonable and they're going to be able to get it as quickly as they need it.

Oliver Bogler

So really, I mean, sort of the 30,000 foot view is government transparency.

MK Holohan

Yes, absolutely. Accountability, transparency, those are very important. And I think NCI across the board and there's other colleagues who work in these areas in the budget office, for example, we do a very good job of that. It's a big priority for us and it should be.

Oliver Bogler

Julie, you work for a private nonprofit organization, which is associated or attached to the American Cancer Society. We had your CEO, Dr. Karen Knudsen, on the show a few months ago. My understanding is that ACS CAN was created expressly to advocate on issues related to cancer. Is that correct?

Julie Nickson

Yeah, absolutely. I think that the board wisely understood … the ACS board wisely understood that, you know, to defeat cancer, it's a matter of public policy as much as the scientific kind of challenges that are there as well. And back in 2001, they created this separate organization. ACS CAN is nonpartisan by law. We don't have a PAC, we don't endorse candidates, but we are driven by the same evidence-based vision of ACS and we're the public policy arm. So we exist to advocate on behalf of ending cancer as we know it for everyone. And we do that at all levels of government from local to state to what my focus is on the federal government.

Oliver Bogler

You've described a little bit the landscape, but if you think about cancer as a societal challenge, what particular sort of elements of that are you focusing on?

Julie Nickson

So we have a big mission here, ending cancer, as we know it for everyone. Kind of my purview is I focus mostly on the cancer research and prevention funding portfolio. So my major campaign is working to get Congress to increase funding for NCI and for CDC prevention programs as well, NIH writ large. So the whole kind of biomedical atmosphere there.

But, you know, ACS CAN is very much focused on patient quality of life. We work, of course, on tobacco control, which is critical. Access to healthcare writ large, including Medicaid expansion. And right now we're really working on the Medicaid unwinding piece, too, making sure people have access to basic care, including cancer care. And then, of course, advancing health equity and addressing health equity across the board and cancer disparities across the board is really central and at the core of all we do at ACS CAN.

Oliver Bogler

Maybe unravel that equity component a little bit more. I know you've done some things in that space. You have a Black Volunteer Caucus, I believe, that helps guide the work of ACS CAN.

Julie Nickson

The Black Volunteer Caucus is really critical to our work. Our overarching goal obviously is building, you know, a vibrant and diverse grassroots advocacy structure that can help lead our collective work to ensure that everyone has a fair and just opportunity to prevent, find, treat, and survive cancer. So a big focus of their work is on policy to help close the gap in cancer disparities in the Black community especially.

And that includes advocacy efforts around one of our core pieces of legislation that we're promoting, which is the prostate specific antigen screening for high risk individuals. It's a big mouthful. We call it the PSA for HIM Act and also Diversity in Clinical Trials Act.

Oliver Bogler

So, clinical trials, that's interesting. So access to not only care, standard of care, but also access to the latest developments that are typically to be found in a clinical trial setting.

Julie Nickson

Absolutely. I mean, that's a core piece of making sure that we have equitable care and close disparities, especially in the Black community.

Oliver Bogler

And what's your sense of progress? We had Dr. Brian Rivers and Dr. Tiffany Wallace from NCI, Brian Rivers from Morehouse just on the show recently talking about health equities and the AACR report that comes out every two years. What's your sense of progress in this dimension?

Julie Nickson

I mean, I think that progress is being made, but we have a long way to go, especially when we look at specific disparities and prostate has been top of mind for us and for the African-American males in particular. So, I mean, while we're seeing important focus, and I think that that's absolutely critical, we have a long way to go to get where we need to be.

Oliver Bogler

Coming back to something you said just a moment ago, tobacco control. After the break, we'll talk to Dr. Roy Herbst and Dr. Jon Retzlaff from AACR. And I know that Dr. Herbst became interested in government relationships because of his work in lung cancer. He's a lung cancer oncologist. I mean, to me, that strikes me as a success story, tobacco control, in terms of advancing public health.

Julie Nickson

Tobacco control has had a phenomenal impact on the reduction of deaths, especially in cancer. But there's a long way to go there, too. We're waiting for the administration to finalize this menthol rule. And, you know, I work a lot on funding for cancer research and prevention. So CDC has a lot of critical programs there, too, and keeping the pressure on the federal government to fund these programs, because we know prevention works, especially when it comes to tobacco control.

Oliver Bogler

Right, and I guess I'm asking also, or wondering also, whether tobacco, the successes in tobacco control are a template for other areas, lessons learned that might be applied to other opportunities to change the landscape.

Julie Nickson

I mean, I think for two ways maybe. One is for lung cancer screening, right? I think lung cancer screening has become an issue that we're talking a lot about. And we've obviously ACS has just come out with some new lung cancer screening recommendations. And so that's a critical piece to the prevention puzzle. I think that is a template for other types of cancers.

And I mean, from my perspective, too, and I might be a little one note on this, but, you know, it's funding, right? It's federal government emphasis and support on funding these well-known prevention efforts, whether it's breast cancer screening or whether it's, you know, lung cancer screening. But putting the resources behind proven prevention programs and the research that NCI does across the board, these things go hand in hand in order to address the burden of cancer.

Oliver Bogler

So you mentioned funding, obviously critical and something that ACS CAN can advocate for. Of course, we in the NCI, right, MK, we cannot advocate for that. We do put forward a budget plan every year that outlines our ideas or NCI's ideas on what it should look like. But we don't lobby Congress for money, right, MK?

MK Holohan

Correct. Our authorizing statute, the National Cancer Act requires us to submit a professional judgment budget. And that's a really wonderful opportunity for us to highlight 'here's what it's going to take, and here are the great opportunities that lie ahead of us if we can meet them, if we can be resourced to meet them'. And it is somewhat aspirational because there are budget realities in terms of what allocations the committees get to divvy up among 12 spending bills, you know, that's reality. But we do have that opportunity.

When the president's budget is released, however, that is the budget that we are representing when we go to an appropriations hearing, they usually call it 'defending the president's budget'. That's typically more of the secretary's role. When it comes to an agency like NIH appropriators have specific questions and sometimes it is about success rates, sometimes it is about lung cancer or childhood cancer or environmental exposures, cancer survivorship. I mean there's a really well-educated, informed group of members of Congress who are on these appropriations and authorizing committees and you know it is our job to make sure we give them as complete and as thorough answers as we can while also trying to convey some of the big challenges in cancer research overall.

One real challenge for us is the fact that almost half of our budget is invested in basic research. I heard a scientist last week call it discovery research, and I really like that term because that investment could yield a really important key piece of data that is applicable to many kinds of cancer and it is unknowable. And we have no choice but to keep funding that because that's really the engine of discovery. Even though science really doesn't happen organ site by organ site anymore in oncology, that's still how fundraising happens and that's still how advocacy happens from a disease perspective. So a lot of times we find ourselves in discussions about funding levels. And we want to be talking about following the best scientific opportunities.

We do not lobby for legislation. We do not lobby for our professional judgment budget either. We release it, we try to provide briefings and answer questions, but that is something for exploration. And we do get a lot of support from the cancer community for our professional judgment budget, including ACS CAN, and they're a wonderful partner with us. But unless the administration puts out what's called a SAP, a Statement of Administration Policy supporting a bill, then we do not have an official position on it. We provide technical assistance to Congress through the department when they are drafting a bill about, for example, cancer survivorship, any sort of disease specific information. So we're trying to help them understand what would be helpful provisions and what might actually either be redundant to things we're already doing or not be helpful or potentially get in the way. And we're really grateful for those opportunities because it will always help for a better understanding and hopefully a better product in the end.

Oliver Bogler

So, Julie, I wonder how these activities that MK just described in terms of the professional judgment budget and defending the presidential budget, how does that resonate with ACS CAN's efforts to promote funding?

Julie Nickson

So you could not have teed up a better question for me because I very much focus on that professional judgment budget that MK mentioned. And I will say having worked inside Congress too for a couple of decades, that is unique and it is a wonderful tool especially for advocates to dig through and to see all the things that could be possible when NCI is appropriately resourced.

So, we take that professional judgment budget and we run with it as advocates. We run with it not only as ACS CAN, but I also have the privilege of being the executive director of the One Voice Against Cancer Coalition which ACS CAN put together also a couple of decades ago to bring the cancer community together around resources and advocating for appropriations for NCI, NIH, and CDC cancer prevention programs as well. So we take that number and we build out a campaign of support, both in coalition and through ACS CAN, where we're able to do exactly what MK can't, which is get out there and lobby. I'm a federal lobbyist, so I'm using those couple of decades of relationships up on the Hill, talking about the importance of this funding directly with lawmakers, their staff, really important committee staff, especially on the Appropriations Committee, both in the House and the Senate.

And we have other tools in our tool chest, too, that we are always so happy to use as advocates, and the key one being our grassroots advocates. We have people across the board in every single congressional district that are advocating and talking directly to the members of Congress. We bring them here in September to meet directly with their lawmakers. And we just recently had an outstanding advocacy day in September where we had over 500 different meetings with members of Congress making the case for that professional judgment budget number for NCI.

So we are able to be full-throated advocates with all the tools in our tool chest, and that includes media, it includes earned media and paid media, and a complete campaign around the support for this critical work. And at the core of this work is the voices and the stories of those that are impacted by cancer, right? And for me, it's particularly meaningful because I'm a cancer survivor as well.

And as a matter of fact, it kind of was the piece that really propelled me to take on this second career in advocacy around this incredibly important mission. So I get the joy of being able to work with dedicated people day in and day out who are impacted by cancer and who are here for the mission. Like our CEO, you know, Karen Knudsen, these are some extraordinary leaders, our president, Lisa Lacasse. So I'm enjoying the second chapter of my career and being able to be a full-throated advocate on behalf of this incredibly important mission to end cancer as we know it for everyone.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you. And thanks for sharing that about your own path. I'd like to turn to your career paths, now. Maybe Julie we'll start with you then. You already explained that your personal experience is what motivated you, but I'm kind of curious, what is it you think that prepared you for your current role? You started in psychology and law, if I'm correct.

Julie Nickson

Yes, that was a long, long time ago, it seems. But I was a lawyer before I moved to Capitol Hill. And I was driven to Capitol Hill because I didn't have any health insurance. And I thought, well, this is ridiculous. And I'd like to work on matters of health care. Within a few short years, I became a chief of staff for a member of Congress. She sits on the Appropriations Committee and the Labor Age Health Subcommittee. So I got to do appropriations work for a couple of decades. She became a member of the House leadership. So I got to do a lot of the House leadership work, which was incredibly rewarding. My couple of decades on the Hill, I did everything from domestic to foreign policy. I like to look at my bookends with legislation, which gives you kind of a sense of the range of what I worked on. When we first came to Capitol Hill, I worked on the PEPFAR legislation. So that's the president's plan for emergency AIDS relief.

And we worked in great detail on that. My boss at the time was the author of that legislation. So we worked to get that passed. So that was my very first piece of big legislation and I worked to reauthorize that a couple of times. Now they're working to reauthorize it again. And it's moments like that where I really miss my old job because I want to get back in there and help. So that was the big piece of legislation that I worked on the beginning of my career. And then the last like kind of more fun thing that I did but also impactful was this Women's Quarter Act, which put a series of trailblazing women on circulating currency for the first time. So that started right before I left, we got that passed and it just released the first series of quarters with starting with Maya Angelou in 2022. So I worked on a ton of different things, but like I said, it was my personal experience with cancer that really drove me to think about that next chapter and where I could bring that hard fought set of skills and experience to bear on something that means so much. So that's a little bit about my path.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you very much for sharing it. MK, you also have some law in your background, but also clinical research, right?

MK Holohan

Yes. Yeah, my first sort of real job out of college was as a clinical research coordinator at the GW Cancer Center here in DC. And my father is also an oncologist. He's now a retired oncologist. So medicine has sort of always been around in my life. And I remember him taking me to rounds with him on the weekends. And he actually did his fellowship at NCI, which I'm very proud of and I know it was a really big highlight for him.

I wanted to go to law school after college. At that time, a lot of folks who were newly graduated couldn't find jobs and that really scared me off. So you know, it was a lot of fun to be on the treatment team. I was too young and too inexperienced to have some of the responsibilities I did, but I took it very seriously and learned a lot.

Then I ended up working in clinical trials sort of from the coordinator perspective, but for biotech companies. And then ultimately did go to law school quite a bit later. And I really enjoyed that. I did have health insurance though. Julie must've been doing some very meaningful public interest work.

I went to a law firm and was doing litigation. And there were things I liked and things I really didn't like. But something I very much missed was sort of a personal investment in the outcome of the things I was working on day to day. And I was doing a lot of commercial litigation and big time construction cases. It was hard to get all that passionate about some of the outcomes. But I had done, in law school, I had done an internship, a legislative internship, and I worked with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and this was right after 9-11. And so it was an incredibly intense time to be working on Capitol Hill, and I got to participate in some hearings about readiness and where we weren't ready, especially in D.C. And that really was exciting to me.

And when I decided I wanted to leave the law firm, I started to, in private practice, I was looking at a lot of different attorney positions within government. And I'm really happy that I ended up at NIH. It was a gamble. I didn't know how I was gonna like it. And I didn't start off in an institute that had a tremendous congressional footprint. But when I joined NCI in 2009, it was, I was working with wonderful team.

And, you know, NCI sort of had this kind of mythic presence in my mind because, you know, being an NCI grantee was a really big deal when I was a research coordinator. I worked on a lot of pharma trials, but it was just a whole different animal to work on an NCI trial. And I just developed incredible respect for oncology nurses and for social workers and the people who really take care of the patients. So…

I don't have the scientific acumen to have become an oncologist myself, but I really believe in the mission and this is my contribution to do whatever I can to help propel cancer research and to explain it and to try to have as many legislators and policymakers understand what we're doing, understand how they can help. And I find it tremendously rewarding. I learn something new every day.

And I just try to be up to the task as we develop things moving forward. And I actually remember working with Julie when she was a staffer. You know, it was not, she wasn't, we didn't regularly interact, but I was really delighted when she joined ACS CAN because they're such a wonderful organization to work with. And OVAC, this group that brings all of these cancer groups together to focus on appropriations for NIH and NCI is such a tremendous forum and group, they have a lot of impact. And it's such a wonderful thing for them to come together with. I think that we are really fortunate to have that kind of focus and for the role that ACS CAN plays in directing that in a very constructive way.

Julie Nickson

NCI could not have a better ambassador on the Hill than MK. Whether I was a staffer, and I'm really serious about this, whether I was a staffer, you know, interacting with her and now as an advocate, seeing her represent the incredible work and educate members of Congress, their staff and advocates on the important work that happens there. So it's just such a pleasure to work with MK and I think she's such a gem for NCI.

Oliver Bogler

Well, thank you for sharing that as well. I wonder then in closing what advice you might give to someone who's listening and who might be interested in getting involved in government relation work of the kind that you do. MK, what would you say to them?

MK Holohan

I think for people who are PhDs and genetic counselors and sort of on a science track, doing fellowships with professional associations is a terrific opportunity. If you are a student, whether it's undergrad or grad, try to get an internship. If you don't need to be paid, you have many more opportunities, but working with committees, go to your member of Congress and see if you can work with them.

It is always valuable for whether a person is a biochemist or an engineer or someone who works in human resources and needs to deal with workforce issues, having congressional experience about getting some sense of how the government funding process happens, how laws are developed and how they are implemented. Those are really valuable skills that will add to any person's resume. I think...

In government, it is super important to have a sense of the nuts and bolts of how that gets done, and also to sort of keep an eye on the big picture. You know, what are the pressures on the administration? What are the, what's playing out politically with Congress? I really think for any career, those things are super valuable, and you will have opportunities as a student at whatever phase you're in, in your education journey that are harder to come by when you are out of the training world. And so, particularly, I think, Oliver, for the cancer trainees of all different types, Congress is very interested in workforce development. And I think, you know, that those types of people at that point in their lives would have a very warm welcome.

So I think take any sort of assignment you can get, but get the experience. And you can also work at an agency and do an internship or a fellowship and try to, you know, connect with offices like mine. And NIH OD has a big leg office, and so you could get a lot of different experience

Oliver Bogler

Thank you. Julie, what would your advice be?

Julie Nickson

Very similar, as a matter of fact. You know, MK hit the nail on the head. It's all about experience and especially in government. I mean, there is no substitute for being in a congressional office or in a congressional environment where you can really see the interplay of policy and politics and understand the process, because so much of this process is very unique. And it varies, you know, office by office, month by month, day by day, year by year. And so that experience is absolutely central. So I say the same thing, internships, fellowships, detailees. You know, I will say that the amount of detailees we had from the administration coming in working in our congressional office, that type of experience, even for mid-career professionals, is just absolutely essential. And then they're able to take that back to their agencies and to their next, you know, positions, and it makes a tremendous difference in building those nexus between inside and outside that helps government function better writ large. So yes, those types of approaches, especially for students, I will say MK, that we have a lot more paid internships on the Hill now, which is great, which is something we worked, I worked very hard on as a matter of fact, as a staffer, recognizing that those types of opportunities should be available for everyone.

And I worked for a member of the California delegation, so that was particularly the case for kids who came from California. So you wanted to make sure that they had some type of payment so they can help offset the costs that come with some of those internships. So that's absolutely critical. And you know, I would also say that, you know, volunteering for organizations and advocacy organizations is something you could do at any point in your career, whether they're students or young people or as professionals. And that's a great way to have insight into how advocacy works, how government works, and how individuals can make a tremendous impact in the process through their telling their story, through contacting members of Congress. And so I'd say, you know, come and volunteer with ACS CAN.

Oliver Bogler

All right. Thank you. We'll put some links in the show notes so people can easily find you. Thank you both so much for coming on the show and sharing your interesting work and your own career paths. Thank you.

MK Holohan

Thank you. It's been a pleasure.

Julie Nickson

Thank you for having us.

Oliver Bogler

After the break, we'll be speaking with Dr. Roy Herbst of the Yale University Cancer Center and Jon Retzlaff of the American Association for Cancer Research. Listen to the end to hear interesting recommendations from our guests in our Your Turn segment.

[Music]

Oliver Bogler

The NCI wants to hear from you about what we are doing to support early career cancer investigators.

We have released a new Request for Information or RFI.

It is entitled Inviting Comments and Suggestions on the National Cancer Institute's Support of Early Career, Mentored Cancer Researchers and Trainees.

NCI is committed to supporting the training and development of the next generation of the cancer research workforce. We are seeking input on our existing approaches and your ideas for innovations we might explore - all designed to improve how we support you.

We invite suggestions and comments on all the career stages we support from middle school, high school, undergraduate and graduate studies through postdoc and fellowship to early research independence.

NCI is interested in your opinion on how our grant awards are structured and positioned and whether they could be improved to meet the needs of a diverse cancer research workforce.

Your feedback on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Responses are due by December 29, 2023.

We'll put a link in the show notes, but for questions, please contact [email protected].

We look forward to hearing from you.

[Music]

Oliver Bogler

Welcome back. We're continuing our conversation on government relations work with two new guests. With us is Dr. Roy Herbst, Professor Deputy Director and Chief of Medical Oncology at the Yale Cancer Center and Smilow Cancer Hospital and Assistant Dean for Translational Research at the Yale School of Medicine. Welcome.

Roy Herbst

Well, thank you.

Oliver Bogler

Among many other roles, he serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the American Association for Cancer Research and chairs AACR's Scientific Policy and Government Affairs Committee. And also with us is Jon Retzlaff, the Chief Policy Officer and VP of Science Policy and Government Affairs at the American Association for Cancer Research. Welcome.

Jon Retzlaff

Thank you. Happy to be here.

Oliver Bogler

So before the break, we heard from NCI and ACS, and now we're turning to a third kind of organization engaged in conversations with government, a professional association, which represents over 56,000 cancer research professionals from early career to senior leaders. Dr. Herbst, I'd like to start with you. You work at Yale and serve as a volunteer member of the AACR board chairing this government relations committee, is that correct?

Roy Herbst

That's correct. I've been working with AACR now for over 25 years in many capacities and I've served on the board of directors and now this current role in government affairs is just really exciting.

Oliver Bogler

So tell us more about what the committee does, please.

Roy Herbst

Yeah, well, the committee really is involved in all areas revolving governmental policy. Of course, there's legislative actions that occur on the Hill that affect all of us in cancer research, all of our governmental funding agencies. And certainly that's something that we're always tuned into. We are representing patients. We have patients. Industry. All stakeholders involved in trying to find a cure for cancer.

So we are available to follow what's going on in Congress, to make visits, to hold seminars, to really try to influence policy that will help provide more support and funding for cancer research. And we work very closely with an amazing staff at the AACR. The other thing that of course we're very involved with is policy issues that are of importance to the health of Americans, such as tobacco control.

So we've had a subcommittee on tobacco control for now, over 12 years. I actually chaired that until recently, until I stepped up to this new role. And you know, as the Family Tobacco Act became law and the FDA tobacco agency went into play, we've been working to try to regulate cigarettes, nicotine, menthol, e-cigarettes, and that's been very important.

Another amazing area that we focus on is regulatory affairs and the FDA. And Ken Anderson, for many years, has led that group. And we work very closely with the FDA. And we advise and help them with policy regarding clinical trial endpoints, accelerated approval, ways of reaching out and educating young investigators to understand regulatory affairs. We have a wonderful program we do with fellows. We go to the FDA and we lecture. So that's a big part of it. And then, of course, we're very involved in many policy issues regarding, you know, regulatory issues, you know, things like the Inflation Reduction Act, you know, biomarker work. And we have, Gil Omenn has been leading this for many years. So, and now we have Christine Lovly, by the way, who's leading the tobacco committee. So we have amazing expertise to try to bring information to bear.

The other most important part of this committee is the patient advocacy track. And Carrie Treadwell, now with Anna Barker for many years, has been providing what we call a scientist survivor program where our patients can come to the AACR and they're guided through and we do programs with patients and advocates and others. So this is all very exciting.

Oliver Bogler

That's a broad front of engagement. Thanks for describing that. Jon, so you lead government relations at the AACR. Obviously, this committee is part of your portfolio. Tell us more about what your group does, please.

Jon Retzlaff

Yeah, well, we are really the ears and eyes in Washington, DC for really AACR's nearly 60,000 members advocating on important policies that are important to our membership, of course. And we're structured, so we have a Science Policy Government Affairs Committee that Dr. Herbst is the chair of. And then we've got these three subcommittees underneath that really drill down into the different areas, as Dr. Herbst pointed out, the Regulatory Science and Policy Subcommittee, the Tobacco Products and Cancer Subcommittee and the Health Policy subcommittee.

So, you know, one of our main interests is definitely ensuring robust support for the NIH NCI funding because so many of our members are reliant on the grants that come from NCI and NIH. So, we are set up and designed to really be on Capitol Hill, whether it's an early career Hill Day to bring our young members to talk to legislators, whether it's partnering with the advocacy communities, such as the Association of American Cancer Institutes for a Hill Day, we started 11 years ago, the Rally for Medical Research Hill Day, and it started with the Rally for Medical Research outside of our annual meeting, where more than 10,000 people shut down the streets of Washington, D.C., because we had had 10 years of flat funding at NIH. In the past eight years now, we have seen robust increases to NIH and NCI.

NIH has received two to three billion dollars for eight straight years. So we are in very good shape from the standpoint of fiscal over these past eight years. We're very concerned to date now with the debt ceiling agreement that is going to limit some of those discretionary dollars going forward. And there's some talk about how we need to even get maybe another rally in 2024, 2025, to try to change the picture that is presently out there at this point.

Oliver Bogler

You mentioned Hill Day. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about that. And I know Dr. Herbst, you also participate in Hill Day. But Jon, would you tell us, what is that exactly?

Jon Retzlaff

Yeah, so that's really bringing our members to Capitol Hill, setting up meetings with their respective members of Congress, whether that's in the Senate or the House. The early Career Hill Day is for our young associate members of the AACR.

Oliver Bogler

So these'd be like post-docs and students and fellows.

Jon Retzlaff

Post-docs, yep, and before they go to Capitol Hill, we have an extensive training program to inform them of,

you know, kind of do a mock meeting of what it's like to sit in front of a member of Congress and what are the messages that those members of Congress need to hear about why it's so important that they should prioritize NIH and NCI. Dr. Herbst was the leader for one of our early career Hill Day when we brought in a senior person that kind of showed these young individuals really the ropes a little bit and how to go about things and he did a great job and we have these young members now who are very interested in policy, and they're very active and some even will move from the bench to actually applying for policy job and wanting to represent the AACR in Washington.

Oliver Bogler

Dr. Herbst, you also participate in the Hill Day. I wonder, what's your perspective?

Roy Herbst

Yeah, well, Hill Day serves so many important purposes. I actually have been doing it for nearly 20 years. And I remember the first time I went, how amazing it was to actually be in the halls of Congress and to meet with representatives. And you don't always meet the actual representative, but you meet the staff. But as I've moved up in the ranks, I have met with more and more, it educates. It's time to be on message. We have to prepare. We have to understand what are we asking for? What do we need to fund cancer research? How can we keep the NCI, the NIH budget strong? So that's one part of it.

And the Hill Day we have most years in May, that's representative from different cancer centers, where by the way, the AACR has been very involved in bringing cancer center directors together. So usually that brings all the states together with their cancer centers. And in order to go visit an office, you have to have a representative from that district usually, but usually they'll take the state. So it allows us to get to all the offices,

Everyone supports cancer research of course, but to different extents. But to get to some of the places that don't prioritize it as much and get our message across. That's one thing. The second is the early career investigator, which I have to tell you was the most fantastic day I had. I had a group of investigators, mostly young women from Texas. You know, and so we went to some of the red and the blue offices. And I'll tell you, it was very exciting to bring them forward because they were all either post-docs or young assistant professors, they were in that critical part of the career that you know so well where they're trying to get their first K award, they're trying to get their R grant or renew an R grant, and they told their stories. And that's what's compelling, telling representatives and their staff the stories of how more funding will help investigators to pursue their career. And you know, we lose people out of cancer research these days to other things because they can't be funded, they're worried about funding. So I thought that was amazing and in some offices we had a wonderful reception and some we didn't. And uh...spent a little bit of time over coffee explaining, you know, this is the way things work. So I think they all became more educated and better advocates.

And then of course, the representatives need to know about patients and how they're affected and disparities. One thing that we've really focused on is cancer disparities and you know, what good is a new drug, you know, that targets a mutation in lung cancer, my area, if we can't get it to the patients that need it around the country. So that's an area that we've really focused on as well. So I think Hill Days are important. Advocacy is important. It's been hard to do it, you know through the COVID pandemic, getting back in person is really important. So we're gonna be doing more and more of that. And again, educated information, we have things that we leave in the offices that can then be used as legislation is pursued.

Jon Retzlaff

And maybe I'll just add to that real quick, you know, in terms of the Hill Days, early career Hill Day, the Hill Day that we work with the AACI. It's focused often on NCI's budget and cancer in many ways. The uniqueness of the Rally for Medical Research Hill Day that takes place every September for the past 11 years now, is it involves the entire NIH research community, American Heart Association, Alzheimer's Association, American Diabetes Association, and we have patients, we have researchers, we have clinicians, all coming together in one room, talking to the staff and the legislators from every single state, practically every single district. I mean, that's been a goal, to reach every single member of Congress during that Rally Hill Day. A very unique… and it's made quite a difference, I would say, over the past 11 years.

Oliver Bogler

I wanted to follow up with you, Jon, on a point that Dr. Herbst just raised, which was health disparities. So, in a recent episode, we talked to Dr. Brian Rivers from Morehouse School of Medicine, who has kind of seen that field grow. And of course, he gave credit to AACR for starting a conference on cancer health disparities many years ago that's been very successful. But I wonder how does that health disparities reflect in your portfolio, in the government relations portfolio?

Jon Retzlaff

Yeah, it is a priority of the AACR. It's a priority of the Science Policy Office. And I'll say, we started the conference, AACR started the conference many, many years ago. But four or five years ago, we started the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report. And I'm pleased to announce that on May 15th, the third edition of the AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report will be released on Capitol Hill. Brian Rivers has had a huge role in the first two. He's going to have another role in this. And it is a… you know, we're going to work with the different congressional caucuses, the diversity caucuses on Capitol Hill. There's so much interest in this, trying to get more individuals participating in clinical trials from diverse backgrounds. It's a major effort and so there's some very exciting things coming forward as well as the things we've been working on.

Oliver Bogler

Please, Dr. Herbst.

Roy Herbst

Yeah, and one thing that's come out of this is there's a lot of interest now to train more diverse investigators so that they can go out into the communities to build trust, to understand. You can always say put more underrepresented patients on clinical trials. That's not enough. We have to change the entire system. So the way you change the system is by changing the people who are in the system and their values and how they design trials. So I'm actually doing this call today from our third now diversity in clinical trials workshop, we call it the Robert Winn program. And Robert's here with me along with Yu Shyr, Priscilla Pemu, we lead this, we're leading a course today where we're teaching clinical trial design and development and community outreach and engagement to a group of 62 scholars, most of them diverse in the NCI definition. And that's just, that's the ways to give back and to actually implement change which is so needed.

Jon Retzlaff

And you know, another way to maybe talk about implementing change is through this is what happened with the FDA back in early, it would have been early 2022 actually. They put forward guidance that would require companies to have a clinical trials diversity plan before they move forward with their trials to ensure that their clinical trials are diverse and everything. The AACR through our disparities conference, through the disparities report, has that has been a priority for many, many years up until the FDA did that, as well as other organizations pushing for that kind of result. Last December, President Biden signed into law. It's not just guidance from the FDA. It's actually law now that companies need to put forward a clinical trial diversity plan going forward. So it shows the connection, I guess, between the science and policy and advocacy and everything.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you very much. I mean, that's really important work and connects, obviously, to the National Cancer Plan that was recently refreshed and, obviously, also the strategic goals of the NCI. I wonder if I might ask you, Jon, how does the work of the AACR in this space differ, perhaps, from that of, say, the American Cancer Society?

Jon Retzlaff

Yeah, you know, we work very collaboratively with the American Cancer Society. I think there's some wonderful opportunities to… we're different in some ways. I mean, ACS is probably focused more on areas across the country. They have local chapters. Patients is probably the main emphasis. AACR where research community is our main emphasis. Of course, patients are extremely important. I mean, they're the most important aspect to all of what we are doing and things. So we work with the ACS on many things, whether it's a One Voice Against Cancer Coalition that we both are involved in, or whether they're part of the Rally for Medical Research Hill Day, and the initiatives that they put forward become things that we support. So we can you know, support their efforts as they support our efforts.

Oliver Bogler

So our show is about careers, careers in cancer. So I'd like to ask you both how you got involved in this work. Let's start with you, Jon. I believe you studied public and business administration, correct?

Jon Retzlaff

Right. I got a master's at Indiana University, and I was fortunate enough I applied for the Presidential Management Fellowship Program, a two-year program in Washington, D.C. and NIH hired me for two years. I rotated around NIH. I spent 11 years at NIH, but I think I had 13 different jobs while I was here because they sent me in detail to the House Appropriations Committee, the Senate Appropriations Committee. I worked for Donna Shalala and the Secretary of Health and Human Services Legislative Office, always paid by NIH, but on detail to these different areas representing NIH in many ways. So I owe everything to NIH. And then from those 11 years with NIH, I went to work for FASEB, which is 25 different scientific societies. I was the director of legislative affairs. I came back to NIH then and worked for the National Library of Medicine as their chief, their executive officer overseeing kind of administrative…and missed the policy a little bit. I'm at AACR today, I've been here now 14 years. So it's a wonderful opportunity to work with people like Dr. Herbst and the rest of the, the incredible minds in Cancer Research.

Oliver Bogler

So when you were a Presidential Management Fellow, I mean, those fellows do all kinds of different things, right? They get involved in all kinds of different activities across the government, across NIH, if they're at NIH. What specifically do you think drew you to the work with government?

Jon Retzlaff

Well, so the Presidential Management Fellowship, of course, was a program that allows people to go into government. So you're applying with all the federal agencies. I could have gone to the Office of Management Budget, OMB, HHS, and NIH, and they had different slots at NIH. And really, it was just the mission of NIH brought me here. Also, I mean, I had an interest in policy since that's what I kind of did at Indiana University.

And one of my rotations was with, when Dr. Varmus was the director of NIH, I worked in the Office of Legislation on a rotation there. And then I went to Capitol Hill and worked for Senator Kohl from Wisconsin. That was my other, another rotation. I came back and I worked at NCI as an administrative officer. So outside of the policy array to see other areas and things. So that's the value of those internship programs. I'd say to anybody who's looking for a career, it's just immense. You never know what it's going to lead to. You can see different perspectives, different experiences, opportunities, and then you can kind of figure out what it is that really excites you and what direction you want to take.

Oliver Bogler

Dr. Herbst, your career has been in medical oncology, in academic medical oncology. What drew you to that field? How did you first get interested in science?

Roy Herbst

In science, wow. I go way back, but certainly I was always interested in medicine and in science and high school. I was actually very fortunate when I was training in high school in New Rochelle, New York. There was a science honors program at Columbia University and Columbia Medical School on Saturday mornings. It would be like, who wants to spend their Saturday morning there? But I actually applied and took a test to do it. And I became very interested in a few courses I took at Columbia Medical School back the, which led me to Yale College where I studied molecular biophysics and biochemistry and actually worked in a lab and realized I wanted to have a dual research and clinical career because I really enjoyed both. I worked in the hospital as a volunteer. So I was in a wonderful program at Cornell and Rockefeller Universities, an MD-PhD program where I was able to sort of work between the lab and the clinic and it just went on from there.

I did my internship and residency in Boston at Brigham and Women's Hospital and then Dana Farber and then and then you know I made a very important decision. I took a chance. I got a call from MD Anderson. I didn't even know … I thought MD Anderson, I didn't know what it meant. I hadn't really heard much about it and I went down and took a look and I met a man, Dr. Waun Ki Hong, and he really wanted me to come, and he knew how to recruit well and I said 'what the heck, things look pretty good here, it's a pretty good institution'.

And that was really, really great because there I was very focused on the science of lung cancer at a time when mutations were being discovered, EGFR inhibitors, angiogenesis inhibitors. This was before immunotherapy, but we've worked in that area. So that really was how I got my start in clinical care research and lung cancer work. But that's how I got involved in policy because, you know, lung cancer, as much as we do with new targeted drugs and immunotherapy, if people don't stop smoking, if we don't, you know, avoid environmental hazards, you know we're still going to have so much cancer. We can prevent so much more cancer with screening if our drugs don't get approved.

So one night I was having dinner with my mentor, Waun Ki Hong, and Dr. Marge Foti was in town so we were talking and she met me. And you know he was, you know mentors advocate for the mentees, and so he was 'you know Roy can do some work in…' and I got involved in this government affairs work.

And then around 2009 the opportunity came up to revise the AACR tobacco statement. There was a statement but it hadn't been revised for twenty five years and now the FDA was forming the Office for Tobacco Products so I remember sitting with Dr. Hong and Marge at the Hilton of the Americas in Houston, for the disparities… it was actually for the prevention meetings that AACR ran and we started the tobacco and cancer committee and the rest really just fell from that. It became such an important topic. I love devoting time to it. Numerous Hill briefings. We wrote documents on how do you treat patients for tobacco addiction when they have cancer. We did prevention papers. We got into the e-cigarette work early on.

And it's been great working with the society and Jon Retzlaff and his amazing staff, but also just working and building a community of people, you know, across all disciplines, you know, policy, you know, you need physicians, you need psychologists, you need epidemiologists, you need patients, patients, it's all about the patient. You need lawyers, you need, you need everyone. And that's really how I got into this. And I love the policy work. I, you know, I love participating in the briefings. And now, of course, you know, we have the health policy, regulatory, tobacco, and we're always looking to branch out.

But again, finding ways to bring better therapies to patients in real time. That's the goal, that's all of our goal. And I've been very fortunate to be mentored, and I'm still mentored. And I just spent a day in Jon's office a few weeks ago with his staff and it was wonderful, talking to everyone about their projects. And actually they've hired someone who used to work at Yale from the Yale Government Affairs Office, a really great guy. So it's really wonderful to be part of this.

Oliver Bogler

And I should just mention Dr. Foti is the CEO of AACR. So maybe, Jon, quick question on that. She's obviously been a visionary leader of the organization and the world of cancer in general. So I assume she initiated some of these programs that you now lead, is that correct?

Jon Retzlaff

Oh my gosh, Dr. Foti is a visionary. She's the force behind so much of this. She, that's why I've been here for 14 years. I, there's … no year has been the same from the standpoint of we have to, she constantly wants to push the envelope from the standpoint of new things that need to be done to ensure that the patients are getting the treatments that are fast and effective and things. So everything from the Rally for Medical Research Hill Day that started when I first started. I mean, that was Dr. Foti saying we can go to the board and get them to approve this. The cancer progress reports that Dr. Foti insisted needed to be done every year as opposed to the committee saying, okay, we'll do this every five years. And Dr. Foti was like, what do you mean? We need to show accomplishments every single year. So she is the reason I continue to be at the AACR and she is, she has had a hand in every single of these initiatives that we've put forward.

Oliver Bogler

So, to close, I'd be curious what kind of advice you might have for someone who's listening and is interested in government relations work, either as a career like you, Jon, or as a part of their community service on an academic track like you, Dr. Herbst. What kind of advice would you give them?

Jon Retzlaff

You know, I would say from the standpoint of contacts and having meetings, you know, going and talking to as many people as you can in different areas of what they do. I mean, I had no idea what scientific societies did. You know, it was a black box in many ways when I was even at NIH and NCI. You hear about all these associations and things like that. And I think just getting out the door and sending an email and asking, hey, could I come and chat with you for a little bit? Or going to meetings where these organizations are saying what they do. That's so important. In DC, contacts are just so important because they could lead to other contacts and next thing you know opportunities and take advantage of fellowships and internships and things like that.

Oliver Bogler

Dr. Herbst, what advice would you give someone who's interested in getting engaged in government relations, perhaps while remaining on an academic cancer research track?

Roy Herbst

Well, you know, as a physician, researcher, I work in the clinic, in the lab, my goal is to get new therapies and help patients of all different groups and economic groups, socioeconomic, racial groups, and we have to do that through policy. So I would say that, you know, in working at a cancer center, community outreach and games are so important, and you do that through your legislative bodies and through my involvement in government affairs. I've gotten to know Rosa DeLauro, our congresswoman, and Senators Blumenthal and Murphy, and they help us because they need our data because they want to support our center, they want to support our state, they want to support our outreach. So for people to get involved, I would say just volunteer.

I'll tell you, when I first started this, I'll be honest, I was a lung cancer physician. I developed some of the new drugs in the field and done the earliest trials. But I didn't know a lot about addiction and tobacco control and legislative affairs, but I learned. I learned from others.

We are a community of researchers, scientists, patients, advocates, all fighting the same goal. So by going to the meetings, listening, reading, you know, I've learned so much from Jon Retzlaff, you know, and his team, you know, going to meetings and sitting and listening to legislators, then we can then propose and push the agenda forward. And you know, we are the community that needs these legislative changes. So I've enjoyed learning. I've enjoyed now leading the committee.

But the key is bringing in new members, bringing in young members, bringing in expertise, putting things on paper, trying to push the agenda because again, it's about getting more patients the best possible care in the US and around the world. And I'm very excited to do this work and I think we're going to have a very important year right now. These are tougher times. They always say that, but I think right now, I think we are looking at a challenging year as far as funding, but we'll get through it and we'll keep people in the field. We don't want to lose our investigators. We want to keep people energized. We wanna build teams, but we'll do it because we're a team committed to striking down cancer.

Oliver Bogler

Last question for you, Jon. If someone is interested in Hill Day, particularly perhaps an associate member of AACR or someone in an early mentored phase of their career, how do they get involved? Can they just reach out to you?

Jon Retzlaff

Absolutely, you can reach out to me, you can reach out to our team. I know on our website, we have our Science Policy Government Affairs Committee website and things. So there's someone who's always monitoring that. So feel free to send an email that way. We have … they could sign up for the Cancer Policy Monitor, which is our monthly newsletter that goes out that really will tell people about the upcoming events and opportunities that they would have to volunteer and participate.

Oliver Bogler

Great, we'll put some links in the notes. Well, thank you both for sharing this important work with us and telling us about your own career paths. Thank you.

Roy Herbst

Thank you. It's been a pleasure to be here with you.

Jon Retzlaff

Yeah, it's been wonderful.

[YOUR TURN]

Oliver Bogler

Now it's time for a segment we call Your Turn because it's a chance for our listeners to send in a recommendation that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip for a book, a video, a podcast or a talk that you found inspirational or amusing or interesting. You can send these to us at [email protected]. Record a voice memo and send it along. We may just play it in an upcoming episode. Now I'd like to invite our guests to take their turn. Let's start with you, MK.

MK Holohan

Sure. Well, I would recommend a book called On the House by John Boehner, former Speaker of the House. Besides being entertaining, I think it provides an interesting backdrop as to how some of the visions that we see in the House Republican caucus, how they came about. And you know, things are different and I think worse than when Mr. Boehner was the speaker. But I think it really actually sort of starts a really important history of the changes that we see sort of, unfortunately, adding to some real dysfunction at the moment. And it's a slightly more lighthearted take on things because of when it was published. But I think people will enjoy it. If you listen to the audio recording, Mr. Boehner reads it. You know, a little bit of warning. It's got a little language in it, which he was sort of famous for, but I found it very good, very, very interesting and funny. And I regularly give that book to people. So old school book.

Oliver Bogler

It sounds like a great intro to the mysteries of Congress. Julie.

Julie Nickson

Well, I'd have to second MK's recommendation there. That is a fantastic read, well worth your while. And having lived through those years, it's kind of like there's a little PTSD there when I was reading it. But it does give a lot of insight and I think set the stage for some of the things that we are grappling with now. So I wholly endorse MK's recommendation there.

And mine is. Angel in Mink, the story of Mary Lasker written by Shirley Haley. And that was recently given to me in one of those books when someone gives it to you, you kind of put it in your tote bag or what have you. And then I found myself with a little bit of extra time recently sitting in a waiting room. And I picked it up and I read it from cover to cover. And I thought I knew something about the history here, but I had no idea about the woman. You know, who she was, what an incredible trailblazer she was, how much she accomplished for so many people and how her fearless approach to Congress and literally buttonholing people is something that inspires me every single day in the work that I do.

And so I would strongly encourage people to take a look, to read it, and I was absolutely enthralled by her personal story, and I found it to be incredibly well-written and engaging, and I loved it.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you. That sounds like an interesting read for sure. Dr. Herbst, what's your recommendation?

Roy Herbst

Well, you know, having been offered opportunities for leadership over the years, and of course leading this committee and others, I would recommend a book called The First 90 Days by Michael Watkins, Proven Strategies for Getting up to Speed Faster and Smarter. And the thing that struck me about this book is you have to listen. So even though I'm very proud to lead this committee, I really am just the coordinator. I listen.

I bring in other people's voices and don't make change immediately, but as we define our agenda and then work with the team. So I think that book helps when they start a new project and you're asking how do young leaders begin, think, listen, learn, and then with your mentors start to implement change. But I've been very fortunate to have a number of opportunities in my career, both in Houston and now in New Haven at Yale.

And, but really working with this society has just been a wonderful opportunity to listen, learn, and then have a bigger team to implement change. So that, that would be a recommendation for a good book for people to read.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you, that's great. Jon.

Jon Retzlaff

It was a somewhat difficult question because I've spent so much time every day having to read the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and keep up on the policy side. So you don't have a lot of time for books and everything. But I had to recommend a book. I, you know, it's interesting. A friend of mine, K.J. Millhone, set the world record for canoeing the Mississippi River with his best friend. And his best friend died tragically of a heart attack. And he wrote a book, Your Father Was My Friend. And the book is really about stories and lessons to his best friend's two sons. And it is just a book about sharing and caring and connecting and it really had an effect on me and I think it had an effect on many others.

Oliver Bogler

Sounds like a very interesting read. Thank you for that. I'd like to make a recommendation as well. I'm gonna recommend a recent book by Dr. Peter Hotez entitled, The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science, A Scientist's Warning. Dr. Hotez is professor and dean of tropical medicine at Baylor College of Medicine and co-developed a low cost COVID vaccine which drew him into the national conversation around the pandemic. He tackles an important question in this book. How do scientists respond to misinformation? And beyond that, the changing cultural attitudes towards science and scientists. The book is brief and the best parts, in my opinion, are where Dr. Hotez proposes some constructive responses that I think are worth thinking about. So take a look.

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

In this episode of Inside Cancer Careers, we will learn about the technology transfer training opportunities available at the NCI. Dr. Laura Prestia, the Senior Innovation Manager, and Dr. Laurie Whitney, the Supervisory Technology Transfer Manager at NCI's Tech Transfer Center, will share their insights. Later, we will hear from Dr. Trang Vu, a Research and Development Scientist at viTToria Biotherapeutics, and Dr. Sabina Kaczanowska, a Staff Scientist in the Pediatric Oncology Branch at NCI's Center for Cancer Research, who will share their experiences as Tech Transfer alums.

Show Notes:

Laurie Whitney, Ph.D.

Laura Prestia, Ph.D.

NCI Technology Transfer Center (TTC)

The NIH Catalyst Newsletter

US Patent and Trademark Office

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

TTC Fellowships & Training

Technology Analysis and Marketing Unit

Cancer Research Training Award (CRTA)

Technology Transfer University (TTU)

Technology Transfer Ambassadors Program (TTAP)

Transition to Industry Program (T2I)

Foundation for Advanced Education in Sciences (FAES)

Ad: Request for Information (RFI): Inviting Comments and Suggestions on the National Cancer Institute's Support of Early Career, Mentored Cancer Researchers and Trainees

Sabina Kaczanowska, Ph.D.

NCI's CCR Pediatric Oncology Branch

Trang Vu, Ph.D.

viTToria Biotherapeutics

NCI Center for Cancer Research (CCR)

Advancing Innovations through Mentorship (AIM)

Intramural Continuing Umbrella of Research Experiences (iCURE)

Transition to Industry Program (T2I)

Your Turn Recommendations:

Utica Coffee Roasting Company

Wegmans Grocery Store

Lessons in Chemistry Book (Streaming on Apple TV)

NIH All About Grants Podcast

TRANSCRIPT

Oliver Bogler

Hello and welcome to Inside cancer careers a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host, Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today we're talking about tech transfer. Listen through to the end of the show to hear our guests make some interesting recommendations and where we invite you to take your turn.

Scientific discovery has inherent value in advancing knowledge and understanding, often represented in scientific papers, sometimes in scientific textbooks, and in rare instances in popular books. But in order for it to have an effect on the broader society, discoveries are launched out of academia into the private sector, where they form the basis of new products that can be offered broadly, to meet the needs of the people who can benefit from them. An important early step in this path is technology transfer, itself a body of knowledge and skills. Today, we're speaking with experts in this area, and are going to hear about programs that were created to help anyone interested in such work learn about it. With me in this first segment, our two colleagues from NCI's Technology Transfer Center. Dr. Laura Prestia, Senior Innovation Manager.

Laura Prestia

Hello.

Oliver Bogler

And Dr. Laurie Whitney, Supervisory Technology Transfer Manager.

Laurie Whitney

Hello there.

Oliver Bogler

Welcome to you both. So let's start with the fundamentals. What is technology transfer? And why is it important in today's cancer research and innovation landscape?

Laura Prestia

So I'll take this one, this is Laura. So tech transfer is the transfer of knowledge, data, information from one organization to another, and it can involve collaborations and managing the agreements between those two collaborators. It can involve patenting and protecting new discoveries, intellectual property, and inventions. And it can involve licensing out those patents or technologies by companies who can take them to the next level and commercialization. And I think also marketing is in there and making sure everyone is aware of the inventions and discoveries that you're creating. And I think in a nutshell, that's it… Laurie, do you have any additional… did I miss anything?

Laurie Whitney

Yeah, and good luck to everybody with Laurie and Laura, that that should be real fun here today. I think yeah, just in a broad perspective, is that academic and government organizations do very basic research, we do preclinical research, some clinical research, but at some point, it has to go out to a company to get developed and made into a therapeutic or diagnostic or that sort of thing. And in order to get there, it has to be transferred in some way and at some stage, and that's what we help with, and all those things that Laura just talked about the agreements and the licenses, patenting, those are the sorts of tools that we use to get it out to the outside to companies for development

Oliver Bogler

So we'll talk a little bit about your education training programs in a little bit. But am I right, in understanding that part of your work is to look for technologies that are being developed within the research program at NCI that are suitable for such transfer.

Laurie Whitney

Yeah, that is correct. And they come in all different stages, like I said. Some labs do very, very basic research, which is amazing and cool science and but maybe not so applicable or ready yet to be moved to the outside. But then we do all different stages. So we have preclinical stuff going on and clinical research. So yeah, at some point, you know, they interact with us because they, the investigators really want to see their research turned into something that can be valuable for patients. And so they come to us to help figure out the path to get it there.

Oliver Bogler

So what are the strategies that you use to find this kind of research? How do you learn about it? Or how do how do the investigators at NCI learn about you so that they make the connection at the right time?

Laurie Whitney

That's a really good question. So basically, it comes in in every different way. So sometimes we do a lot of outreach in our office. So we'll go to lab meetings that the investigators have on a regular basis and we interact. Basically face time is really a great thing, whether it's over Zoom in the modern world or just going to the lab and interacting with them a lot. So you're there and it sparks there. They think about it, they think 'oh she does technology transfer' and it sparks something in there and they are 'oh we have a question'. And then it starts a conversation. They also have may have collaborators on the outside companies that they meet at meetings that come to them and say, 'oh, you know, we're really interested in this. Can you tell us more about your technology? And how might we interact more with you regarding it?' So then they come to us, because they don't know how to do that. Or they may come and say, you know, 'we think we have an invention. Can you look at this new manuscript, we're about to have published and tell us, do you think there's an invention here? And if so, how do we go about, you know, getting a patent application filed on that? And where do we go from here'. So it really comes at us in a myriad of different ways, and through a lot of different avenues. And I think one of the biggest things which Laura can attest to, because she works in communications is just keeping lines of communication really open and having good relationships with your investigators.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, we also try to write up some success stories about transfer of different technologies, and how we've worked with the research labs to make that happen. So we'll publish some different stories in the NIH Catalyst, which is one of our internal newsletters, and a bunch of different places. Our website has success stories that you can read about different ways partnerships have transferred technologies, and we also do a lot of advertising for our training programs. And I think maybe some labs that may not do a lot with tech transfer, they hear about it from their trainees who are interested in learning more. And so that information trickles up.

Oliver Bogler

So Laurie, you said something, I think important a moment ago, which is, someone contacts you when they are just about to have a manuscript published. So I think commonly people think that if someone publishes something, or even gives a presentation at a conference or you know, at a seminar that precludes effective tech transfer, is that correct?

Laurie Whitney

Yes, that is correct. And, you know, sometimes that's the first way that investigators figure out about patenting is because they publish something, or they present something or they have a conversation, and then they tell us about this publication that they had. And then it's unfortunate, right, because it's out in the public and it's publicly disclosed, and then you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot for getting an issued patent on it. So they like sometimes they stumble across it, and then they learn and then the next time it rolls around, that it's in their head, and they think, oh, you know, I got burned before. So now I really need to pay attention to that. And then it gets their attention, and they then are more likely to come to you. So they kind of sometimes they stumble upon us. And so, you know, whatever avenue they can get to us is great.

Oliver Bogler

So I guess just for our listeners, then I guess if in doubt reach out to you, and ask you to take a look at something at the earliest point.

Laurie Whitney

Absolutely. I think again, it goes back to communication and as much communication as you can have with the lab and keeping track of what they're doing and having conversations with them about their research. And as it progresses. And you know, they're always super excited to talk about it, which is what the fun part is for me. So they love to have those conversations. And if you can engage them in those conversations, then you can sort of sort through where their research is at and sort of pathways they can go from there. And one of those might be patenting. So keeping open, the communication is just really important.

Oliver Bogler

All right, so someone brings something to you, shows it to you. How are you assessing the market potential suitability for patenting? What are the thoughts and criteria that you look at?

Laurie Whitney

And that's a really great question, too. Because I think even within our office, sometimes in tech transfer professionals, you know, they … there's always sort of things you think about when you look at a maybe a new employee invention report that you get when you're considering a new technology. And there are certainly those things that you want to think about the standard sorts of things. But as the colleague of mine, always says, every technology is its own beautiful snowflake. And so I think you really have to very much look at what comes to you, look at what stage of development it is at, is it only in vitro? Is it in vivo? Is it clinical? Where is that at? What unmet need, is it filling, which is really the most important thing, I think when we ask an inventor to fill out an employee invention report is, you know, report to me where what the stage of technology currently is, and then tell me where yours is, and tell me what niche or unmet need it fills. So we definitely have that conversation. We talk about whether it's been disclosed or not like we mentioned, which might preclude the ability to get an issued patent on it. We talk we think about what resources we have internally at the NIH where we could help the inventors get directed to the right other sorts of collaborations or resources they might need to develop it. So the feasibility of its development, you know, the market, is there a market for it, which kind of goes back to that 'is there an unmet need', competing technologies. That sort of thing, to figure out where to go with that.

Oliver Bogler

That's the conversation at the beginning, then you apply for a patent. The patent is not like a manuscript, right? I wonder if people are like concerned, oh, my, you know, it's like writing a whole nother paper, you know, with all the sort of elements that are that a scientific research paper has. But my understanding is that a patent is something slightly different. It's, it's really some demonstration, some data, and then a discussion of how it might be applied to real world problems, is that right?

Laurie Whitney

So yes, it is different in that sense, because you're really trying to capture the scope of what the technology that you're trying to describe in the patent application. So it's really focused around, you know, what the invention is, and being very broad and giving a broad description of it. So it's written differently than, you know, a manuscript would be written. So there's the big broad description of it. And then you're going to have some claims, obviously, some very broad, some more narrow as you go, that are directed to, to the technology, but we always give a sort of a rule of thumb to investigators is once you get to the point of where you have like a first draft of a manuscript, it doesn't have to be a finished draft, just your first draft of your manuscript, where it definitely lays out what the idea is, the background, and you know, what the, what the technology is, and where you're going with it, and have some figures and some legends and that sort of thing. So that we can have a really good sense of what the invention and what the investigator thinks the invention might be, then we work from that, and then pull from that. And then those things go into the patent application. So it's not like, you know, you have to redo a whole bunch of writing in the sense of redo a whole bunch of experiments, you pull from the manuscripts, usually, when they're at that stage,

Oliver Bogler

And patents are not peer reviewed in the same way that manuscripts are.

Laurie Whitney

Right. No, they go to the, in our case for the US to the US Patent and Trademark Office and are reviewed by a patent examiner there. And it's a very different sort of procedure.

Oliver Bogler

And then it can take a while before a patent might be awarded. Right.

Laurie Whitney

Yes, quite some time. And of course, there are several stages, you know, and it's always, for new inventors. It's always an education, because it is, you know, a lengthy process between the time when you file a patent application, and the time when you get an issued patent. So yeah, it can take quite a bit of time to get there.

Oliver Bogler

And just like with publication, there are costs as well.

Laurie Whitney

Yes, very expensive. So, yeah. So you start out again, it's sort of an education for new inventors, you start out typically we'll file a provisional patent application. And then in a year, if things look good, we'll go on to file a PCT application.

Oliver Bogler

Can you expand that acronym, sorry?

Laurie Whitney

Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT, it's an international application. So and then, year and a half later, if we're still looking good, and this technology is still moving forward, and we want to proceed, then you file a national stage patent application, and that would be … you pick the different countries you want to file in. And each of those stages can be very expensive. So it's not a cheap endeavor. And so, you know, the NCI probably, and I can say unequivocally, doesn't file patent applications at the rate that like a company does. So we really tend to file when we know that the technology is going to need some help from industry to get it where it needs to be. So filing patent applications really act as an incentive for development of the technology by companies,

Oliver Bogler

Right? Because if it isn't patented, then it's really not attractive to a company to develop because they can't protect their IP.

Laurie Whitney

Exactly.

Oliver Bogler

So, tech transfer offices exist at most universities and research institutes right now.

Laurie Whitney

Correct. Yeah.

Oliver Bogler

So I wonder what the trends are. I wonder, you know, looking back or maybe over the last 10 or 20 years and looking forward for that length of time, are you seeing any shifts and what kinds of inventions you're getting the nature of what's being protected and commercialized?

Laurie Whitney

I think it here at NCI, we've seen a shift in that, you know, immunotherapy has become certainly a very hot topic in the last 10, 15 years. So a lot of you know, we're at the NCI, we're a cancer institute, but we certainly see a lot of immunologically associated filings going on. So a lot of immuno-oncology. So yeah, that's a hot space. But we do research in all sorts of areas. So we look at everything.

Oliver Bogler

All right. Thanks, Laura, maybe turn to you. You've created a series of fellowship opportunities at the NCI in the tech transfer center. And I wanted to talk a little bit about those. Can you tell us what kind of fellowships exist?

Laura Prestia

Sure. So I haven't created the tech transfer fellowships themselves. They were here long before I came around. I think they may be at least 30 years old.

Laurie Whitney

We have a very, very old and active fellowship program in our office, where I think one of the things we're most proud of - we love our fellowship program.

Laura Prestia

Yes, for sure. And actually, our previous director was a fellow I was a fellow, Laurie you were a fellow.

Laurie Whitney

I think a lot of our directors have been a fellow and a lot of people in our office are fellow or have been fellows.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, so we have maybe 10 or so fellows in our office of about 70 or so people, total. And the fellowship program is a fully paid fellowship. So the stipend covers the fellows salary, as well as they have health insurance. It's a typical job. So at this point, if they were to join the fellowship with their interest in tech transfer, and following that as a career, they would be fully full time working in tech transfer, learning how to draft these different agreements and learning how to protect technologies and the whole thing,

Oliver Bogler

So what's the background of people who come to this fellowship,

Laura Prestia

They can have an advanced degree in the sciences, business, law, typically, people will have a PhD and in science, so you think, oh, tech transfer, maybe it's a lot of lawyers or business people, but it's really heavy on those with a science background. And then we kind of teach what's needed from the business and law sides.

Oliver Bogler

And I guess that's because ultimately, they'll be looking at the science that is being discussed in the context of transfer.

Laura Prestia

Right. So having that ability to dive into certain experiments and understand what pieces of those inventions will become the claims and the patent and understanding what's necessary for invention development and drawing those connections with maybe the standard of care in the field and trying to see like where this science that we have here sets that apart from what's already out there

Oliver Bogler

Strikes me as sort of similar to the kind of program and review work that a lot of people at NCI do as well, you get to stay in touch with the science, you get to read a lot of cool science think about science, but you're not yourself primarily doing research.

Laura Prestia

Exactly. It's a really nice way to stay with the science even though you're not in the lab.

Oliver Bogler

So I understand that the tech transfer fellowship has three different tracks. Is that the right way to describe it?

Laura Prestia

Yes, yeah. So typically, the more traditional track is the negotiator track. And we also have a business development and marketing fellowship. And then within the past couple of years, we have an Innovation Fellowship. So that negotiation is one where the fellow focuses on the typical duties of a tech transfer manager. So everything that Laurie was talking about, from meeting with the labs, learning about what work they're doing, helping identify whether a new discovery could be an invention, and whether or not we should patent those and make those recommendations. And they do a lot of interacting with the patent law firms, the PTO and drafting agreements with collaborators. If there's a lab that wants to work on a project with a company, they'll interact with that company and helped draft the terms of the agreement and working on the different licensing, if we have a patent and there's a company that wants to come in and take that patent as a license and commercialize it, then they'll draft the terms of that license as well. So they do the typical tech transfer duties.

Oliver Bogler

What about the business development and marketing group?

Laura Prestia

We have a special unit in our office called Technology Analysis and Marketing Unit. And in that group, they analyze the market space for the technologies that we have patents on. So they identify potential partners that might be interested in working with us. And they essentially help spread the word about tech transfer to companies who may not know they can work with the NCI, and let them know, here's who you would contact, if you're interested in a technology, if you want to look at what technologies we have, here's where you would find them. And they really go out and do a lot of that outreach at conferences and meetings.

Oliver Bogler

That kind of makes the point that it's not as if you're, you're done when say the patent is issued or applied for. You're then also shepherding that technology into the marketplace. Is that correct?

Laura Prestia

Right. We want to make sure that it gets out there. And actually, the inventors themselves do a lot of that marketing just by virtue of going to conferences themselves, and, and having, you know, their own presentations. I think that's one of our top ways that we get partners for these technologies through the inventors.

Oliver Bogler

And then there's the third track the innovation track. That sounds cool.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, this one's relatively new. And this kind of stemmed from where my career trajectory has has taken me. So I have a PhD in neuroscience moved into tech transfer through one of these tech transfer fellowships, specifically the negotiator role. And then I dabbled in marketing and invention development for a little while. And all along the way, I had this passion to help spread awareness about tech transfer to scientists, because as a scientist in grad school, I had no idea what tech transfer was. And one of the ways I found out was, I had had one I'd have I think I presented at a conference, my graduate work, and one of the one of the tech transfer officers from the university came and spoke to me. And he was like, 'Hey, have you talked about patenting this?' And I was like, 'oh, no, I did not know that was a thing'. So I kind of learned by being burned. And I didn't, I didn't want that to happen to others. So as I was learning about it, I moved into the field. And so this Innovation Fellowship is really helping to create more awareness about tech transfer to scientists, and helping to create new programs that can help train scientists who want to move into tech transfer, help train scientists who want to stay in the lab, but know about tech transfer and learn more about what's important to develop their technologies.

Oliver Bogler

Very cool. And the, the eligibility criteria, they're similar for across all these three different tracks in your in your fellowship. Right,

Laura Prestia

Right. Yeah, so an advanced degree in the sciences, law business. And then also just our Cancer Research Training Award, this the CRTA fellowship that we have, that eligibility includes receiving their most current degree within the last eight years, and US citizenship or permanent residency eligible for citizenship within four years. So those are our requirements across the three,

Oliver Bogler

But people outside the NCI can also participate, right.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, that's primarily … we do a lot of marketing to graduate schools, and also postdocs and anywhere. So yeah, there's a lot of availability.

Oliver Bogler

And is there just one one application cycle a year or how does that work,

Laura Prestia

The admission is rolling. So they can apply at any time, but we do post on our website when we have current openings? Like, we do now.

Oliver Bogler

And we'll be putting links in the show notes so people can find your website and see what's going on right now. Great. So in addition to these fellowships, you also have training opportunities, right? You have the Technology Transfer University.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, so that's an internal-to-NIH program available to NIH staff. And it talks about all of the different processes of tech transfer, so goes into … its seminar based over maybe a couple of months. And it's taught by NIH tech transfer staff for scientists, for tech transfer managers who are just joining NIH and the community.

Oliver Bogler

So it's kind of a good starting point. If someone is sort of curious about this domain.

Laura Prestia

Yes. There's no application for Tech Transfer University.

Oliver Bogler

Got it. And then there's an Ambassador Program as well.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, so the Ambassador Program, that was the passion project that I started with two other fellows when I was a fellow here, and we all had that same thought process. Why don't scientists know about tech transfer? So we started this program to help spread more awareness about tech transfer and how that could be useful to scientists in the lab and also as an alternative career.

Oliver Bogler

And then, last, but by no means least, there's a relatively new program, right? The Transition to Industry Program, which do you help develop? Right?

Laura Prestia

Yeah, I worked. I worked to implement it. It was not my brainchild. But yeah, so that is for NCI Center for Cancer Research postdocs or research fellows who are already here working on an invention and working on that in the lab. So they have a patent application has either been filed or is pending, or our office has recommended that a patent be filed for the technology they're working on. And they're interested in further developing this technology, taking it to market and they can, they have a goal to work in industry themselves, or maybe even start their own company. So we kind of help teach them more about tech transfer. We teach them about Small Business Innovation Research Development grants. I recently heard Michael Weingarten in a previous podcast. Anyone wants to go back and hear more about SBIR. So we have, it's half tech transfer half SBIR training for fellows who want to move into industry.

Oliver Bogler

Great, and we're gonna learn more about that after the break. But lastly, then I'm curious. Laurie, and Laura, what led you into science? What led you into this particular line of work? I wonder if you might share with our audience a little bit about your journeys?

Laura Prestia

Yeah, so I already alluded to I kind of learned by being burned. But when I became interested in learning more about tech transfer, I asked my PI in the lab, and I was like, What have you heard about this? And you know, how can I learn more? I'm really interested in it. And he said, Well, maybe you should talk to Laurie Whitney. I was like, Oh, okay. And it turns out, Laurie was in… She was a neuroscience graduate student back when at my university. So I reached out, she was at NCI as a supervisor, in tech transfer at the time. And I just asked her all of the questions. We had and a really nice informational interview, and she let me know everything that you know, I should do to really learn whether or not I wanted to move into tech transfer. So I started working in the tech transfer office at my university to gain experience and really see if this was what I wanted to do. After my PhD, I took a class at the law school next door and tech transactions and intellectual property. And I worked with our business incubator that was attached to the school to learn about the business side. And eventually I ended up joining NIH as a tech transfer fellow.

Oliver Bogler

Now, here you are.

Laura Prestia

And here I am.

Oliver Bogler

What about you, Laurie?

Laurie Whitney

Yeah, so we spring from the same sort of roots, Laura, and I do. So yeah, we I was the generation ahead of her and graduate school. And we both got our PhDs in neuroscience from the same place. And I when I was in graduate school, ended up doing a postdoc at NINDS here at NIH. And so I worked as a postdoc for three years, and really enjoyed it. But you know, a lot of the great things about working at the NIH, and there are many, one of them is that they have things like this that we're doing right here. And one of them back then was that they would have seminars on alternative careers in science. And so my fellow postdoc, and I would go and listen to the seminars, and one day I came away and had heard one given on tech transfer. And I kind of turned to the other postdoc I was with and was thinking, what is this tech transfer thing? And she said, 'Oh, I know. Because back in my, when I was in grad school, I did a little rotation in our tech transfer office'. And so she explained to me what it was. And I said, 'Oh, that sounds kind of interesting'. So I went and I got to here at NIH, we have this wonderful organization called the Foundation for Advanced Education in Sciences or FAES. And they offer classes and so back then there was one technology transfer class offered, now I don't even know how many there are, probably 12 or something. They're amazing. So I took that one class and it was, you know, Wednesdays, I think from like, 6 to 9pm or something. And I took it and thought you know, after working in the lab all day, I'd be kind of like ugh, and I loved every bit of the class, I stayed fully awake for all of it, enjoyed the content immensely. And through the class, like Laura mentioned, a lot of the tech transfer profession, professionals at NIH, teach the classes and so got to know them and ask a lot of questions and got introduced to the fellowship program at NCI in our office and then became a fellow and then stayed because it's awesome and wonderful and I can't imagine working anywhere else because it's fabulous.

Oliver Bogler

Fantastic, thank you for sharing. Closing, then I wonder what advice you might give to people who are listening who are perhaps, focused primarily on research at this stage in their careers, but are thinking about other things to do maybe tech transfer, what's your advice,

Laura Prestia

The advice I would give is just talk to people and try to experience the the work that you might be doing in whatever field it is, whether it's tech transfer, or something else. And I think too, if an opportunity does not exist, try to create it, because none of the internships or experiences that I had in grad school, toward tech transfer existed before I found them and worked with people to give me a chance to take them. So I think, you know, just because something isn't there doesn't mean that you can't still get the training and create something out of nothing for yourself.

Laurie Whitney

I would agree, I think the most important thing for anyone not just in tech transfer is if you know you think or you think you're interested in a field is to do informational interviews. People who work in the field are almost always thrilled to have conversations with people to share their knowledge and share their enthusiasm. And it gives, really gives you a flavor for the job. And I think especially technology transfer is this huge field. It's not you know, it's just such a broad field and our office, I would sell our office and a fellowship in our office on the fact that we do soup to nuts tech transfer, we do patenting, we do licensing, we do collaborative agreements. MTA, CDAs, cooperative agreements, we do marketing, we do just everything you can imagine. So you really get a good sense of what goes on in each of those areas, get some experience at it. Because you might decide that you really enjoy you know, patenting more, and you want to go work at a law firm or something. So you can sort of find the area that you really love. Or maybe you decide you love all of them and you want to stay, which happens a lot in our office. So really doing informational interviews, I think is really important.

Oliver Bogler

I will take that as an offer to put your contact information in the show notes.

Laurie Whitney

Absolutely.. We'd love to chat with people and like I say most of the people and not boast but a good, fair number of the people in our office were fellows at some point. So we really enjoy it. Yeah.

Oliver Bogler

Great. Well, thank you both for coming on the pod and sharing about this important work.

Laura Prestia

Thanks for having us.

Laurie Whitney

It was fun.

[music]

Oliver Bogler

The NCI wants to hear from you about what we are doing to support early career cancer investigators.

We have released a new Request for Information or RFI.

It is entitled Inviting Comments and Suggestions on the National Cancer Institute's Support of Early Career, Mentored Cancer Researchers and Trainees.

NCI is committed to supporting the training and development of the next generation of the cancer research workforce. We are seeking input on our existing approaches and your ideas for innovations we might explore - all designed to improve how we support you.

We invite suggestions and comments on all the career stages we support from middle school, high school, undergraduate and graduate studies through postdoc and fellowship to early research independence.

NCI is interested in your opinion on how our grant awards are structured and positioned and whether they could be improved to meet the needs of a diverse cancer research workforce.

Your feedback on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Responses are due by December 29, 2023.

We'll put a link in the show notes, but for questions, please contact [email protected].

We look forward to hearing from you.

[music]

Oliver Bogler

Welcome back. We're now going to turn our attention to the transition to industry or T2I fellowship, an exciting program in the tech transfer center. To talk to us about this we are welcoming Dr. Trang Vu and Dr. Sabina Kaczanowska to the podcast. Welcome to both of you.

Trang Vu

Yeah, thank you so much for having us here today.

Oliver Bogler

Also still with us is Dr. Laura Prestia from Before the Break. So Dr. Vu is a research and development scientist at viTToria Biotherapeutics, where she's developing CAR T-cell therapies for cancer. Before that, she was a postdoc at NCI and a T2I fellow. And Dr. Kaczanowska is a staff scientist in NCI's Pediatric Oncology Branch. Before that, she was initially a postdoc fellow and then a T2I fellow in the same group. But let's start with Laura. Please give us a description of the goals of the T2I and how it works.

Laura Prestia

Sure. So this program was started in 2020, back when we were really hearing a lot of interest in postdocs wanting to move into industry or get more experience in translational research and development, but still remain in the lab and have that additional training on the side.

So we worked across various offices in the National Cancer Institute to create this specialized fellowship for them. And it allows a postdoc in the Center for Cancer Research to continue working in the lab about 80% of their time focusing on invention development research to really move along the progress of an NCI invention. And they have an interest in either working in industry or moving their invention towards industry where it can be commercialized and then reach patients. So they spend 80% of their time in the lab working on this translational research and then the other 20% of their time is spent learning about entrepreneurship, tech transfer, commercialization, small business, innovation, grantsmanship, and all sorts of different things that will help them not only move the technology towards industry, but also help them in their career, whether or not they want to go into industry themselves, maybe they wanna start a company, maybe they want to work in biotech, or even if they want to remain in the federal government academia and really do that translational type of work. So the curriculum really focuses on translational research and development over the two years.

Oliver Bogler

And just to make sure I'm clear on this. It's restricted to fellows and graduate students and research fellows and postdoctoral scientists and visiting fellows in the Center for Cancer Research, NCI, is that correct?

Laura Prestia

Yes, that's correct.

Oliver Bogler

So if you find this program interesting listeners, maybe think about joining CCR for a postdoc.

Laura Prestia

Exactly.

Oliver Bogler

Great, I'd like to turn to our two alums now. And let's start with you please, Trang. How did you first hear about T2I and what made you think that this might be for you?

Trang Vu

Yeah, so I think that it was probably October or November of 2021, I think. So when I was reading just the daily email from the NCI or the CCR in there, there was like this awesome new fellowship that's going on and basically just like what Laura just gave the short description about. And I thought it is really neat because my background was an engineer. So I went for undergraduate and graduate in chemical and biomedical engineering. So I always think of how do I make a product and how do I bring something into reality and help people. And so at the time I was working on a very interesting project and Dr. Peng Jiang's lab and we just about to publish at the time. And we also file a patent for that novel genes that we found and we think it would be so cool if we can bring that into CAR T-cell and make CAR T-cell much better for solid tumor. And that was the base of the start for my proposal for the NCI fellowship, because the whole thing about NCI, the T2I fellowship that was very appealing to me was that the opportunity to gain more industry knowledge and try to push your project from bench top to bedside.

Oliver Bogler

Sabina, same question for you.

Sabina Kaczanowska

Thank you, Oliver. It's great to be here. I actually am part of the inaugural T2I class. So I heard about the program initially through email announcements, and I went to an information session that was run by Sabina. And it sounded really interesting because similar to Trang, I've always had an interest in translational research and taking technology from the bench, and bringing it to the community and trying to develop new therapies. So I applied and we had, we were in a similar position. We had just put in an invention update report and we're going through the process of submitting a patent application for our technology. And it was kind of a black box, like neither myself nor my PI really knew what the technology transfer process entailed and how a patent became a patent and how all the intellectual property protections worked. So it was just really interesting for us as we were starting this project and thinking about bringing it to the clinic, how we can kind of look to the future and plan for translating it beyond just a clinical trial at the NCI, but into a technology that could one day be taken up by a company and actually commercialized into a product.

Oliver Bogler

So Sabina, when you became aware of this opportunity, did you immediately bring it to the attention of your PI? Is that part of the process?

Sabina Kaczanowska

I did, yes. And she was very supportive and she had tried to kind of submit invention update reports in the past and hadn't had a lot of success moving forward through the patenting process. And I think for us, and especially for me, I didn't learn about intellectual property at all in graduate school. I didn't know what technology transfer was. So even knowing what is patentable, what's not patentable, what you can do before you submit a patent versus what information you have to kind of keep close to your vest before that application is submitted. All of that information was brand new to us. So I think it was very helpful because my PI is also very passionate about bringing new technologies into the pediatric oncology space and how to bring that research forward.

Oliver Bogler

So, Trang, what about you? Did you have conversations with your mentor early on?

Trang Vu

Yeah, I did. So it's similar to Sabina. When I saw the email and thought it was interesting, I showed it to my PI and he was very supportive because at the time we also trying to explore that new genes that we found and the function of that and having all the potential. So the T2I program is really great because it's not just helping the fellow, but it's also an opportunity for us to gain more traction in our research and getting our research out there, getting collaborations and feedback from all the experts in the field as well. So we both were really on board about this.

Oliver Bogler

And so what was it like to apply for the fellowship?

Trang Vu

So I remember, so at least for me it was coming up with like a full project proposal and just trying to come up with ideas and think of how I'm gonna make this happen. So it's not the first time I wrote a project proposal, but it feels like the most formal and the first time that it's like really more on me and I was like helping my PI so I thought it was really neat. Yeah.

Oliver Bogler

How about you Sabina?

Sabina Kaczanowska

I believe it was the same process at the beginning, but yeah, submitting a proposal for the research and specifically in a way that had clear milestones over the two years of the program. And it was very specific in terms of what you can accomplish in these two years and how those milestones will help you advance the technology.

So it was a little bit of a different way of thinking about a grant because you're not just, your end result isn't just, I want to publish a paper. It's how do we move this technology forward and make it more attractive potentially for company interests to do a CRADA or license the technology. And how can we generate data to attract those kind of industry partners?

Oliver Bogler

What about your own personal goals? Like in a fellowship often, the applicant is also talking about their own career. Was that part of the application?

Sabina Kaczanowska

Yes, it was. Thank you for that reminder. It's been a couple of years. But yes, we also have to write a personal statement. And I … I've always been interested in industry. Honestly, if you asked me 10 years ago, if I saw myself being at the NIH for so long, I would, I would have been surprised. But the NIH is a very translational place. So in that way, it's kind of similar to industry. But I've always wanted to go into industry and technology development to try to bring drugs to the public. And in terms of my background, I've always been interested in kind of that area. I also studied economics as an undergrad, and it's just a kind of came full circle of bringing the science and the business aspects together and learning more about them together, because biotechnology is kind of a unique field in terms of how you integrate the science into your business models.

Oliver Bogler

Trang, let's start with you. What was it like being in the T2I fellowship?

Trang Vu

Well, I guess the first one was surprisingly intense for me for the first month. Laura knows. So, I mean, because I've been on other fellowships before, but I think when I get into T2I, we started off with a boot camp right away. With a technology transfer boot camp. So, I think the whole experience was very immersive and is right on the very beginning. It's a get go, start learning, start putting yourself out there. And besides just tech transfer and learning about patent law and business, for me, T2I really helped pushing me out of my comfort zone and pushing my border. Um, cause what I like the most based on all the knowledge that we learn, is that the ability, the opportunity to meet fellows from different background, people who are doing just like tech transfer and people who are working at FDA, different institute as well, and talking to people in different path really helped to expand my horizon and helped me learn what I like and what I don't like. And Laura helped me here because I'm blanking right now, but I remember last year, in last November, September to November, we have a program, I forgot the name.

Laura Prestia

Yeah, it's called the Advancing Innovations through Mentorship or AIM program. It's our internal I-Corps, which is in a lot of academia, institutions and other organizations. So yeah, that's our internal version.

Trang Vu

Yeah, but that program, what I remember, one of the things I appreciate the most was that we, as part of the assignment, we have to reach out to 20, 30 experts in the field to talk about what is their experience and what they think is still missing or lacking in the field and how may our project or product fill the gap. And that helped me gain some like a new understanding in what I am trying to working toward in the cell therapy field, but also just the sheer skill of reaching out to people, cold email and talking to other people. I was very surprised to realize that most of the time people are super helpful and super friendly and yeah, I think this was a really nice experience.

Oliver Bogler

Sabina, you were part of the first class. Was your experience similar?

Sabina Kaczanowska

Yes, ours was a little different in that our program started January 2020. So our bootcamp started in person and then quickly everything switched to being virtual. But it was very quickly adapted. I thought the instructors … at that time we were in the technology transfer bootcamp part of the program. And the instructors really did adapt to the virtual format very effectively. So I thought it was very informative because all of that information, the patenting process, the types of agreements that NCI does through its tech transfer office, all of that was really new to me. So it was great to see what the technology transfer office does and what we're asking of our technology transfer manager on a daily basis, specifically in the context of our project and how we can best move our technology forward together through that process.

But the other really, key benefit, I think, from the program that I personally thought was really great networking. And Trang mentioned networking with peers, which was great to meet people that also have a similar interests on campus. But beyond that, being able to work with the SBIR or Small Business Innovation Research Development Center here on campus, as well as taking courses through FAES, which are run by local experts and leaders in industry, people who work for venture capital, they would bring in speakers from all different areas of industry, from the US Patent Office, from different institutions that fund biotech in Maryland. So it was a really great networking opportunity to interact with these people in a small group setting and really learn about all the different aspects that goes into starting a company. But beyond that, just moving a technology forward and all the different components and stakeholders that are involved in that process.

Trang Vu

Oh yeah, we're just about to mention, I was saying that I'm so glad that you mentioned about SBIR because it's such a very unique opportunity, I feel like, because most of the time as PhD and postdoc, we try to write grant and submit a grant, but for once we got to sit on the review board and be on the other side, see how the whole process going and shift our gear of thinking to become a reviewer. So yeah, I felt very privileged actually to be able to have that experience because it just changed your viewpoint a little.

Oliver Bogler

Yeah, you learn so much from being on the reviewer side, I think, when it comes to any kind of application. So, Sabina, you are still at the Pediatric Oncology Branch. So, I'm curious, how did the T2I fellowship equip you for doing what you are doing now? And what are you exactly, what exactly are you doing right now?

Sabina Kaczanowska

Yes, that's correct. So I am still in the same laboratory I was in when I participated in the T2I program. It's under the leadership of Dr. Rosie Kaplan for the tumor microenvironment and metastasis section. And we are developing technology using genetically engineered myeloid cells for the immunotherapy of cancer. And that's the technology that my T2I program revolved around and that we're trying to move forward into the clinic. So as you know, that is a very long process. We've been working closely with Eric Cheng in the tech transfer office to file multiple patents at this point from an intellectual property standpoint. But then clinically we're working on the development of the manufacturing process with the Center for Cell Engineering and trying to put together our IND package to start a first in human trial of these genetically engineered myeloid cells.

Oliver Bogler

Just expand that acronym for us, our IND.

Sabina Kaczanowska

Oh, sorry, investigational new drug application. And that's a filing that you need in order to perform a clinical trial in human patients.

Oliver Bogler

It's quite a major milestone for any new therapy, right?

Sabina Kaczanowska

Yes, yes, it is. And there are a lot of components that go into it. And the technology transfer really has to happen in parallel with that. So while we're moving that the research part for it in the science forward, we also need to move forward with our intellectual property filings, as well as trying to gain kind of industry support. So at the NIH, we can do a phase one clinical trial. But really most things beyond that, once you go, especially the phase three, and we're gonna need industry partnership to really move the technology forward. So we're trying to look ahead, engage where, where we can get those industry partners and try to license the technology. And a big success story from the NCI that has done this effectively is from Steve Rosenberg's group in the surgery branch. They were able to take their T-cell technologies and work with Kite Pharma and really bring that to a product that is now available. These CAR T-cells are now available to patients. So that's kind of the big pie in the sky - is trying to get our science to a point where we can partner with industry and bring a new drug to patients who really need it.

Oliver Bogler

That's a fantastic goal. So Sabina, are you then, is it fair to say you're the local expert in this tech transfer process on the lab side?

Sabina Kaczanowska

I wouldn't say expert, but definitely an ambassador. I think learning and working with the Technology Transfer Center has really improved my confidence in talking about their mission and really getting other people excited about what their office is doing. So I think it's so important. And at least in my science training, there is a big gap in terms of knowing about what you have to do to be successful in this process.

The fact that you have to file before you have any public disclosures and thinking about what about your science could lead to a patent. And you really have to think about that early on in your project. And then as you develop your project in the lab, thinking about what indications you want to go into becomes really important and different milestones like that. I think it really does come back to the lab and how we design our experiments moving forward.

Laura Prestia

And Sabina, I remember you had several offers from industry at the end of T2I too, right? So you had your choice if you wanted to come…

Sabina Kaczanowska

That is true. I, um, I was very fortunate to have people approach me after, um, talks at meetings, uh, and after our paper was published, especially, and, um, and try to recruit me to industry and, uh, part of me wanted to go, but on the other hand, I was really invested in the, in this project and I think I have a really unique opportunity to help bring this forward. So industry will be waiting for me, but right now, um, I'm here at the NCI and I'm excited to try to push this forward. And I don't think that would be possible without the tech transfer office and all the information from the T2I program that I can now bring back to my PI. And we kind of, she is an honorary T2I member. She was very involved in the process and very supportive of me being in this program. So I think we both gained so much from participating.

Oliver Bogler

So Trang, you took your T2I experience into the private sector, into a small biotech company, I understand, viTToria. Tell us what made you take that path.

Trang Vu

I feel like it took me a while to actually know what project and exactly what field do I want to be for my career until I started the project with CAR T-cell. And I think since the day that we started working on it and started talking about it, it just clicked to me that I want to be in this field and this is where I want to grow my career in. So I was very excited and engulfed in the project that we were working on for the T2I program, which was a gene-edited CAR T-cell. And it was so happening by chance for me that a couple months ago around in March or so I got approached by a company wishing for my current company right now through LinkedIn and they are looking for a scientist with gene editing a CAR T-cell background So it's exactly the same everything exactly the same as always ways wanted and I knew that I always want to go back to Philadelphia as well because my family is here and Philadelphia is developing as a cell, cell and gene therapy bio-hub of the northeast. So the company that I'm working in is called viTToria biotherapeutics and when it was founded, co-founded by Dr. Marco Ruella and Dr. Carl June in UPenn. So everyone know Dr. Carl June and Dr. Rosenberg. And I gotta say, I was a little star struck when I look up the company and I saw Dr. Ruella and Carl June as scientific advisors on the company. And I was really interested in the product itself.

So when I started at the company, this is a very small company, we are a startup with less than 10 people. And when I joined in the Spring, we are in the process of filing an IND as well. And in fact, that what I was working on in the past six, seven months, and as of this Monday, the past Monday, we are officially a clinical stage company.

Oliver Bogler

Congratulations.

Trang Vu

Yeah thanks. So this is a, it's been a whirlwind because I feel like, I feel very lucky cause I knew I want to work in the CAR T in the CAR T space. And then this job just transitioned so smoothly with what I've been working on and trying to push in the T2I, which is bringing a gene edited CAR T-cell into the clinical trial. And I want, so I want to say like my current experience right now is not really a transition, but rather like an extension of my T2I program, I feel like, because previously I keep thinking of what kind of study do I need to do to show efficacy, how much better it is and all of that. But the past six months, what it's really taught me during the IND is that how safe the product is, what are the toxicity and all type of different hurdle or even as trying to think in the business side of how much lentivirus do we need and all of that in relation to like the capital of the company. So. Yeah, I thought it's been a real eye-opening experience so far.

Oliver Bogler

Great. Well, thank you for sharing that. I'd like to take a small step back. Since we're a career-focused podcast, I'm always interested in learning how people first became interested in science. Trang, why don't we start with you? I know you've talked about your engineering background, but even before that, what made you think engineering was something you wanted to do?

Trang Vu

If you ask me maybe 12, 13 years ago, I would never think I'll become a scientist, let alone, be a cancer scientist. Because I immigrated here when I was 18 with my dad and no one in my family was in college before. So I was the first one to go to college. And I remember that when, before I leave, I had a conversation with my grandfather who was actually in the hospital for a couple weeks at that point. And he told me that 'when you go to the US, do not give up on your education. Like go to college. If you cannot get into college, try to go to a community and work your way up. Just don't give up'. So that become like a real big motivation for me.

And when I come to the US, everything is very different. And I don't really know which career to pick, really. I just know math and chemistry was my strength. So I chose chemical engineer. But the more I go deep into my study, I realized that I really want to help people and have a stronger impact on the healthcare. So yeah, so that made me do research in biomedical engineer and then I got a fellowship, worked in a cancer center in Amsterdam for a couple months and I saw like all the patients and get all those work there. So that made me apply into the NIH, which I think was an unmatched opportunity. And that in a short time, like changed my life because I just feel so lucky to get all the opportunity at NIH and feel like everyone is just very open about collaborating and helping each other and my two fellowship that I have at NIH, the iCURE program and T2I have gave me a tremendous just mentorship and support. So yeah, I feel like it's not a straightforward path, but I'm really happy with my career right now.

Oliver Bogler

Yeah, it sounds like you have, you know, you found your way to a great project and a great pathway. So that's fantastic. Sabina, what about you? How did you first get interested in science?

Sabina Kaczanowska

Yes. So, um, I think my interest stemmed from, from nature. I mean, growing up with my family, we went camping a lot. We went hiking. We traveled over the country to the National Parks. Um, and my parents are very knowledgeable about just the natural world. They would know what kind of tree something was, and we'd learn about the animals. And I was just really into biology, uh, from that sense. And then going through school. In high school, I took every biology class I could. And originally, I wanted to be a marine biologist, orca whales were my favorite animal. But kind of the day-to-day lifestyle of that, I don't think I would have enjoyed very much. So I kind of tuned my passion for biology and I really wanted to do something that was impactful to the world and to healthcare. So I think that really drove me towards biomedical research.

And I knew just personality wise, like I really didn't want to be a doctor from the physician aspect of things. So that really drew me towards research. And I went to University of Maryland, College Park for my undergraduate work. I did a double degree in biology and economics. And then I went to graduate school up in Baltimore with the University of Maryland Medical School and that was my first really translational lab experience in a cancer immunotherapy lab. And I loved it. I thought it was very exciting and interesting and relevant. And it was right, not quite at the beginning, but it was still pretty early kind of in the immunotherapy field. And it's really exploded so much over the last decade with the different types of approaches and technologies that are being applied to cancer immunotherapy.

So I was just really excited about the science and about the outcomes. I mean, you look at some of the responses that you get from immunotherapy and it's really just mind blowing what kind of differences can make for patients. So, and that's kind of my career trajectory is pretty straightforward, but still excited about it nonetheless.

Oliver Bogler

No, for sure. I mean, when I was 12, I knew I wanted to do biology. So I get that totally. In closing then, I wonder if you have any advice. Let's start with you, Sabina, for our listeners who are perhaps themselves not yet familiar with the world of tech transfer, but interested in it. What would you suggest to them?

Sabina Kaczanowska

I would suggest to look into it and learn as much as you can and take advantage of these opportunities at the NCI or outside the NCI. Every major university has a technology transfer office. When I was in grad school, I didn't know that existed, but they do. So if you're interested in anything, just go out and talk to people. And I think as Trang mentioned, that was a big kind of skill that I think a lot of people

learned through the AIM program is just not being afraid to contact people and talk about, to ask them questions and learn from their experiences. And that can apply to advancing your science, but I think that can also apply to advancing your career. So just get out there, talk to people, apply to programs, and learn as much as you can to find out what you like and what you don't like.

Oliver Bogler

Trang any advice for our listeners?

Trang Vu

Yeah, I would say my advice is quite similar to Sabina. I think nobody knows exactly what they want to do when they grow up or 10 years from now. And the only way you learn from it is, expose yourself as much as you can and gain experience and talk to people. And maybe something that is such a dream to you, well, after you expose it, you don't like it anymore and vice versa. So just put yourself out there in all the experience, all valuable experience in my mind.

Oliver Bogler

So Laura, we've heard about this great program at NCI inside the Center for Cancer Research. Are there programs like this elsewhere at other universities? Sabina mentioned that all universities have tech transfer offices, but do they all have T2Is?

Laura Prestia

That's a great question. I know for the NIH, we are one of the first, maybe only, programs. I know the National Institute on Aging saw our program and started to try to create something similar over there. I'm not sure … I haven't kept up with it to see where they're at. So I don't know if maybe we're the trailblazers here, but we usually only have funding for two fellows each year and so it's still quite small. We do put a lot of training into those fellows. So there's a lot of preparation that goes on and coordinating amongst the different offices SBIR and TTC.

Yeah, I think that, you know, I hope that maybe others out there will hear this podcast and learn more about the program and the success of it, not only for the career development of the fellows, but of the translation of the discoveries and new inventions coming out of their labs and maybe incorporate some similar trainings at their organizations or universities.

Oliver Bogler

And if they are listening and are interested, I guess it'd be okay if they reached out to you, Laura, to learn about how you built this program and maybe how they could build one of their own.

Laura Prestia

Of course, yeah, it was definitely a collaboration across like multiple people and offices and I'm happy to share how we made it happen.

Oliver Bogler

Great, well thank you, all three of you, for sharing about the T2I. Really appreciate it.

Laura Prestia

Thanks for having us.

Sabina Kaczanowska

Thank you, Oliver.

Trang Vu

Yeah, thanks for having us.

Oliver Bogler

Now it's time for a segment we call your turn because it's a chance for our listeners to send in a recommendation that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip for a book, a video, a podcast, or a talk that you found inspirational or amusing or interesting. You can send those to us at [email protected]. Record a voice memo and send it along, we may just play it in an upcoming episode. Now I'd like to invite our guests to take their turn, Laura.

Laura Prestia

So I love coffee. And in particular, there is this little coffee shop in my hometown of Utica, New York, that has the most delicious coffee. It's called Utica Coffee Roasting Company. And you can order it online. I'm not paid by them for anything. I just love their coffee. And if I could recommend a flavor, the cannoli is really good

Oliver Bogler

Okay. So if you're in Utica, that's where you need to get your coffee.

Laura Prestia

Yep. Or find them online, which we still we ordered my husband and I order from Maryland.

Oliver Bogler

Fantastic, Laurie?

Laurie Whitney

Well, so Laura and I were joking about this a little bit before we got here about, you know, what do we love and what might we recommend? And so we're really solid upstate New York girls were really ra ra upstate New York girls. And so I think I would go to Wegmans because I grew up with Wegmans. And, you know, they're a good upstate New York group. So unlike others in my office, I don't love to cook and so I love to go there because I love all of their food and all their prepped food and I love their pesto sauces. So there it is a weird fact. So good.

Oliver Bogler

And that's the grocery store I imagine?

Laurie Whitney

Yeah. Wegmans, you should know that. Everybody should know that.

Oliver Bogler

Everybody should know that even if they've never been to upstate New York. [laughs]

Laurie Whitney

Yeah, even though I'm from Corning. I'm still going to plug a Rochester group. So I guess that's okay.

Oliver Bogler

Well, thank you for bringing that regional flavor to our show. Thanks very much.

Laurie Whitney

Thank you.

Oliver Bogler

So go ahead, Trang, what book are you recommending and what's it about?

Trang Vu

Well, I'm recommending the book called A Lesson in Chemistry, and I believe it just has become a show on Apple TV, I think. And it's just talking about being a woman in science, and it was back on Sabina. When was that? Was that in the 1950s, I think?

Sabina Kaczanowska

I'm not sure about the time frame. Yeah.

Trang Vu

Yeah, but I thought it was quite a fun read and also it's just very relatable.

Oliver Bogler

Interesting. Yeah, thank you very much. I appreciate that recommendation. I'm going to make a recommendation of my own as well, just to close out. I'm going to be recommending the All About Grants podcast from the NIH. It's from NIH's Office of Extramural Research and has a ton of information about how to apply for grants and put your best application forward. If you check out their website, you can see the episodes arranged beautifully by area and stage of grant applications. So you can listen to all the episodes, but you can also zero in on the content that's most relevant to what you're working on right now. Shout out to the host, Dr. David Kosub and his producer, Omar McCrimmon, for leading the way here at NIH in all things podcast. A link will be in the notes.

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

In this episode, we talk to the leadership of the Cancer Biology Training Consortium (CABTRAC) recorded live at the 2023 Cancer Biology Annual Retreat in Newport Beach, California. We hear from Dr. Mary Reyland, CABTRAC President and Board Chair, Dr. Rolf Brekken, CABTRAC 2023 President-Elect and Secretary, Dr. Dan Welch, CABTRAC Vice President and Treasurer, and Dr. Amy Bouton, CABTRAC Ex Officio Past President. They share their perspectives on the state of cancer training today and more.

Show Notes

Cancer Biology Training Consortium (CABTRAC)

2023 Cancer Biology Annual Retreat

Mary Reyland, Ph.D.

Rolf Brekken, Ph.D.

Danny Welch, Ph.D.

Amy Bouton, Ph.D.

NCI Cancer Training Branch

NCI Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities

NCI Youth Enjoy Science (YES) Research Education Program (R25)

NIH Broadening Experiences in Science Training (BEST) Awards

Published Paper on Essential Components of Cancer Education

Cancer Research Training and Education Coordination (CRTEC) Leaders

National Science Foundation (NSF)

Dr. Robert A. Winn, Director of the VCU Massey Cancer Center

Ad: NanCI by NCI

Your Turn: Guests Recommendations

Movie: Oppenheimer

Book: The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science

Exclusive Episode: With Courage the Exceptions Rule

Book: The Spacemen

Book: Rigor Mortis

Book: Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup

TRANSCRIPT

Oliver Bogler

Hello and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host, Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers, we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today, we're talking to the leadership of the CABTRAC, the Cancer Biology Training Consortium. And we have a lot to discuss, listen through to the end of the show to hear our guests make some interesting recommendations. They're going to be interesting, right? And where we invite you to take Your Turn. So it's a pleasure to welcome the leadership of CABTRAC. We're talking at the annual retreat of the consortium in Newport Beach, California. And with me are Dr. Mary Reyland, the CABTRAC president and Professor in the Department of Craniofacial Biology at the University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus.

Mary Reyland

Hello, Oliver, thank you for inviting us,

Oliver Bogler

Dr. Rolf Brekken, the CABTRAC president elect and secretary. He's the Effie Marie Cain Research Scholar in the Department of Surgery, Hamon Center for Therapeutic Oncology Research Pharmacology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.

Rolf Brekken

Hi, Oliver. Thanks for having us.

Oliver Bogler

Dr. Dan Welch CABTRAC treasurer, Professor, Department of Cancer Biology at the Kansas University Medical Center.

Dan Welch

HI Oliver, thanks for having us.

Oliver Bogler

And Dr. Amy Bouton CABTRAC past president, Harrison Distinguished Teaching Professor, Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Cancer Biology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

Amy Bouton

Hi, Oliver, looking forward to our conversation.

Oliver Bogler

So perhaps my first question is, what is CABTRAC? I'll start with you, Dr. Reyland.

Mary Reyland

Well, that's an excellent place to start. So CABTRAC was established in 2005. And its mission is to tackle cancer, of course, and to focus on the training of highly qualified individuals who will be the leaders in cancer research in the future. We were established initially to facilitate institutions, acquiring training grants to train the next generation of cancer researchers. And we've expanded considerably over that time to include other focus on mentoring and curriculum development and diversity, and, as we'll discuss later. So we are a collaborative network of institutions, and we currently have over 80 cancer centers that belong to CABTRAC. This provides a rich network for exchanging ideas and for networking and for helping our trainees. We have a good number of trainees that come to these meetings and helping them discern career paths and get insight to the other important part of our work is to collaborate with the NCI training branch such as Dr. Oliver Bogler. To help both of us have a conversation about where we're going and what we perceive as the needs for cancer biology training in the future.

Oliver Bogler

Hey, that's me! It's great. Yeah, Amy, please,

Amy Bouton

It has been so much fun watching the evolution of CABTRAC over these years. It started as a grassroots sort of effort of a number of principal investigators of T32 grants, and has really grown and blossomed over the years to address many of the issues that we all are interested in in terms of training our next generation of cancer researchers.

Dan Welch

The only other thing I might add is, CABTRAC has allowed people who are in the trenches at various institutions with training, to be able to have the conversation directly with people like yourself. And over the course of the 20, almost 20 years, there have been some policy changes because folks have listened and it's a good two way conversation.

Oliver Bogler

So one of the key activities of CABTRAC is to hold the annual retreat, which is starting today. So who attends this and what do you cover? What kind of topics are discussed?

Amy Bouton

Well, so I can start that discussion. This is the largest group that we've ever had in a retreat. It includes about 200 participants. These participants are trainees, we have about 50 trainees coming. These are graduate students and postdoctoral fellows from across the country. We have about 60 or more faculty who are involved, very involved in the training of these individuals. And in the last few years, we've also seen a growth in the number of administrators who come who are involved in Cancer Center administration of education and training pretty much since CRTEC, that is the cancer research and training sort of branch of the cancer centers and the growth of and the importance of that group

Oliver Bogler

To the community yeah has become an important thing. I mean, NCI started the CRTEC component, remind me how long ago?

Amy Bouton

Just about four years, four or five years ago. And we now have a lot of administrators who partner with the Associate Directors for CRTEC, to provide training and programming for their trainees at their individual institutions.

Oliver Bogler

And the faculty, some of them are CRTEC leaders, like I think, Dan, you lead the CRTEC at your institution.

Dan Welch

I was going to say when I joined, I was part of a cancer center, but CRTEC didn't exist. Over the course of my time here, several people who represent institutions that want to become cancer centers have become involved. I happen to have been involved early on with a white paper that CABTRAC published on what was considered the essential components of cancer education. And that, I think, has helped set the bar for training, so that even smaller undergraduate institutions or non cancer centers are making sure that people come out with an actual knowledge of where cancer research, and even treatments are going. That's something that we've done over the past… I've been doing this for maybe 13 years. So I've just seen that evolution like Amy and Mary and Rolf.

Amy Bouton

Can I say one more thing before Rolf adds? I forgot to say that the NCI staff has always been a very significant partner with us at CABTRAC. And has always sent a number of people, including yourself and your team, to interact with us throughout the entire retreat time. And that's been a very, very important component and opportunity for us in CABTRAC.

Oliver Bogler

Yeah, Dr. Naz Zahir, the director of the Cancer Training Branch is here with some of her team members. So we're excited to, as always, to be part of this meeting.

Rolf Brekken

Yeah, so the other folks, faculty-wise that attend are usually like graduate program chairs. So folks who run a graduate program focused on cancer biology, you know, some folks that are mentors for K awards or F awards, or maybe they're T32 PIs. And so that's the bulk of the faculty, and you do have some faculty who are just interested in 'what is the best practice for applying for a fellowship? Or how do I help my institution apply for T32?' And so you have faculty like that that also attend.

Oliver Bogler

Also PIs of R25s, right?

Rolf Brekken

Yes, absolutely. R25 has become a much more frequent topic of discussion in the last, say, five years.

Mary Reyland

I would just add that we do still have programming for helping people get institutional training grants, as well as individual fellowships for trainees. And in particular, last year, we had R25-YES, fellowship workshop, I'm sorry, grant workshop. And this year, we have a more pan R25 workshop, as well. As well as sessions specifically for F and K awards.

Oliver Bogler

Yeah, the R25-YES, that's the 'youth experience science' program run out of the Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, a sister center at NCI. Dan, you mentioned a white paper that you wrote about the key elements or you and a group wrote about the key elements, sure, of cancer, research, training and education. What are the key elements?

Dan Welch

Well, it's too short to really describe here, but it's transdisciplinary. So we want all the key elements of the genetics, what are probably most recently defined as the hallmarks of cancer and the classic Hanahan and Weinberg paper, covering all of those elements with sprinkling in some of the clinical issues, even though most of the people attending here are bench scientists or foundational science people. Our goal is to do things that go to the clinic and help patients and even if it's years down the road, we want to still have that goal as front and center. And more and more of us are incorporating patients as part of the educational experience. Because I remember when I was a graduate student at MD Anderson, a great place, I never met a patient in my entire time there.

Oliver Bogler

It's a big hospital.

Dan Welch

And I walked by patients, I'd see them, but I had no idea what they were experiencing. And that has impacted me in my core cancer biology class. I have patients come in and teach as part of the class. It's the most transformative, 90 minutes of the semester, they're learning molecular biology and all that. But 4 or 5, 10 years later, the students remember Miss Jernigan said, or Mr. Smith said, and they just recognize those key elements. It's a holistic kind of education, without being dictatorial, of details, because I, you know, this as well as any anybody sitting here, the truth of 20 years ago, has been modified just a little bit as we learn new things.

Oliver Bogler

That's a good thing. Yeah, I mean, I think what you're also saying is that, what we think of as, as an ideal research, training experience has changed dramatically. I mean, there's the technology has changed, the science has changed, but also how we think about it, and how we think perhaps, I'll just say this, from my perspective, how we now put the graduate student or the postdoc more in the center of it, rather than just, you know, offering a research opportunity or a, you know, a course and it's like, take it or leave, it fit in or don't now, it's much more… Is that right? Is that how you see it?

Dan Welch

I definitely say it that way. I think, my observation, early years, a lot of principal investigators use graduate students and postdocs as a labor force. And this group, in particular CABTRAC focuses on the mentoring so that they are the next generation of people being the PI's as opposed to the ones just doing the work. That's, it's always supposed to have been that way. But it hasn't always been universally applied.

Mary Reyland

I think the experience of understanding what the important questions are in cancer research is really a matter of being in the clinics, if you can going to tumor boards if you can, being exposed to what patients go through, and the decisions that their physicians are making, and so on our… At our training institution, we place a high value on clinical translational experiences, and we require our trainees to craft a clinical translational experience. So they actually can make better decisions about what they're… the focus of their research and the directions they're going.

Amy Bouton

I think even at tumor boards, for example, the thing that is really impactful for our trainees, when they go is to have the clinicians look at them and say, we have this problem in the clinic, we would say 10% of the people who present in a certain way, have a chance of recurrence, but the recurrence is so extreme, that we put everybody on a particular drug. And yet we …and these clinicians will turn to our trainees and say, 'what we need from you is to be able to distinguish who needs to be on that drug and who doesn't'. And that … having our students and postdocs to learn that and hear that from the people who are in the trenches, treating our cancer patients is very, very important. And that's what really gets them back to the bench with a lot of excitement.

Rolf Brekken

But that's it, right? I mean, you want to have a training environment or training experience in which the trainees are still excited about doing research when they're done. And they're, they're invested, and intellectually in the process. And if you can do that, in the context of cancer research, then I think you've been successful whether that trainee goes on to be an academic or not. And I think CABTRAC wants to provide guidance on how best to do that. And you get that by interacting with other people in you know, other graduate program chairs, other mentors, other T32 PIs, etc.

Dan Welch

And I think our ultimate goal is, as the leaders of those programs, is to be able to inspire people to find their purpose, and how they can impact the disease, wherever that is, whatever they're doing. And I'll share a personal story. I started after graduate school in the pharmaceutical industry, developing a program for anti-metastatic drugs, the first one in the pharmaceutical industry, and one of the clinicians there who did all the Phase One trials said, I have no idea how to design a trial to do what you're proposing to develop. So I'll do a sabbatical in your lab. And he was in my lab for six months. And I thought I had it all solved, treating rats and mice. And he looked at me, he goes, 'that sounds brilliant. But that would never happen in a clinic.' And he taught me in that one sentence, volumes, and that experience kind of thing we try to convey. And we've learned, I've had students from Mary's program come to my lab, and they're wonderful. But they learned a little different thing here. I've worked with Rolf, people from there, I think all of us have interacted with a lot of different trainees and the experiences at every place are just as different as every place.

Oliver Bogler

For sure. I think that's one of the reasons I guess we also want our people coming up through the career to experience different environments, and so on. So you've touched on the multidisciplinary. Rolf, you just a moment ago, also talked about the fact that people who are in your programs training to become cancer researchers don't all follow in your exact footsteps, don't become academic leaders they go into other venues. I wonder how the way you have led and managed your cancer research training programs has evolved over the last 10 or 15 years. That's a reality, this diversity of careers, but how have your programs embraced that perhaps?

Rolf Brekken

I think programs, one recognize that success doesn't mean how many PhDs have you put into a faculty position in the end. So the metric of success has changed. And I think that's important. I think we also recognize that going to different vocations, besides being on the bench, is satisfying to our trainees, you know. I've had trainees who are in consulting, and they love it, I have had trainees that went into investing, and they're excited about what they're working on. And in the end, I think you have to realize that their happiness or their fulfillment in their, in their end careers, should be the metric. I love it when people stay in academics. But that's not always, clearly that's not going to happen all the time.

Mary Reyland

I think related to that is the realization of the faculty that there are many different paths that students can take and postdocs, and they can all contribute in different ways to the whole problem that we're talking about, whether it's drug development, whether it's drug testing, whether it's basic research, there are, you know, it's much wider than maybe we envisioned when we were in graduate school and postdocs.

Amy Bouton

But I think one of the things that I always think is, it's important to convey to our trainees that the training they will be getting from any of us and in any of these institutions, is not going to be a waste of time, no matter what career path they ultimately take. Because they're learning important skills. They're learning important people skills, they're learning important problem solving skills. And they're being introduced to discovery science. And it doesn't matter where they end up those skills and that introduction to discovery and research, I think, can do wonders for the way they look at the world and the way they look at their careers. And I think if we convey that to our trainees, then they are much more engaged and excited about doing it and recognize that really, the world is at their fingertips.

Oliver Bogler

Let's take a quick break, and then we'll turn our attention to the state of the cancer research training field.

[AD]

Oliver Bogler

PubMed lists over 270,000 cancer papers published in 2022 – that is a staggering 750 papers every day. It's great that cancer research is such an active field, but it makes finding the pubs that are critical to your work a challenge. What if you had an AI that paid attention to the papers you read and suggested others as they appear in PubMed? That is exactly what the NCI is building with an app called NanCI. With me to discuss it are two members of the team that are creating NanCI.

Duncan Anderson

NanCI is an app for cancer scientists, and it helps them to discover the research in new ways and connect with each other and build their personal networks and share information and get to know each other. We've just launched the ability to actually chat with a piece of research, so you can actually have a conversation and ask questions about a research paper itself.

JD Wuarin

Instead of having to read the whole paper yourself, you can now simply ask questions and NanCI will answer those questions. One of the cool features we've also added is that it will read the abstract and figure out what questions you might want to ask the paper.

Duncan Anderson

We're using artificial intelligence within NanCI to help to make information easier to find and easier to understand and easier to interact with. The only information we're using is the scientific data. So the research paper, for example, we don't allow our AI to go off and answer random questions that might introduce all sorts of concerns.

JD Wuarin

And so the idea will be that eventually with NanCI straight from your pocket, you'll not only be able to chat with papers and understand what papers are about, but also based on your interest, it will suggest to you what you might want to investigate, maybe which gene mutation you might want to look at, which new disease might be related to what you're doing. And that's gonna be interesting, I think.

Duncan Anderson

If you start working in a field which you don't have a lot of experience in, it can be a bit daunting. There's a lot of information to read. We have this idea that you could tell NanCI what the field is and NanCI would go off and present you the key influential papers in that space so you can very quickly get your head around what this new field is.

So today, NanCI can be used by cancer researchers in the USA. So it's available from the Apple App Store for the iPhone. And there's a restriction on the downloads, which means that you need to have an email address associated with a cancer research institution.

[AD]

Oliver Bogler

Now back to our conversation with the CABTRAC leadership.

I wonder then, if I might ask you as leaders in the field of cancer research training, where are we in 2023 in the field in general? What are the challenges that you see in your work?

Mary Reyland

Well, I think one of the challenges is that we have some catch up to do in terms of the academic faculties, being able to actually expose our trainees to this wide variety of training paths. And, you know, we are mostly qualified to train people that would go into academics, because that's what most of us know. And so it's really been on the institutional level. And to some extent on the NCI level, that has driven a lot of these enhancements, the BEST Awards, the other things that other types of support, to provide insight into different training paths for students and because really the most of our time anyhow, at least in our programs are going not going into academics. And the other thing I'd like to say is some of that has to do with quality of life issues. And I think we have to be, we can't be naive about addressing those. I'm not sure the answers are easy. You know, this is a very competitive environment. But I think that that's something that we have to make academics a little bit more attractive by addressing some of these quality of life issues.

Amy Bouton

And I think I want to add on to that, because I think, as role models, it's important to recognize that we, are, have a responsibility to our trainees. And I think what happens in this world of very competitive grant funding lines and, you know, real challenges that the faculty all have in their lives and in their professional careers, it's very easy to let the weight of the world fall on us. And yet, as role models, I think it's also very important to make it clear that this is a wonderful career and a wonderful area, that we have all devoted our lives too. And I think we lose that sometimes. And so I think it's too easy for our trainees to get bogged down with seeing how their leaders and mentors have so much frustration, it's incumbent upon us to remember the really wonderful things about what we do, and to communicate that to our trainees. So I try to do that [laughs].

Dan Welch

I totally agree with both of those comments, but you asked what the frustrations are. We spend most of our time hunting down funds for the labs. And when the funding rate is the 10th percentile-ish, plus or minus, that means 90% of your feedback is negative. And we can't protect students and postdocs from hearing that. But as Amy was saying, we are competing against the best of the best, very smart people. And those other folks are going to make comments and suggestions and even criticisms that will improve the science that we do, and how to take that and turn that criticism into something positive and motivating is probably one of the hardest things that I think we have to do.

Oliver Bogler

And I think that's a really interesting point. I mean, sometimes people describe it as resilience, and other people don't find that a very helpful term. But taking criticism in a positive way and building on it. That's really, really tough in any walk of life. So what are you doing Dan in your program, for example, to help early career scientists manage that.

Dan Welch

Well, I don't do it in a program, I do it in my lab. And I try to just sit down and just talk about it. I will say I am writing a book along with a couple of colleagues about the elements of science, and the scientific method. And one of the latter chapters is how to offer constructive criticism, not just criticism. And one of my grad students who years ago was scooped by two big labs that had like 15 postdocs each working on a project that he alone was doing. But he had the regulator of all those things they were finding. So we joke that we were making lemonade out of lemons. And he's now successful. But, you know, there was a cliff. That is one foot was off that cliff when we got those papers. So that's, that's the way we have to deal with it.

Oliver Bogler

Yeah, I mean, that's not an unusual experience in science, right? And you have to learn to navigate that and still find the love for the work.

Amy Bouton

But these are good life skills, right? No matter what it is that you're gonna go into. Everything doesn't always work out great. And it's good to be able to see, you know, people who you look up to navigate that kind of thing as well and hopefully navigate it well.

Rolf Brekken

But just to get back to what's cool about being in academics, I mean, there is … academic freedom fine. If you can, I can do it. If I can fund it, yes, but there's also a fair bit of freedom in terms of you know, I set my schedule. I go to work with the ball cap if I want. I can wear shorts, most of the time.

Oliver Bogler

You're wearing both right now. Yeah.

[laughter]

Rolf Brekken

There is some … I enjoy that. I enjoy the lifestyle. I … you work hard, but you work on stuff you want to work on for the most part from a science perspective, right? You're excited about problem x, and you're gonna dig into it. And there's some gratitude in discovering the solution or a partial solution or some data that speaks to a solution. I think that's exciting. And I think we often don't convey that enough to our trainees, because we're worked up about, I need that data for a grant that I'm putting in next month, or whatever. And I think that Amy's exactly right, we need to be as faculty, we need to make sure that we're projecting a positive message about being faculty

Dan Welch

I just want to amplify that a little bit. Our society now is a solution and that 30 minute sitcom. Research requires delayed gratification, acceptance of delayed gratification, helping people get through those valley of the shadow of death. Because they're going to climb that mountain on the other side, is, is a challenge. But it's very fulfilling, the eureka days. We used to joke when I was in Hershey, research is best characterizes good days and bad months. And I modify that as great days and bad months, because you're troubleshooting once it works.

Oliver Bogler

There's nothing quite like it for sure. So I want to come back to the state of the field a little bit. One of the concerns people often talk about is are we competing for talent, right? I mean, you in your own research teams. Mary, you kind of touched on this a little bit a moment ago, saying, you know, people coming up through the ranks are concerned about quality of life. How does it look, from your perspective?

Mary Reyland

I think, yes, I think that we are competing for talent. And but I think we have to think of it more broadly than just competing to fill our academic ranks. I think that success has to also be in people that go, like I said earlier to industry, develop drugs, work on clinical trials, I think this a little, a little bit of what I see is that trainees can see sort of how how our life is, but they assume that any other life is going to be better, but it's not necessarily better. So I think, to Amy's point before, is I think we really do have to communicate to those that we believe are really going to be excited about discovery, we have to communicate how, how exciting that actually is, I mean, I tell people, like can sit there and dream about things and ask questions, and I can actually go into the laboratory and answer those questions. And that is a very amazing thing to be able to do in your life. It's really creative. It's really innovative. It's very exciting. And I think all of us even after, you know, 20, 30, 40 years doing this, we still have those feelings when we actually get an answer. And it allows us to kind of open that window and, and move on. So I think we have to do a better job of that.

Rolf Brekken

I think the pool is still pretty deep, though. I think we are competing. When I see incoming…, I see the applicants to graduate school. They're fantastic. And it's a broad base. It's becoming more diverse. It's female rich, meaning at least at our institution, more than half of the trainees are female. I think that the training pool is deep. So I do think we are competing. Sure, there are people that are going into other fields, not science, or biology or cancer research. But I think the folks that are coming are high quality.

Oliver Bogler

You mentioned diversity … are we making progress on developing a cancer research workforce that's more representative of our country?

Rolf Brekken

I think we are just based on numbers at our institution and other institutions that I see whether that's going to represent the diverse nature of the United States in the next 10 years or not. I doubt it, but I think we are making strides.

Mary Reyland

It starts much earlier. You know, I mean, we take very seriously the diversity of our incoming group of PhD students, but we would like to see a deeper pool. And that obviously is, you know, a mission shared by the NCI training branch. And so the development of these pathway programs I think is really an important focus to help us expand the pool that we have to select from.

Dan Welch

This is not going to be a problem solved in our generation. It's going to start with getting younger kids, elementary school kids excited about science, just science not not necessarily cancer, and seeing that there are role models, who are a little further along in that pathway. That is what it's going to take. And unfortunately, there's way too much memorization of arcane facts in some of this high school, education, junior high, instead of the excitement of discovery and things like that. And I think it will take a transformative change of the educational system in order accomplish that. So I will maybe preempt a question that I see you look longingly look. But somehow the training branch should partner with NSF, and the National Science Foundation, who has a lot of elementary and junior high education, how can we partner together so that the bigger picture moves forward, as opposed to focusing only on cancer, which we're all passionate about, but it's not the only thing I'd like to see Alzheimer's, cardiovascular disease, everything cured, and I'm moving much more closely to Alzheimer's the way I can't remember facts.

Oliver Bogler

Let's put a pin in that for just a second, I do want to come back to that theme. But I just want to give others a chance to weigh in on…

Amy Bouton

I was going to take the flip side, I agree we need to relate to these kids at a young age. But I also think we need to retain, I think we work very hard in our graduate programs to have as diverse a community of trainees as possible. And like you, Rolf, we have a very strong group of women graduate students, far more than male at the moment, and certainly in our applicant pool. But I think retaining this diverse population, as they move up the ladder into postdocs and whatever other careers they then take is tough. And that's where I see a second challenge that we as a whole community are going to need to address. So I think it's at both ends.

Oliver Bogler

For sure, for sure. So we're, we're does CABTRAC as an organization feature in these challenges and opportunities that we talked about. We have the president, the president elect, what are what is CABTRAC doing to make things better?

Mary Reyland

I think a really important component of what we do is provide a platform for networking. And so we have almost 50 trainees here. And they are meeting the leaders in this field. And hopefully, we'll go back and, to share that information and reach out to them. And I think we also provide them at our meeting with an opportunity to sort of demystify NCI, and, you know, I always tell tell trainees, you know, call your program officer, and they're like, oh, boy, they're big, scary people. But I mean, part of the, part of what we're doing here is, is giving them opportunities to interact with them in an informal manner. So I think that that's one of the things we do. We provide a lot of career development, programming this year. In particular, we have a partnering with industry program, and that's something we've… is is pretty new. And we do a lot of also diversity. We have a great, Dr. Winn is going to be giving a diversity keynote, and...

Oliver Bogler

He's the director of the VCU Massey Cancer Center.

Mary Reyland

Yes, the Massey Cancer Center, and we're going to have a panel on what it's like to be diverse individuals and what the challenges are, in cancer research, in cancer research training. So we have actually, I should mention a trainee group that we give, empower to both give us ideas and also to frame some of the trainee offerings that we have at the annual meeting.

Oliver Bogler

Yeah, and I think I just want to emphasize it, I think certainly from NCI's perspective, CABTRAC provides a tremendous sort of one stop connection point to various components in the community for feedback. And yeah, any anything to add? Mr. President Elect, Dr. President Elect?

Rolf Brekken

No, I think Mary's covered that lovely and I think it's a great opportunity for trainees to come. I think it's also a great opportunity for those of us who are running graduate programs or at the meeting to hear and participate in diversity keynote, as well as the roundtable mean, those are all things that it's a it's an efficient way to get pertinent information that might help you down the road.

Dan Welch

I'll word slightly differently: best practices and other places. It's a sincere form of flattery when other people copy what you've successfully done. And that has been instrumental. Certainly say, at my institution. If somebody's doing something, and we haven't done it well, and I can get those ideas, I'll gladly bring them back and they do the same thing.

Oliver Bogler

So it was mentioned earlier that the conversation with NCI can sometimes lead to policy changes. I'm thinking particularly in the, about the T32. And how we heard that the former ratio of postdoc to predoc slots was was cumbersome. And so we made a change there. You just mentioned in the recommendation that NIH embrace NSF to more, perhaps more holistically tackle, you know, STEM related education so that we have more, a more diverse group of people coming into our universities and on to the PhD programs. What other advice would you give NCI?

Mary Reyland

I think NCI and they're beginning to do this has to partner with us in providing training opportunities and pathways for some of these non clearly academic careers. And I know you're starting to do that. And I think that's very, that's very important. So trainees don't just see a connection with NCI training if they're going into academics, because most of our focus has been on helping them develop that academic track. But I think, it's it's great that NCI is beginning to support some of these other tracks and help us as, as the leaders in cancer biology training, give guidance to our trainees.

Oliver Bogler

And we've got folks from our SBIR team at the conference with the retreat here today. Dr. Jonny Franca-Koh is here. Other bits of advice for us?

Dan Welch

I think to parallel what Amy was saying to its recruiting and retaining, identifying those barriers to get the way through, what can NCI do, I think NCI is actually doing a very good job, I'm about to step into the political mire right now. We have to work with Congress to understand that research of 10 years or whatever, can be set back five years by funding ending. And then you lose all momentum, you lose personnel, training stops, and things like that. We have to educate the people who are defining that funding stream. And I would say CABTRAC can work with the NCI. I don't want to use the word lobbying because there are all sorts of stigma associated with that, but educating them so that we can fix that fundamental issue. That's I think, you don't think that could be better.

Oliver Bogler

Of course, NCI doesn't lobby as a part of the executive branch. But but we do talk to people in Congress about some of these opportunities, in particular, for breakthroughs, particularly this time when our field is kind of, you know, booming with all kinds of exciting advances. So…

Dan Welch

How to do that is the challenge...

Amy Bouton

And I think from a workforce perspective, I think, CABTRAC and training, particularly in your branch of the NCI is so critical, and to be able to communicate the importance of that. And actually, with CABTRAC, we have a group of, I would say, faculty who are particularly engaged and enthusiastic about training and, and so I think we're a great resource if you ever need us to be able to help communicate the importance of, of what we do.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you. No, I definitely … we recognize that very much. So you're obviously in constant contact with early career scientists in your roles. And they're trying to find their way into the field, and then their position in the field? What advice are you giving them? I'm sure you're doing this on a daily basis.

Amy Bouton

I tell them to stay the course, that this is just a really, really great opportunity for them. And there's so many different career paths that they can take from the training and branch off from a training that they get. But the opportunity for discovery science, and the excitement, we were all talking about the eureka moment, etcetera. I just encourage them to stay the course because it's a really fabulous way to spend your time.

Mary Reyland

And I guess I would say, you know, some of what I hear - reasons for not staying the course or going down a different course - have to do with how they're going to incorporate their lifestyle values. Particularly women that are thinking of having children and how they're going to, how they're going to do this, and they see that it's getting tougher and tougher to get grants. And so they, they may feel more and more vulnerable in a, you know, in a research type career. And so if some of them are opting out for a more, you know, stable, predictable way to use their talents. So, I guess I would just like to express that there, you know, this, as Rolf alluded to earlier, this is really a wonderful career. For parents, you know, there's so much flexibility, I mean, you don't have to, you know, usually you have, most of your time is your time, and you can schedule it as you want. And I think that you have to work hard, but you know, you have to be willing to work hard, maybe other than, you know, nine to five, but it can be done. And I think it can be very rewarding. And, you know, I think all of us who have kids would say, you know, their kids have totally benefited from having this environment and growing up, being in a, you know, a challenging, exciting environment and having, you know, people around them that that kind of espouse those values and the excitement of, of working at this level and of discovering.

Dan Welch

Remember, science is a team sport, everybody contributes and to embrace your colleagues, what they can offer your research, what you can offer, theirs. We're all shooting for the same endpoint. And so that's another way of eliminating that idea that scientists work alone in a dark dank lab, and don't communicate with anybody else. And that's just not true.

Rolf Brekken

I tell early career scientists, especially those in academics, to focus. Pick some of the things that you think are most exciting that you want to make an impact on and do those really well.

Dan Welch

Follow your passion,

Rolf Brekken

You can branch out later. But stay focused on what you're excited about. And don't get pulled in too many directions. It's very easy in academics to get pulled in a lot of directions.

Dan Welch

And follow the data. Because it'll take you in the right direction, as long as you've done the experiment properly. And I remember going to a meeting early in my career. But Judah Folkman, father of angiogenesis, somebody yelled in the room, he's a charlatan. Now we all know angiogenesis is real. But he was considered a charlatan by the leaders in the field, he was just following the data.

Oliver Bogler

So we have two, two and a half days of retreat ahead of us. What are you looking forward to most and don't say 'it being over'?

Amy Bouton

It was funny, because we were in an executive committee meeting earlier, and many of us were discussing the fact that this was really one of the most fun type of meetings to go to. Because, in a sense, you know, you don't have to clog your brain with all the newest science that you're learning. This is an opportunity for us to hear best practices, to share those with our colleagues to network. I've met some of the people who have become my very closest personal and professional friends through this inter…, through this meeting. So that's what I look forward to is really spending time together and hearing about what different groups find important and new ideas. That's what I really love.

Oliver Bogler

Sounds great.

Rolf Brekken

The dance floor Saturday night will be popping.

[various people talking and laughing]

Mary Reyland

I'm looking forward to interacting with the trainees. It's so exciting. I mean, every trainee we've brought from our institution has just loved it. And some have begged to go again, which of course we don't really, we don't really encourage that because we have a lot of trainees and we want to spread the wealth, but they love this. And they get so much out of it. And they're, you know, sort of starstruck at who they're able to interact with and network with.

Oliver Bogler

So now it's time for a segment that we call Your Turn because it's a chance for our listeners to send in a recommendation that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip for a book or video or podcast, or talk or anything you found inspirational or amusing or interesting. You can send those to us at [email protected]. record a voice memo and send it along. We may just play it in an upcoming episode. Now I'd like to invite our guests to take their turn. Let's start with you, Mary.

Mary Reyland

Well, thank you for asking. I've been thinking a lot about the movie, Oppenheimer since I saw it a while back. And I, I'm sure many of you have already seen it. But I really liked the way it conveyed the excitement, and to some extent, the process of scientific discovery. And it also came … up kind of raised several questions in my mind. One was kind of the ethical question of whether we're responsible for the applications of what we discover. And I think that that in the case of Oppenheimer, it was a very specific goal they had, but in the case of CRISPR, and cloning and all the new technologies, to what extent are we as scientists sort of responsible or, you know, do we need to consider and can we consider all the all the possibilities? I often think that technology gets ahead of sort of the human integration of technology, and we need to consider that. And the last thing I'd say about it, is of course, for most of us, it sort of made us think about the interface of academic freedom, and political goals and the climate of that.

Oliver Bogler

Interesting. Amy, do you ever recommend?

Amy Bouton

Yeah, so I just finished reading The Exceptions about Nancy Hopkins, and her really unique perspective on being a woman in science, not too long ago. And I thought it was really a great book, it's by a woman named Kate Zernike. And I guess, after reading this, I just am so appreciative. I mean, I'm not that much younger than her actually. So appreciative for people like her who have gone ahead of us, and allowed me at least and I'm sure Mary, to be able to be a woman in science who didn't face the challenges that she did. It's very interesting, have you read it?

Oliver Bogler

It's a great book. In fact, I'm just gonna plug the fact that she was a guest on our pod just a few weeks ago, and told us the story of her life, and it was a great conversation. So if you're, if you like the book, I can point you in that direction.

Amy Bouton

Thank you.

Dan Welch

The most recent book I have read is called The Spacemen. And it details the Apollo eight mission, which was the first one to circumnavigate the moon. And I grew up on the base where those astronauts were trained. So I've always had an interest in that stuff. And I knew quite a few of the challenges. But I also was unaware of many of the risks that they took, that they were willing to do it to advance the science, to advance our place as Americans and that type of thing. And it was inspiring to read and hear. But since it's my turn, I will just say, I made a New Year's resolution years ago, to simply read something non scientific, every day. Because I have 60,000 references in my EndNote database. I am reading science all the time. But to be balanced, it's important to do those other things. And I think we all have to do that a little bit.

Oliver Bogler

I couldn't agree more.

Rolf Brekken

Does Twitter count?.

Dan Welch

117 characters is not quite enough, or whatever it is…

Oliver Bogler

They call it X now. Rolf, you're the last to give us your recommendation.

Rolf Brekken

I'll recommend an older book. But it's not that old. But Rigor Mortis, which I give to every new trainee that comes into my group,

Oliver Bogler

The book, not not rigor mortis?

Rolf Brekken

The book and it's a really easy read. And it really highlights the importance of knowing what you're working with in lab in terms of reagents and tools and, you know, being rigorous and how data that is unrigorous gets propagated and can influence things down the road. And you can think of things in a big scope, but also just in a lab, you know, you can follow data that was done inappropriately and go in directions that aren't all that useful. So I think that's a good, easy reminder, and it's easy to read. Yeah.

Oliver Bogler

Great recommendations, I'm going to add one of my own. It's for a book called Bad Blood: secrets and lies in a Silicon Valley startup. It describes the by now well known story of Theranos and its infamous CEO, Elizabeth Holmes. The book by award winning Wall Street journalist John Carreyrou contains much of the original reporting and it's a real page turner so even if you've heard about the story or read about it, or even watched the Netflix version of it, it's well worth it. It gives you an in depth look at how bad science can get much further than you think it should in the hands of dishonest people and how human the technology industry is actually far cry from how we sometimes think about it. So let me just close by thanking you all for this great conversation. It is a real pleasure and honor to have talked to you about this. Thank you.

Guests

Thank you so much. Thank you

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

ICC Episode 14: Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program – Show Notes

In this episode, Dr. Jessica Faupel-Badger, Acting Director of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program and Planning Officer for the Division of Cancer Prevention and Dr. Lymarie Maldonado-Baez, Deputy Director of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program join us to talk about cancer prevention research and the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP). We then hear from two CPFP alums, Dr. Leticia Nogueira, Scientific Director of Health Services Research at the American Cancer Society and Dr. Keith Bellizzi, Professor of Gerontology in Human Development and Family Sciences at the University of Connecticut.

Segment 1:

Dr. Jessica Faupel-Badger

Dr. Lymarie Maldonado-Baez

Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program (CPFP)

NCI Division of Cancer Prevention

NCI Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences

Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Network (CP-CTNet)

Master of Public Health Program

Food and Drug Administration

Ad: NCI Future Fellows Application System

Segment 2:

Dr. Leticia Nogueira

Dr. Keith Bellizzi

American Cancer Society

NCI Office of Cancer Survivorship (OCS)

Your Turn Recommendation:

Book: Eva Luna by Isabel Allende

Book: The Art of Communicating by Thich Nhat Hanh

Movie: Thirteen Lives

Book: All We Can Save: Truth, Courage and Solutions for the Climate Crisis by Ayana Elizabeth Johnson and Katharine K. Wilkinson

Book: Emotional Intelligence: Why It Matters More Than IQ by Daniel Goleman

Book: The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion

TRANSCRIPT

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER BOGLER: Hello, and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host, Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers, we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today we're talking about a great program at the NCI, the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program. First, we're joined by two leaders of this program. And then, after the break, we will speak to two alums who have gone on to very interesting work and will tell us how the CPFP helped them. Stay until the end to hear what our guests have to recommend and to learn how you can take your turn to recommend something to our listeners as well.

OLIVER: It's often said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and that is certainly true about cancer. Here with us today are two NCI colleagues who work in our Division of Cancer Prevention. Dr. Jessica Faupel-Badger, the Planning Officer for the Division of Cancer Prevention and Acting Branch Chief of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship is here. Welcome.

JESSICA FAUPEL-BADGER: Thank you, Oliver. Delighted to be here.

OLIVER: Also here is Dr. Lymarie Maldonado-Baez, the Interim Director of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program. Welcome.

LYMARIE MALDONADO-BAEZ: Thank you, Oliver. It's a pleasure to be here.

OLIVER: So let me start by asking you, Jessica, what is cancer prevention?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Okay, so Cancer prevention is a very broad area, but I think we can peel this back to two fundamental questions, and one is, how does a normal cell transform into a cancer cell, and how can we intervene on that process? And cancer prevention is the translational piece that bridges these two questions. It requires understanding the underlying molecular processes, including how behavioral, lifestyle, and environmental factors influence these processes to develop strategies to prevent cancer, and the strategies to prevent, or sometimes we say "intercept," "cancer interception" is a term we use, so strategies to prevent or intercept cancer at the earliest point possible, could be screening and early detection, could be clinical or molecular cancer prevention strategies, including areas like immunoprevention or behavioral interventions. So just coming full circle, it's a very broad area that's multidisciplinary and it requires this translational and public health mindset aimed at ultimately decreasing cancer incidence at the population level.

OLIVER: And we've been watching, at least for many cancers, or some cancers, the incidence decline and the mortality rate decline over the last couple of decades, I guess it's fair to say. What role has cancer prevention played in that?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Well, I think there's a variety of different roles. Some of that is developing new strategies for early detection and screening, new opportunities for this molecular clinical cancer prevention strategies. We know that immunotherapy is a huge area in the treatment space. It's also a growing and important area in the prevention space. But then I would also say some of this is, you know, encouraging more people to follow through with the cancer screening recommendations, communicating more about what we know about behavioral and lifestyle risk factors at the population level. So it's a multipronged, multifaceted approach.

OLIVER: But I think it's fair to say that prevention has had a significant impact in this positive change that we've seen.

FAUPEL-BADGER: Oh, absolutely.

OLIVER: So the Division of Cancer Prevention is what we call an "extramural division," which means that its primary focus is the funding of research outside of the NCI across the country. Can you tell us a little bit about the division's portfolio and what that looks like?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Yeah, so we support a wide variety of different research programs. We have, you know, networks for different research areas, such as the Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Network. We have different consortia related to early detection within either specific types of cancer or different strategies for early detection, like liquid biopsies. We also have investigators that come in through the research program grant, so the regular R01s proposing projects in cancer prevention, and then we support cancer prevention clinical trials, from small clinical trials up through large Phase 3 screening studies.

OLIVER: So I think most people can probably imagine that, for example, scientists, investigators interested in behavioral strategies like to get people to stop smoking, exercise more, these kinds of things. Those kinds of scientists fit very well within your portfolio, but it sounds like it's much broader than that.

FAUPEL-BADGER: The National Cancer Institute is a big place. Lots of different places are contributing to cancer prevention research. I think the Division of Cancer Prevention works very closely with the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, and so that division, DCCPS, would be the one where you would see a lot of this research, for example, on tobacco and some of the lifestyle factors. But yeah, cancer prevention both within the Division of Cancer Prevention and more broadly across NCI is a very broad waterfront.

OLIVER: Got it. I mean, to our listeners who might be trying to imagine themselves as engaging in cancer prevention research, can you give us sort of an overview? I mean, you could be a wet laboratory scientist and do cancer prevention research, right? You could be interested in cell signaling or cell genetics, all kinds of different things, right?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Yeah, so it does span all disciplines. So working at the lab understanding molecular processes and pathways and designing interventions, physicians who'd like to explore these interventions in the clinic, epidemiology, understanding the cancer etiology and risk factors at a population level, the social and behavioral sciences, biostatistics, lots of creative clinical trial designs, not just in the treatment space but in the prevention space and making sure that we have -- we're getting results that we can interpret. So yeah, there's a lot of different disciplines that contribute, and also, if you're in one of those disciplines, needing to be conversant with the other disciplines, right, because as I mentioned early on, we're ultimately trying to influence the public health outcome. We're trying to decrease cancer incidence. So there has to be this multidisciplinary translational perspective. The work that you're doing now, who do you hand that off to? Where does that go next to have this public health intervention?

OLIVER: So understanding the continuum of discovery, implementation, and impact, and measuring all that, and then being able to work in large teams, so --

FAUPEL-BADGER: Exactly.

OLIVER: So, Lymarie, looks like we need people with all kinds of skill sets and interests in this field of cancer prevention. You are involved with the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, which is, I think, one of the marquee programs in this area in the country. Tell us about it.

MALDONADO-BAEZ: Well, sure. The Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program aligns perfectly with what Jessica just described as the goal of cancer prevention research. So our program is a multidisciplinary postdoctoral training program and it's housed in the Division of Cancer Prevention at the National Cancer Institute, and our main goal right now is to train emerging researchers and leaders in cancer prevention and control through independent research. We also offer career development training, leadership opportunities, and we do that also in a -- by providing also a collaborative environment. It's very important, as Jessica said, that in order to move the field of cancer prevention forward, investigators and all involved need to be able to collaborate and be able to integrate their science into other fields - learn how everything connects. So just to give you a little bit of history, since 1987, the CPFP, or the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, has trained outstanding early career scientists that have gone on to prominent careers as researchers and leaders in this field. So we have former Cancer Prevention Fellows in academia, in government agencies such as the National Cancer Institute, the NIH as a whole, the Food and Drug Administration, and even at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, among many others. Our fellows are also leading initiatives in other types of research institutions, including NCI-designated cancer centers across the country, and others have joined groups that are very dedicated to promote cancer prevention in our country through nonprofit organizations and also industry. And so when we think about our program, we have designed our training with an understanding that cancer prevention covers all aspects of preventing the occurrence or the recurrence of cancer and also preventing suffering and death from this disease. That's why our approach is multidisciplinary. That's the principle that has guided the CPFP training program. So our fellows come from diverse academic backgrounds. Currently, we have around 50 different scientific disciplines represented in our program, including nursing, rehabilitation science, oncology, and surgery. We also have represented the field of behavioral sciences, pharmacology, mathematics, biostatistics, and even environmental health sciences, and more. And as Jessica was saying before, it is important. So our program not only brings people from different disciplines, but give them the opportunity to work together and learn early on in their careers to communicate to each other and design initiatives that are basically attacking this issue, this challenge from different angles, and this is very important.

OLIVER: It sounds like you've got people coming from all kinds of different areas to work together. I know that one of the things that your program does is it helps them get a Master's in Public Health, right? An MPH. So that seems to be also a foundational training element. Can you tell us more about the MPH, please?

MALDONADO-BAEZ: Right, so the reason why we offer that benefit of completing a Master's in Public Health to our fellows is because we strongly believe that training in public health is instrumental to moving the science of cancer prevention forward in all directions because it provides the ability to work in concert with multiple disciplines and understand also the impact that the work will have in the different communities we serve. And I always go back to a paper that I read that is very old. It was published in the 1920s with a professor at the Yale School of Medicine said that, you know, public health's long-lasting mission has been to prevent disease, prolong life, and promote health, but that has to be done through organized efforts across societies and organizations. And if you think about it, if you are a Ph.D. student and you're working at the bench conducting basic research, it's hard sometimes to see how what you're doing at the bench has a connection with the community. How do you translate that from the bench to a treatment strategy or a screening initiative? So public health, a Master's in Public Health do provide that. So we offer that benefit to those fellows that don't have formal training in public health, and they will go -- during their first year, they will join a one-year accelerated MPH program at the university of their choice, and then once they finish that MPH, they'll join the NCI to initiate the research. Whereas, fellows that do have formal training in public health, they can join right away. So every year we welcome a cohort of fellows, and in that cohort, we have two pools, the ones that will go to complete their MPH and those that can join the NCI right away.

OLIVER: How big are your cohorts?

MALDONADO-BAEZ: So traditionally, our cohorts are between 10 and 14 fellows, depending on the year. This year, we are very fortunate to -- we're going to be welcoming, in about less than a week, actually, 11 fellows, so we're very excited about that.

OLIVER: I should mention we are recording this at the end of May. So tell me, Lymarie, how competitive is this? Hard to get into this program?

MALDONADO-BAEZ: Well, it is highly competitive because it's one of those training -- postdoctoral training programs that in addition to offering the benefit for the MPH working at the NCI, it also provides a very unique training curriculum. Our fellows also will receive training in leadership, grant writing, and grantsmanship. They also participate of a whole suite of communication training, all the way of how to learn to communicate your science to scientific communities, but also to the public. So we make sure that's important. And also, if you think about it, all the people in this nation that will be interested in conducting cancer prevention, when it comes to the number of individuals that we can accept at any given moment, it's 10 to 14 people, so it becomes very competitive, and if you add to that the multidisciplinary aspect of the program where we have people from different disciplines applying to the fellowship.

OLIVER: And then the folks are in the program for how long, typically?

MALDONADO-BAEZ: So this program, we support funding -- we provide funding for up to four years, and again, it depends also, if they go to complete their MPH, that means that they have three years to do the research at the NCI. And another unique character or aspect of our program is that we provide the stipend or the financial support to our fellows, so that provides them with the freedom to select the research home, so their funds are not attached to a specific principal investigator or project or division, giving them the freedom to join a group that will provide the resources and the expertise to conduct their unique and innovative research, and that allows them also to collaborate with multiple groups inside the NCI and outside the NCI as well.

OLIVER: Jessica, you've been observing cancer prevention for a while. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit about the changes you've seen, even since the late '80s, when, I guess, the CPFP was initiated.

FAUPEL-BADGER: I do think that there's a broader array of disciplines contributing to cancer prevention research. You know, I think another area, and I was just thinking about this in response to some things I said earlier in the podcast, but one of the areas that's really been growing and is important is thinking about health disparities and how we enable more people to get access to cancer screening and early detection and prevention measures. So, you know, I think that area has grown and needs to continue to grow for us to make more progress in the cancer prevention space. So, you know, as Lymarie mentioned, the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program brings in people from a variety of different disciplines, and we should do the analysis, but I'm going to guess that the -- that group of disciplines has only broadened over time, and people who you may think would have a minimal connection to cancer prevention have brought -- they may not have a cancer prevention training before they join the fellowship program, but they have skills that are relevant and then become cancer prevention scientists through the training in the program. So, you know, I think that's, you know, just a bigger home for lots of people to contribute.

OLIVER: Thank you. And I wonder, Lymarie, if you could tell us, has the CPFP itself then evolved in the course of these changes that Jessica just outlined since its inception? Has it changed?

MALDONADO-BAEZ: Yeah, definitely. Over the years, we have seen how the program evolves, and I will say that our program is constantly evolving. That's one of, I would say, challenges sometimes of working with the program, the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, because we try to keep up with all the challenges and the demands of the area. One big area of growth recently has been the interest in global oncology and global prevention. We have seen now there's more interest in our fellows to connect their work at the global level and learn more from low, middle-income countries and design initiatives that can be implemented and sustained on those countries and how what they have learned from those activities can help design better activities and better initiatives here to help underserved communities in the U.S., and it's fascinating what those fellows are doing in that space. We are also seeing an increased interest in the impact of climate change in cancer prevention and survivorship and it's something that we are trying to expand because now our fellows are combining what Jessica said, you know, health disparities is really important, and they are taking that even further, looking at the environment of those groups and also economical factors. So it's interesting to see that molecular prevention is taking a turn to incorporate more of the health disparity science, and that's evolving also, learning more, integrating environmental sciences into the equation. So those areas have definitely been growing in recent years and it's something that we look forward to expanding in the future through not only the work that we do in the division but through establishing new collaborations with other research groups at the NCI.

OLIVER: Thanks for mentioning that. Later in our podcast, one of our guests is actually very interested in the impact of climate change on cancer in the prevention setting. So thanks for that sneak preview. So I wonder, then, Jessica, maybe I'll ask you first, can you tell us a little bit about your journey? How did you get interested in science in the first place? How did you become interested in cancer and then prevention itself? I know you are an alum of the CPFP, right?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Yes, I am, and, you know, my journey could take a while, but let's -- I'll just say that, you know, I grew up in a rural area of the country and I didn't even know that you could do a Ph.D. or what a Ph.D. was until I was in college. So, you know, these journeys take some amazing twists and turns. But I had the opportunity, when I was in college, to do a small project, basically maintaining cancer cells in culture, and I just became fascinated with, you know, how these cells would take over their cell culture dish and how much time we had to put in to splitting them and taking care of them, and that led me to pursue a Ph.D. focused on tumor biology. And then I was one of the people working in the lab, and the lab I was in sort of had two different areas of focus. One was very basic research, which is the area that I was in, studying cancer cell signaling, and the other was looking to develop an early detection test for ovarian cancer, and I sort of became captivated by what the other group was doing and how do you, you know, how do you have this impact at the population level, and that led me to find the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program where I could take my basic science background and get a Master's of Public Health and then focus on this at the population level, and long story short, became a big fan of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program and multidisciplinary training, and, you know, as we talk about new research directions, one of the things that I think about is, well, who's going to do that work? Where is the workforce to support that? And so my path has taken me more into biomedical research workforce development.

OLIVER: Thanks. Your title is Planning Officer for the Division of Cancer Prevention, right?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Yes.

OLIVER: So tell us, just give us a quick sketch of, what does the Planning Officer do?

FAUPEL-BADGER: So it's a variety of different things. I would say the main thing is helping the leadership of the division with their priorities and, you know, making sure that we prioritize our work going forward to maximize our impact, but it's also collaborating with other individuals across NCI on initiatives that span the whole institute where all the divisions and centers are contributing, contributing to some of the reporting that we need to do to Congress and, you know, contributing to the President's budgets, so being part of all of those pieces as well. So it's, you know, kind of helping to manage things within the division but also paying attention to what's going on one or two levels ahead of us.

OLIVER: Sounds fascinating. Lymarie, please tell us, how did you come to be a scientist and a cancer prevention person?

MALDONADO-BAEZ: So I didn't follow a very straight path. I had many turns and stops in the way, but I would say that I -- very early in my life, I was very fascinated by the fact that the body had this surveillance system that protected us from getting sick. Like, my friends were not sick all the time, so to me, it was like, oh, my God, this is so great, there must be something. But it wasn't then until I was in third grade that my cousin was diagnosed with leukemia, and then in sixth grade, my older sister was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and it got me thinking, okay, yeah, we have this system, but it's not perfect, right? Why is this happening to them? They are so young. It shouldn't be happening. And that's how everything started in my head. You know, I grew up in Puerto Rico, we didn't have a lot of resources, but I was very fortunate to be able to participate of science summer programs on the island, actually supported by the NIH, some of them, and that allowed me to go to the university where I completed an undergraduate degree in microbiology because I wanted to understand how things infected cells and how the cells were interacting with the environment. Then from that, I decided to learn more about the signaling mechanisms that were involved in transforming cells from being healthy and happy in your body to become cancer cells and develop into a tumor. So I did my Ph.D. in Cell Biology and I focused more in an area that is called "membrane trafficking" that allowed me to study and identify the pathways that were used by cancer cells to metastasize, and I followed that path when I went to the NIH to do my postdoc and become a research fellow as well, and at some point I decided that I needed to see the impact of the research that we were doing in a more direct way and that's when I decided to join the Food and Drug Administration, and I became an evaluator and an assessor for biological treatments for cancer and immunological disorders, and that was a great experience because I was able to work together with a multidisciplinary team of people from different disciplines, it was just incredible, and see how the science that we were conducting at the bench was translated into treatment and then clinical trials and then see the benefit that had in a patient's life when we heard the stories from the patients and how that was impacting their lives. So I've been very fortunate to have been part of the different, I don't know, stations, if we want to call it that way, and now I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to work with the fellows and help develop the new generation of researchers in this area and being part of that legacy, because I think that is just amazing when you look at their projects and their ideas and their connection with the field.

OLIVER: Thank you very much. Lymarie, to close. I wonder if you could give us your advice or the advice that you might give to our listeners who might be thinking about a future in cancer prevention for their own careers.

MALDONADO-BAEZ: First of all, it's just -- it's very rewarding to witness the impact that your research have in the life of people, not only the patients that are suffering diseases but also their families, and being part of the mission, that you can prevent people from dying or even suffering from this disease, is very rewarding. But my advice would be, if you're interested in this field, just take time and, you know, reflect on your field, what are the -- what are the needs in the cancer prevention field and what can you bring to the table, and think outside the box because that's what will be driving innovation and that's what we need. We need new strategies. We need to learn from our mistakes and also learn from our successes. So I will definitely advise anyone interested in this field to be bold. Think about how their expertise can contribute to move forward the cancer prevention field and to connect with us, with the NCI and the other organizations that are conducting cancer prevention research to learn more about opportunities. There's plenty of things. We want them. Please come, because I think that the more disciplines come into this field, we'll be able to move the science far more faster.

OLIVER: And we'll put some links in the show notes so people can connect and learn more. Jessica, final word to you. Same question. What advice to our listeners?

FAUPEL-BADGER: Well, I would say that, you know, scientific areas become more specialized and you certainly need to have a depth of expertise in your specialization, but I would also look for those opportunities to communicate -- to collaborate and communicate with people outside of your discipline and, you know, again, think about this work just doesn't live in a journal article. You know, what else needs to happen to actually put this into practice and move it forward. So it's one thing to be deep in your area but also trying to have that broader view of things.

OLIVER: Fantastic. Thank you both for sharing your insights and advice. Really appreciate it.

MALDONADO-BAEZ: Thank you.

FAUPEL-BADGER: Thank you.

OLIVER: All right, stick around. After the break, we will be talking to two alums of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program who are going to tell us about how it impacted their careers.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: The NCI is the US federal government's principal agency for cancer research and training and conducts a broad range of research in its Intramural Research Program. If you are interested in gaining research experience and training at NCI there is a great first step, you can take. Here with me to tell you about that is Chanelle Case Borden, Associate Director of Training Programs in our Office of Training and Education.

CHANELLE: Thanks Oliver! We are talking about a webpage called Future Fellows where you can submit your CV or resume if you are interested in a postdoctoral, doctoral, or postbaccalaureate fellowship at NCI, and that is both at the master-level and post-college level. We will put the link in the show notes, but you can find the webpage by searching for "future fellows NCI." At the site, you can tell us about your research interests and also indicate a division or center that you would like to work in.

OLIVER: What happens once an applicant has submitted their material at the site, Chanelle?

CHANELLE: Once you are in the database, any research team leader at NCI can see your application for the next six months. If they have an open position that fits your indicated interests, they will contact you directly to arrange an interview.

A question we commonly get is when are positions typically available. Generally, most postbac and postdoc positions are available on a rolling basis, however the fall/winter is generally a time where we see a lot of postbac hiring to begin the following summer. Internally, we are always promoting the use of Future Fellows to our investigators and staff to fill their open positions. So, if you are considering completing training at the NCI, I encourage you to submit your information.

OLIVER: Great, thanks Chanelle. So that's Future Fellows on the NCI's cancer.gov website – check it out and submit your info today. You never know where it might lead.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: And we're back. In this segment, we're speaking to two alums of the Cancer Prevention Fellowship program. It's a pleasure to welcome Dr. Leticia Nogueira, scientific director of health services research at the American Cancer Society. Welcome.

LETICIA NOGUEIRA: Hi. Thank you for having me.

OLIVER: Also with is Dr. Keith Bellizzi. He is the professor of gerontology at the University of Connecticut. Welcome.

KEITH BELLIZZI: Thank you for having me, Oliver. It's great to be here today.

OLIVER: So in the first segment, we talked about the field of cancer prevention generally. That's where we started, and I'm interested in what specific part of that field you work in at the moment, what your focus is. Let start with you, Dr. Nogueira.

NOGUEIRA: So as a researcher at the American Cancer Society, we get to work with cancer prevention, primary prevention, and secondary prevention, throughout the cancer continuum.

OLIVER: Can you define those for us, please?

NOGUEIRA: Yes. Primary prevention really is about the exposures that contribute to cancer risk. Secondary prevention is once you've been diagnosed with cancer, access to care, the exposure can then lead to different outcomes is the secondary prevention. So you have better survival and you don't get secondary cancers after the first diagnosis. And we get to work with the entire cancer care continuum, and my research focuses mainly on structural racism and climate change as determinants of health especially from a policy perspective.

OLIVER: So help us connect those two. I don't think people often think of climate change a contributing factor to cancer, necessarily.

NOGUEIRA: Yes, there's several different ways that climate change impacts, again, every step of the cancer care continuum. So one of the ways is through disruptions in access to care because climate-driven disasters behave differently, so it makes it harder for communities to prepare and respond. Then it disrupts access that the patients need to have to complete cancer treatment and survivorship cancer. And also, there are several environmental exposures associated with climate-driven disasters and other types of climate hazards such as increased heat or flooding events that cancer patients are most vulnerable to such as infections during flood events or chemotherapy and thermal regulation being impaired and then during heat waves and also exposure to carcinogens during climate-driven disasters, such as what we saw with Hurricane Harvey and the Houston ship channel that has a lot of extra chemical infrastructure that ended up contaminating the entire area.

OLIVER: And health services research, you're studying how care is delivered and how screening is delivered?

NOGUEIRA: Yes. Both screening, treatment, and survivorship care, all of those steps of the process are part of our research.

OLIVER: Dr. Bellizzi, you work in gerontology. How does that connect to cancer prevention?

BELLIZZI: I do. So in general my research focuses on the latter part of the cancer control continuum. So cancer survivorship. And we've made great strides in treatment, in early screening. People are living longer with cancer, but we also know that cancer treatment is not benign. So what are some of the late health effects that folks are dealing with, how are they living with cancer? And that's the area of research that I've been involved in for the past couple of decades. And the connection with gerontology is that for the most part I look at older adults who've been diagnosed and are now living with cancer, and I have two different lines of research that I'm currently working on. The first is funded by the NCI. It's a U grant award, and we're examining mechanisms and outcomes of resilience trajectories in adult survivors of breast, prostrate, and colorectal cancer, and we're currently conducting prospective trajectory analyses following newly diagnosed patients over a 12-month period. And the goal is to identify the biological, physiological, and psychosocial factors that are associated with each trajectory. So that is, who's doing well and what are some of the characteristics of people who seem to be doing well, and who may be struggling and what are some of the characteristics of those folks. And obviously, this information will ultimately be used to inform intervention targets. That's one line of research, and if I may, the second line of research I'm working on is the role of social determinants of health on accelerated aging in older adults with cancer. And we're collaborating with colleagues at Yale examining epigenetic age clocks, which is a really novel measure of biological age. And the goal here is to identify which social determinants of health, so, for example, housing, food insecurity, discrimination. So which of those factors might be associated with accelerated aging. So again, we can intervene and potentially mitigate these negative effects in a population that as we know is already at risk for accelerated aging due to cancer treatment.

OLIVER: That's interesting. Both of you seem to be working in areas where there's increasing need for your work. Dr. Bellizzi, the population is aging, I think, in most countries. Dr. Nogueira, obviously climate change is with us, but it's becoming more acute. I wonder if you could both comment sort of on your perspective of the last decade or so and where we're going. Where does the future lie? Are we going to be able to stem some of these effect of these macro changes in our world? Dr. Nogueira, please.

NOGUEIRA: Yes. I think it's becoming increasingly recognized and people are more frequently aware that climate change is the greatest threat to human health of our time and impacts every health outcome, and every step of the cancer continuum is also impacted. And I think that our ability to really ameliorate this comes to those three choices that we have with climate change, right. Mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be necessary, the less suffering there will be. So trying to identify and better understand how each one of those is interconnected can help us identify solutions at the overlap of all of these. So I think that a lot of research on the impact that climate change has on health risks and health outcomes, the suffering bucket, turning that into a solution, the more awareness, the more evidence base that we have there, the easier it is, for example, to make decisions on whether to support development of new fossil fuel infrastructure in the area and how that might impact the health of residents. Adaptation is going to be necessary no matter what because climate change, as you said, is ongoing, so enhancing emergency preparedness and other climate adaptation efforts so that we can better protect the health and safety of vulnerable populations. Cancer patients are a vulnerable population, as Dr. Bellizzi was saying, some social determinants of health also increased vulnerability to climate hazards. And then mitigation really is the most important one. So trying to evaluate how our own professional activities are contributing to the problem. How can we decrease emissions from our own professional activities. Traveling to attend conferences is one of the easiest ones, offering a virtual option, but also emissions from the healthcare system, which is the second-most energy intensive industry in the United States. What type of research can be done to help us diminish the emissions so that we stop contributing to the problem at the same time we're trying to solve it.

OLIVER: Interesting. Dr. Bellizzi.

BELLIZZI: Yes, thank you so much for that question. You know, when you asked that question, I think about the burden of disease in the older population, and you mentioned some of the macro concerns, and some of those have to do with the aging of the U.S. population and aging more globally. So we have a significant increase in older adults all over the world, especially in industrialized societies. We know that the number one risk factor for cancer is age. So if you look at the incidence and prevalence of cancer, it occurs more frequently in older adults. We also know that there is a shortage of geriatric oncologists. So there are not enough geriatric oncologists to provide cancer care to older adults, and there's a pending wave of retirements that are expected. So it is a really important question that you ask, and it's a problem that we haven't yet figured out. Who is going to be providing care to the older population of cancer patients and cancer survivors? Is it the primary care physicians? Are we going to train more folks in geriatric oncology? Again, these are really good questions, and we still don't have the answer to those questions, but it's important that we start thinking about those questions now.

OLIVER: So you're in -- the two of you are in quite different vantage points, I guess. Dr. Bellizzi, you're in an academic setting. Dr. Nogueira, you are at the American Cancer Society. I'm curious, you're developing knowledge. You're advancing the science of your fields. But how do you hope that that knowledge will actually impact it and what roles do you think you can play from your respective vantage points. Maybe Dr. Bellizzi, tell us first, please.

BELLIZZI: So I think quite a lot about that question. So you know, obviously, we're engaged in research. You know, we work on, you know, writing up our research to publish, you know, but the sad reality is very few folks that we're actually trying to help will ever read these peer-reviewed publications. Other scientists may, but not many scientists actually read our research unless it's something that's published in JAMA or JNCI and gets media attention. So I think a lot about community engagement. You know, how do we take the research that we do and disseminate it to the people that we're actually trying to help. And I have found a few different outlets for that. There is a nonprofit news organization called The Conversation, and they take academic research articles, and they work with the researcher to write it up in such a way that the lay public could understand. And I think having those connections, making those connections with community partners is extremely important. I think that's an important strategy to help disseminate our work, again, to the people that we're really trying to help.

OLIVER: Dr. Nogueira, we had your CEO, Dr. Knudsen, on the show a few weeks ago. So we have a little bit of an idea of what the American Cancer Society is, but how does your work fit into it, and then how do you bring it to the American people and beyond?

NOGUEIRA: Yes. That's a really good question, and also one I think about daily. So we are at least being trained to or we used to think in this linear way. You know, I'm a researcher. I will do my research. I'll do a hypothesis, data, write it up, and then somebody else is going to read it, and it's going to make a difference. And I think that we're starting to realize that this type of linear thinking is not enough, that we need to do more to communicate our findings. And, as you know, the American Cancer Society already does a lot in DC in advocating for policies there relevant to cancer patients, survivors, caregivers, and so that is already a part of our work. And also, it comes from communicating our research findings, identifying research projects that are relevant to policy makers and also looking at our own, especially when it comes to climate change, the field that I work in, how can we lead by example and do our own part and try to identify smaller and big changes that really set the tone of the direction we should be going. It's hard to be the change you want to see in the world. So that is easier, I think, working at American Cancer Society, which is committed to improving the health of and quality of life of cancer patients, caregivers, and the entire community. So it's a little bit of going beyond just the research and communicating and also evaluating our own activities and how we can do better and lead by example.

OLIVER: Thank you very much. I mean if I'm allowed a personal note, I find a connection with both of your areas of research. I'm a cancer survivor myself now in my 11th year post diagnosis. So I guess I'm a survivor, and I think, Dr. Nogueira, we both had time in Houston. I lived there for over 10 years and experienced a few hurricanes, so I share that. But I'd like to pivot now and ask you both a little bit about how you got into this science. So, you know, I'm curious, always, how do people initially become interested in science, and then how does that develop into an interest in cancer. And of course, today, cancer prevention. Dr. Nogueira, maybe we'll start with you. How did that happen for you?

NOGUEIRA: Yeah. I think that I was always interested in science and from an early age had -- I think we've been touched by cancer, either personally or a loved one. We all understand how painful cancer diagnosis can be for the entire family. So it has always been a topic that I was committed to working on. And I actually started on the molecular biology side of research, then due to the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program was able to gain more expertise and able to talk more about it. On the epidemiology part, when they offered us to get the master of public health, and then had an even more awakening experience on the whole 'your zip code is more important than your genetic code' when it comes to determining your health outcomes, and then access to care, which led to the health services part of my career, which is what I'm working on right now. So I think that the science and the cancer were always there, but there's so many different aspects and perspective that one can work on while committed to those two, that it can really take you places you never imagined you would end up working at.

OLIVER: Let me just follow up though. I mean -- so I used to do research myself, don't anymore but was drawn into it because of the fascination of molecular biology and that revolution. But you at some point then decided to at least look at and then join the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program. That was not a random event, right. So what made you think, you know, I love this molecular biology I'm doing, but I want to see what cancer prevention is all about, what was that cause?

NOGUEIRA: Yes. So I was presenting the results of this study that I was doing with obesity, diet, and exercise at a conference and got a question about when would this molecular aspect that I was studying be available to people. And I just had this moment of like, oh, that's going to take a lot. And I still read a lot of publications on the molecular side. I still think it's fascinating and can solve so many things. And I, in part, miss how things make sense when you're working on a molecular part and you look at the pathway and it's there. But for my personality, I think working on something that was closer to being able to measure an impact on the population was a better match, and that's how I did apply for the fellowship and getting to know more about epidemiology.

OLIVER: Dr. Bellizzi, how did you get started in science and cancer?

BELLIZZI: Yeah. Thank you so much for question, and I don't know necessarily think my trajectory was a normal trajectory. So, and I have to go back a couple of decades to answer your question.

OLIVER: Okay.

BELLIZZI: So I was in my early 20s, shortly out of business school. So I graduated with an undergraduate degree in business. So 24 years old, just graduated. I was out working in the business world and an accident sent me to doctor's. And that experience really changed my life forever. I was diagnosed with metastatic testicular cancer.

OLIVER: Oh.

BELLIZZI: And was given a 50% chance of survival and no chance of having children because of the fertility harming treatment. And believe it or not, a few months later after a follow up CAT scan for the testicular cancer, I was told that they found a mass, a golf ball sized mass in my left kidney, which turned out to be renal cell carcinoma, which as we know is kidney cancer. And as you can imagine, you know, my career and life plans came to an abrupt halt, and I was forced to navigate this whole new world. And while my friends were kind of moving forward in their careers, getting married, buying their first home, and having children, I was living in the hospital. I was undergoing several surgeries and aggressive inpatient chemotherapy. In my time in the hospital, you know, interacting with healthcare providers was really a pivotal moment in my life. I had witnessed first-hand how our current healthcare system works and in some cases doesn't work. You know, I recognized through that experience some critical gaps in cancer care delivery and importantly, the lack of psychosocial support that existed for young adult cancer survivors. So I do remember one afternoon I was sitting in the hospital in my hospital bed surrounded by my family and a nurse who just was incredible during my experience, and I made a promise. I made a vow. I said, if I survive, I'm going to quit my job and dedicate my life to cancer research. So obviously, I made good on my promise. I'm talking with the both of you today.

OLIVER: Yes.

BELLIZZI: And at the age of 26, I quit my job in business. I went to back to school, earning three graduate degrees including a PhD, and that actually led me to the NCI post-doc fellowship in cancer prevention and control.

OLIVER: So tell us a little more about that. Your first experience with cancer was very much the treatment side of it. Did you then think about how perhaps it could have been prevented in the first place, your diagnosis?

BELLIZZI: So the cancer prevention and fellowship program not only focuses on primary prevention but also secondary prevention. So my interest always was in what happens after someone is diagnosed with cancer? How could we support those folks? I mean I mentioned before that we know, you know, cancer and it's treatment. It's not benign. It leaves folks with possible late health effects, physical late health effects, psychological late health effects. That was the area of my research, and it was kind of interesting. I was at a conference, very similar story to what we just heard, I was at a conference in Washington, DC, presenting some of my work as a grad student, and at the end of my talk a woman approached me. Here name was Dianna Jeffries. She was a program officer in the office of cancer survivorship, working in DCCPS, and she was really interested in what I was doing. She wanted to know what my plans were after graduate school, and I told her, I'm getting on a train and heading home tonight. And she said, before you leave, I'm going to set you up to talk with Julia Roland, who was the director of the office of cancer survivorship. So she put me on the Metro, sent me up north to Bethesda. I met with Julia for about 30 minutes. I turned around. I got back on a train to head home. And that's when I got introduced to the Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program. And I know right then and there that's exactly what I wanted to do for a post-doc. I applied. I was very fortunate to get accepted. And it was one of the most incredible experiences of my career.

OLIVER: So thanks for clarifying that. That makes sense. You found yourself a cancer survivor, and that sparked your interest in the journey that you were going to be on for the rest of your life. Fascinating.

BELLIZZI: Correct.

OLIVER: So you mentioned it was a great experience, Dr. Bellizzi. Tell us more. It's a cohort program. It's a small program.

BELLIZZI: Yeah.

OLIVER: What other things do you think helped guide you on your way?

BELLIZZI: Yeah. So I think one of the reasons why I found it to be so appealing was because of the diversity of disciplines that were represented in my cohort. You know, I was trained in the behavioral sciences, so most of my interactions during graduate school was limited to other behavioral scientists. And what the fellowship did, the fellowship program really opened my eyes and introduced other important disciplines, like biologists, immunologists, you know, medical doctors, and the cool thing is, you know, we all shared the same goal of making the impact in cancer prevention and control. We just came at it from different perspectives. So that program made me realize the importance of team science and kind of stepping out of your discipline silo that we all tend to live within to attack a problem in a new multidisciplinary way. So that was one of the -- when people ask me about the cancer prevention fellowship program, that was one of the strengths of the program.

OLIVER: Dr. Nogueira, how about you? What was your experience in the program.

NOGUEIRA: Exactly. I couldn't agree more. I think that nowadays we hear a lot about the importance of diversity, right, and the cancer prevention fellowship program for many, many, many years now has been bringing people with diverse perspectives, diverse experiences, diverse areas of expertise together, and they do this in a way that builds community, that incentivizes us to interact and share our knowledge and experience in our points of view. And I just learned so much just from interacting with the other follows. And then they also provide a common language because they provided training, the MPH, to all of these researchers coming from communication, business, all of these different backgrounds, and now we have a language to communicate in. And as Dr. Bellizzi said, we have a shared goal. And so at every interaction, every time we presented our research, every networking event, we were learning from each other in addition to learning from our mentors and the structured education that we were offered. So it was -- this diversity of thinking in perspective and expertise was so important early in our training, right, to recognize that a team when everybody is agreeing is not doing much. It's a team where every person is bringing a different perspective and opening your eyes to a different point of view. That's really when you see progress being made.

OLIVER: You mentioned networking, and we heard in the first segment of the show about the fact that the CPFP in addition to providing lots of information about cancer prevention also provides some career development opportunities for the fellows. Can you tell us a little bit about how that was, Dr. Nogueira.

NOGUEIRA: Yes, of course. So they had really amazing training that went from how to have difficult conversations about authorship to how to schedule informal interviews, to how to write grants. It was all different types of these skills that go beyond the methodology of your research, how to communicate your research findings, and then they had the actual meetings and social events that facilitated a communication in a more informal way in which we could get to know each other and then build, like, well, I tried that one strategy we learned, and that didn't work well. This worked this way instead. So we were building this background knowledge and expertise together as well. And I think that it's still ongoing. When I was a fellow, we started having CPFP alumni meetings at different conferences that most of us attend, and that connection and that networking event keeps going even after you're out of the program. And it was so helpful to hear from different people from different backgrounds how each one of the strategies and techniques we were learning were being applied in different ways.

OLIVER: Dr. Bellizzi, what was your impression of that? I can't believe that networking wasn't helpful.

BELLIZZI: Yeah. Absolutely. And that's something that I try to stress to all of my graduate students, the importance of networking. But a couple of the training opportunities that I found to be particularly useful, one, which was already mentioned, grant writing workshops. So actually, writing a grant and going through a mock review, which was quite useful with respect to getting feedback, again, from different disciplines, which kind of opened your eyes to some of the potential flaws in your research design. You know, other opportunities that were provided, which I found to be useful was presenting our research, you know, presenting our individual findings to our cohort, the cohort of fellows and preceptors and getting feedback, again, from a multidisciplinary perspective. But networking is probably the most important thing a graduate student can do, a post-doc could do, and it comes easy to some people, not so easy to others, but it's a skill that I think is really important to work on because at the NCI, you're networking with some of the most amazing minds in the cancer world. So, you know, being able to walk down the hall and knock on the door and have a conversation with an epidemiologist or go down the hall and have a conversation with a biostatistician or someone who's in policy, it just it opens up so many other possibilities that perhaps you wouldn't have been aware of if you did not knock on that door.

OLIVER: Lastly, then, Dr. Bellizzi, we'll start with you. What's your advice to someone who's listening who's interested in STEM or health. Why should they consider cancer or specific cancer prevention as a field in which to build their career?

BELLIZZI: Yeah, that's a great question. So, you know, my advice, I think, would be for us to, you know, recognize that we are all life-long learners, right. And regardless of the field that you go into, try to find a post-doctoral opportunity that will allow you to grow, will give you space to grow. Look for opportunities to help you kind of think outside of the box with respect to your current research interests. Ask yourself critical questions. What are the gaps in science, and how will this post-doctoral fellowship help me get answers to some of those gaps. And then, importantly, how might we think about or how might you think about and incorporate health inequities in all of the work that we do, from the beginning. Not as an afterthought, but from the beginning. And then, most importantly, you know, I would say never lose sight of the human element of the work that they do. You know, eventually, if they go into academia, they'll eventually find their academic home, and they'll likely feel immense pressure to write grants and to publish. And as you navigate these pressures and stressors, try to remember, you know, why you're doing the work that you're doing and how it will ultimately help others.

OLIVER: Thank you very much. Dr. Nogueira, what advice might you share with someone listening?

NOGUEIRA: I think don't be afraid of change. Throughout our careers, we might hear it several times. Find your niche, right. And that can be very intimidating, especially early career. You put four or five, sometimes more, years, into this very specific research area during your PhD, and now you have to make a choice for your post-doc, and you'll continue to make choices, right. And it can feel very scary to suddenly switch your area of expertise from molecular to epi or communications or whichever one it is. And you might feel like you're wasting all that knowledge you gained by switching. And change is always scary, and I think that trying to understand that your niche doesn't exist yet. When you try to look around, you're going to see all the niches that already exist, and that can feel very intimidating, right. There's no space for me. So connect with what you're interested in, as Dr. Bellizzi was saying, what is your goal? What drives you? And the questions are everywhere. So trying to connect the dots that nobody else has seen, that you're the only one that can really contribute there. Don't be afraid to suddenly change from this field to that field to this class, you know, obesity to climate change whichever one it is. I think that being open to change and knowing that your expertise is needed and you are the only one who is going to see this. If there is a hard tug towards a certain topic or a certain issue or an opportunity, listen to it, and the knowledge that you gained up to this point is yours, and it's going to continue to be applied as you move forward. Don't be afraid of change.

OLIVER: That's great advice. Thank you very much. Well, thank you, both, for sharing your work and your journeys and your insights. Thank you so much.

NOGUEIRA: Thank you.

BELLIZZI: Thank you so much, Oliver.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: Now it's time for a segment we call "Your Turn" because it's a chance for our listeners to send in a recommendation that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip for a book, a video, a podcast, or a talk that you found inspirational, or amusing, or interesting. You can send these to us at NCIICC @nih.gov. Record a voice memo and send it along. We may just play it on an upcoming episode. Now, I'd like to invite our guests to take their turn. Lymarie.

MALDONADO-BAEZ: So I have two book recommendations, and it might not be the traditional ones. But one of them is this novel called "Eva Luna", E-V-A L-U-N-A. It was written by Isabel Allende in 1987, the same year that our program, the Cancer Prevention Policy program was founded. And it's magical realism. So, you'll see elements of real worlds but also combined with mystical elements. And it gets, it's developed or it takes place in South America. And it's a great novel, written by a great artist. And my second book, it's called "The Art of Communicating", and it's a book written by a Zen master. And it teaches how to communicate confidentially and mindfully, first with yourself, and then with those around you. And we love this book. And we have shared this book with the fellows that are part of our peer mentoring program. So, I will definitely recommend it to all people, to all your listeners.

OLIVER: Thank you. Those sounds great. Jessica.

FAUPEL-BADGER: So, mine might be a little different. One of, there's this movie that I've watched multiple times. And I just watched it again recently. And I just continue to be captivated by it. And so, it's called "Thirteen Lives". And it's the story of the Thai soccer team that was caught in the cave that flooded. And so, I was captivated by that when it happened. They were in this cave for almost three weeks. And I, you know, I think I'm just amazed by it when they show how many people contributed to getting the team out of the cave. So, you have people who are diverting the water. You have, of course, the rescue divers who go in. They have to come up with a way of taking these children out who I think were as young as 11. You know, young teenagers. They have to sedate them to take them out of the cave. So, just the innovation. And then, you know, so you see all of the rescue crew. You see people cooking food for the people who are there to help. So, I think there must be some metaphor, some comparison here to team science or cancer prevention research because you just see all of the ways the community comes together. And, in the end, they're all rescued. So, again, true story. So, I shouldn't, that shouldn't be a spoiler. But it's a story of hope and innovation, and amazing teamwork.

OLIVER: That's fantastic. I haven't seen that one. I'm going to go watch it. Thank you. Thank you for that recommendation.

Dr. Nogueira, your recommendation, please.

NOGUEIRA: I would like to recommend this book called All We Can Save: Truth, Courage and Solutions For the Climate Crisis. It really does get at this intersection of different issues and how you can contribute to find solutions.

OLIVER: Thank you very much. Dr. Bellizzi.

BELLIZZI: So recently I've -- I've been reading a book by Daniel Goleman, and it's on the topic of emotional intelligence. So why -- Why Emotional Intelligence Matters More Than IQ. And, you know, I just think, as a society, you know, we're currently sifting through this complex maze of misinformation and disinformation and emotionally charged issues. You know, we see it on the news, politicians and social media influencers. They know how to manipulate the emotions of others for their own gain. So I've been recommending this book on emotional intelligence to many of my friends to help them be more informed about how their emotions are being impacted by the behavior and actions of others.

OLIVER: Thank you. That sounds like a fascinating read as well. Much appreciated. And I'd like to make a recommendation as well. It's a book published almost 20 years ago, but I read it only recently, The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion. It describes a period starting at the end of 2003 when Didion's daughter falls severely ill, and her husband dies at the dinner table from a heart attack. It's a powerful book in which the author works to make sense of these events and takes the reader along on her journey. Now, a caution, not everyone likes this book. And Didion writes from her specific vantage, which is one of privilege. But setting that aside, the tragedy she experiences is a great leveler, and it's apparent that the forces Didion experiences exceed her ability to change their course. And I found that learning how she navigated this time in her life moving and instructive.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training. It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar and Edited by Janette Goeser.

A special thanks to Lakshmi Grama and Sabrina Islam-Rahman.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

In this exclusive episode of Inside Cancer Careers, we hear from Dr. Tyler Jacks, Founding Director of the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT, David H. Koch Professor of Biology, and President of Break Through Cancer. Dr. Jacks shares his insights on the state of cancer research, the work being done at Break Through Cancer, and more.

Tyler Jacks, Ph.D.

KOCH Institute

The Jacks Lab

Break Through Cancer

National Cancer Plan

Cancer Moonshot

Ad: NanCI by NCI mobile app

Your Turn Recommendations:

Dr. Yinzhi Lin (Listener) The Sound of Waves by Yukio Mishima

TRANSCRIPT

Oliver Bogler

Hello and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host, Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers, we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today, we're talking to Dr. Tyler Jacks, founding director of MIT's Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, Koch Professor of Biology at MIT, Co-Director of the Ludwig Center for Molecular Oncology, and President of Break Through Cancer. Listen through to the end of the show to hear our guest make an interesting recommendation and where we invite you to take your turn.

It's a pleasure to welcome you, Dr. Jacks, to the pod.

Tyler Jacks

Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to be here. Looking forward to the conversation.

Oliver Bogler

Dr. Jacks has many accomplishments to his name, stemming from his research, his leadership, and his engagement across the cancer research community. He has been recognized with many prizes and honors. He's a member of the National Academy of Sciences and of Medicine and the AACR Academy. He serves on boards of biotechs, including some he founded, and co-chaired the Blue Ribbon Panel for then Vice President Joe Biden's Cancer Moonshot Initiative. He was also chair of the National Cancer Advisory Board for the National Cancer Institute during the Obama administration. We will link Dr. Jacks' LinkedIn page in the show notes so you can see all the things that I missed.

Dr. Jacks, with such a broad series of engagements and experiences, I'd like to start with asking you where we are in cancer research in 2023.

Tyler Jacks

Well, we're in a very exciting point, I would say. As perhaps we'll discuss a bit later in our discussion, I've been doing this for a very long time. And I've never been more excited than I am today about what's happening in terms of the advancements of our understanding of the disease at the molecular level, our understanding of the disease in many other dimensions and then how that's led to improved ability to both diagnose the disease and intervene at earlier stages, but importantly also to bring new treatments based on those insights. I mean, I think we're in a revolution in terms of how we treat cancer today, with respect to immune targeting drugs and precision medicines. It's incredibly exciting to see the impact of the science in the clinic.

Oliver Bogler

So in terms of our ability to meet, for example, the goals of the National Cancer Plan, which was recently unveiled, and also President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden's reignited Cancer Moonshots, the plans call for reducing cancer mortality by at least 50% over the next 25 years, and improve the experiences of people living with and surviving cancers, their families and their caregivers. How do you feel about those goals, that or that particular goal?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, I think those are actually achievable goals. They're lofty goals to be sure. I think if we are successful in bringing about that level of change, it will be impressive. But I think it is achievable.

And I think it relates to some of the things that I just mentioned. The tools that we have now for treating cancer more effectively are in place and in use for certain cancers and they will expand, and they will have impact on those diseases. So, mortality will come down as a function of better treatments. But in addition, our ability to diagnose the disease at earlier and earlier stages, allowing us to intervene at earlier stages, where we all agree the disease is more controllable, will likewise contribute to reduced mortality. And I think related to our treatment strategies, you know, the drugs that are being developed are simply more well tolerated by patients. And so, reducing the burden of individuals who are dealing with a cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment will improve as well. So, this is all pointing in the right direction. I'm glad that the White House and the NCI put out these, you know, bold goals and aspirations. And I think we as a community have a responsibility to try to achieve that.

Oliver Bogler

One of the interesting things in my mind of the National Cancer Plan is this idea that everyone should get involved, everyone has a role. What's your perspective on that?

Tyler Jacks

I agree with it, first of all. This is a disease that is exceptionally common, and all of us have either suffered from a diagnosis or were close to someone who did, maybe lost a friend or family member to the disease. It's a very personal disease for many people, and in that respect, we should all be compelled to try to make a difference. In addition to that a central set of individuals who should and will step up as it relates to that call for action are the patients themselves. Patient engagement, patient involvement, patient participation.

We're finding, and we'll talk a bit later about Break Through Cancer, we're finding tremendous interest on the part of patients to participate actively in the research enterprise, a willingness to have samples shared and data shared and benefit themselves and have benefit to others through that type of interaction. So, in terms of participation, I think we want to really emphasize the role of the patient in that participation.

Oliver Bogler

One of the key features of the plan and one of the key ingredients, if you will, of achieving its goals is going to be the workforce. We need a skilled workforce that can drive forward the research, that can apply the therapies you described, the cancer prevention measures, the policies, everything, and engage with the patients. What's your assessment of where we are regarding the cancer research workforce specifically?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, well, I'm heartened every day by the high quality of the people that I interact with who are working in cancer research labs at MIT, but really around the country and around the world. And I interact with a lot of them. These are very smart, highly motivated individuals who come, from the U.S., but also come from all over the world. And one can understand why, because this is a very exciting area of science, and the applications of what one does in the science have direct benefit to individuals with potentially life-threatening diseases. So, I'm buoyed by the workforce that we have today.

Now having said that, there are concerns, in academia in particular about the interest level that students and postdoctoral fellows have in pursuing careers in academia. I think that's a legitimate concern and I see it myself, the trend towards seeking other career options, biopharmaceutical and other career paths, I would say is increasing, has increased over the last decade or so. That's not necessarily a bad thing in the sense that those are important jobs to do and individuals in those roles play a very important role in our ability to control the disease. But if we think about academia per se, there is a bit of a strain. And I think we as a community need to think about that and think about what can be done to improve the attractiveness of a career in academia.

Oliver Bogler

I'd like to go a little deeper on that. I mean, you have led an academic center, the Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research, which I should mention carries an NCI designation. You've also founded some startups and worked with established biotech companies. So in terms of that competition for talent between the private and the public sector, perhaps as a rough way to describe it, how can the public academic sector compete more effectively? What changes are needed?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, well, some of them are fairly simple-minded. One of the reasons why individuals choose careers in industry is that they pay better. So, in a simple-minded way, we need to face that fact. And academic institutions are facing that fact. And pay scales, as you probably know, are rising, perhaps not rising as fast as they need to. But that's one gap that exists.

I would say we in academia need to do a better job in demonstrating the value and advantages of an academic career. The freedoms that come with an academic lab position, the ability to demonstrate one's creativity every day without needing to justify to a superior or manager what direction your research is taking. That you can really pursue your own interests and develop new paths for yourself that address those interests.

The academic pursuit is unusual in that way. The level of creativity that one can express by being an academic researcher is, to me, incredibly invigorating. And there are other aspects of the academic lifestyle that I think are very attractive, at least for me. The ability to work with these young people, these trainees, and help contribute to their education and career development is incredibly exciting. I teach, for example, at MIT. So I interact with undergraduate students. I'm teaching a class right now on the hallmarks of cancer. We've got a group of, I don't know, 90 or so students in the room. And they're there to learn and to grow. And some fraction of them will become cancer researchers themselves. And that, for me, is incredibly exciting and incredibly rewarding. And I think all of that together makes the academic experience very, very attractive.

Oliver Bogler

I'd like to pivot a little bit to one of your other roles. So just a couple of years ago, a new organization, Break Through Cancer, was started. You serve as its president. And if I may quote you from the website, quote, "when we act together, we have the potential to be an unstoppable force. There's nothing that will build momentum and progress faster", end quote. So please tell us about Break Through Cancer. How does it work and what is it doing?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, so Break Through Cancer is a new foundation, as you mentioned. We opened our doors about two and a half years ago. We are an organization that was formed to facilitate, promote, and fund inter-institutional team-based cancer research to tackle very difficult problems, historically difficult problems in cancer. Initially focused on four cancer types, and that will grow over time, but glioblastoma, pancreas cancer, ovarian cancer, and AML are our first four target areas.

Oliver Bogler

Acute myelo…

Tyler Jacks

Acute myelogenous leukemia, sorry. And so, we were formed to promote and support inter-institutional teams. What does that mean? Well, first of all, we have five key partners, five outstanding cancer centers in the country, all with an NCI designation. MIT's Koch Institute, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, the Kimmel Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, and the MD Anderson Cancer Center, all are founding partners of Break Through Cancer. And importantly, for all of those organizations, we have members of their leadership serving on the board of Break Through Cancer, which is a demonstration of their investment in this activity. They've sort of all pledged to work together to, in part, bring the resources of their institutions, including, importantly, investigators from their institutions to this activity.

The research that we fund is team-based, and we are trying to instill an approach wherein members of those teams, even though they might come from multiple institutions, and in our case they do, behave and treat each other as though they were members of the same laboratory. And we have a term for that called the team lab. So these teams form a team lab, and there is a degree of interaction and information sharing and data sharing and sample sharing that occurs across this group of investigators within the team lab in much the same way might happen in an individual laboratory at a particular institution. Our role is to help form those teams and help them think through exactly what they want to pursue together.

And this is a distinguishing feature of Break Through Cancer, I would say. The active role that we play with our staff and with our scientific advisory board to help the teams themselves refine their ideas, improve their ideas, shape their ideas to become the most effective team they can be.

And then when that process is completed and the team is funded, we don't walk away. Break Through Cancer stays involved and helps them continue to effectively engage as a community of researchers, and also helps work through problems that they might encounter, including at the level of their institutions. In order for this to work well, the institutions have to work together well. And these institutions sometimes have policies that are not harmonious, and we need to work through those. Sometimes we need to work with industry partners. That's actually an important feature of Break Through Cancer. And that can be challenging, even with a single institution, let alone five institutions. And so in all of these ways, Break Through Cancer is trying to enable a form of research which we call radical collaboration. It's collaboration across many investigators, across many institutions, between academic institutions and industry, between researchers in an institution and administrators within an institution, everybody pulling together to try to achieve a common goal.

That's beginning to work, I'm pleased to say. We're now at two and a half years into the organization, about a year and a half into our first funded teams. And that new culture of collaboration and genuine teamwork is beginning to take hold. And it's incredibly satisfying to all of us here at Break Through Cancer to see that happening. And I think our team members likewise are excited to be participating.

Oliver Bogler

So that sounds really amazing what you're doing there and incredibly interesting. The incentives in academia or in the private sector aren't always aligned with radical collaboration. How are you overcoming that barrier?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, it's a really important question and I think we've thought a lot, really since the beginnings of the organization, about how credit and incentives will be handled in order to continue to motivate people to participate in these joint activities. Because you're right, there is a fear that in the context of team-based science, people might not get adequate recognition. What I can tell you is that there's a lot of enthusiasm from our participating researchers. We've got 360 or so investigators participating across eight teams that we've funded so far. And these indivudals range from the most senior faculty members down to graduate students and post-docs. I would say my observation is that the younger people are even more excited about participating in these team-based activities. I think they recognize the value of joining forces with others and thus achieving more than they can do themselves. Now, having said that, we do have to pay attention to credit and incentives. And so when we think about authorship, we need to be careful that people get recognized for what they do. And frankly, we're still working through exactly how we will do that in a formal sense, but we know that it's important. In terms of other forms of recognition, we've talked openly about the fact that when it's time to discuss the work at public meetings and other fora, we don't just pick the senior most individual. We pick an individual from the team who may be the best to represent a particular aspect of that work. And that person might be a graduate student or a postdoc or a research scientist or somebody else on the team. And so we're very thoughtful about how we see the inner workings of the team and how we recognize the contributions. And I think the final thing I would say, and I think this is maybe has a larger scope to it: when we think about career progression, at least in academia, we know that promotions and promotion packages and letters of support in promotion packages are very important. And so we've made a commitment as an organization to go deep and if it's important that an individual on one of the teams gets special, recognition because of the role they played on that team, even if they weren't necessarily the first author or last author on the paper, but they played a really important role. We've committed and I personally have committed to writing a letter that makes it clear that this person did these important things. And I think I'm sensing now that promotion committees are very open and receptive to this notion that that you shouldn't just look at the first author and the last author, but really try to attribute properly the credit and individual plays in a team-based science project.

Oliver Bogler

Interesting. I mean, you have eight teams, so this is a more general question. But one thing we are very interested in on this podcast is all the different kinds of science and expertise and minds that are required to tackle cancer. Right. It's no longer a cottage industry. It's now a team based industry. I wonder if you could comment on these teams that you have formed through Break Through Cancer, what kinds of scientists are on those teams?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, well we have a full range, and I could really take that question in two different directions. Let me start with the members of the teams and then I'll switch to the sort of disciplines that they represent. But as I said earlier, we have very senior faculty, we have very junior trainees participating. We have research scientists and non-tenure track faculty on these teams. In fact, we've created a position that we call the Break Through Cancer Scientist. This is an individual who's non-tenure track, but full-time researcher. At MIT, we would call that a research scientist. They have different designations at different universities. We have four of these individuals today across those eight teams, and we will grow that number. And these are individuals who are sort of dedicated to a particular team on the one hand, but also dedicated to carrying the culture of Break Through Cancer across teams. They are integrators of this activity more broadly. So that's another category of individuals whom I think are critically important, and I'm really pleased by how well our first four Break Through Cancer Scientists are doing.

So we have a range of individuals at different career stages participating, but we also have a range of activities and disciplines participating. From molecular biology, molecular genetics on the one hand, all the way through to the clinic. So many of our investigators are clinicians carrying out clinical trials. This is an activity that spans from the research and discovery realm through to the clinic. Importantly, breakthrough cancer is really built to bring the best of science to the clinic. And so many of our investigators are clinically oriented as well. But we also have a very serious commitment to data science and computation. One of our eight teams is actually the data science team. And we're building within Break Through Cancer a data science hub that will support the network of individuals across all that we fund. So data science is a key component of the Break Through Cancer activity.

We also have, beyond biological disciplines and cancer biology, cancer-oriented engineering. And that might not surprise you, given my role at MIT and the Koch Institute, which features exactly that. But not just at MIT, but from other institutions as well. We have engineers who bring their skills and their approach and their perspective, sometimes their devices and technologies, to these problems. And that really speaks to the value of the team-based approach, and I think it was really at the heart of your question.

By being on a team that is composed of people from different backgrounds, different disciplines, different perspectives, you can take advantage of that breadth of activity and expertise to advance the project faster and more effectively. That's certainly what we believe here, and we're seeing it play out in real time.

Oliver Bogler

Given the broad view of cancer that you have and these many different kinds of engagements, I wonder if I could entice you to make a prediction as to where we might be in five or 10 years.

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, well, in our world, as you know, five or 10 years is an eye blink, but I'll try. Maybe it's more fair to talk about 10 years than five, but in 10 years' time, we will see if I think about cancer treatment, we can talk about cancer research and prevention and early diagnosis as well. But if I think about cancer treatment, I think for many of the major cancers and many cancers more broadly, we will be in an era in which targeted therapies and immunotherapies will have replaced traditional chemotherapy in the front line.

That's obviously already happening for some cancers, and I predict it will happen for most. And deep genetic testing will be available and implemented for all patients. And molecular diagnostic techniques will be used to properly evaluate the state of the individual's disease and apply the right technology. So the whole realm of precision medicine will come into play more broadly across cancers and be more available for all cancer patients. I think that is a realistic expectation.

Will it lead to the curing of cancer in 10 years? No, it will not. Cancer will remain a formidable foe. Resistance is a problem and will remain a problem. But our ability to manage that resistance and as we talk about converting cancer from an acute disease to a chronic disease will take shape, has taken shape and will continue to take shape. So that's where I see where we'll be and even in 10 years time. That's from the perspective of cancer treatment.

Oliver Bogler

What about research?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, so I think in research, we are again living through this amazing time related to the technologies that are available to us today. Our ability to do profiling at depth and at scale in ways that one could not have imagined, using single cell methods and spatial omics methods and various integrations of molecular techniques of various types to give a more fulsome picture of what's happening in cancer, bolstered importantly by more and more powerful computational methods to help us understand and organize all of those data. So cancer research is at an important turning point as it relates to that. And then, of course, our ability to manipulate genomes with greater and greater precision. CRISPR and all the follow-on technologies related to CRISPR, our ability to manipulate genomes by the nucleotide, make our ability to model cancer much more powerful. And this is, of course, the work that we do in my own laboratory. And when I think about where it was when we started compared to where it is today, it's really breathtaking.

So the power of technology as it applies to cancer biology is really changing the way we even think about what's possible And in ten years, I can't even imagine where we'll be but it will be in an even more powerful place.

Oliver Bogler

Well, that's a great teaser for the second part of our conversation. So we're going to take a quick break. And when we come back, we will talk to Dr. Jacks about the research in his lab, how he mentors scientists and ask him to give you some advice. You, our listeners.

[music]

Oliver Bogler

PubMed lists over 270,000 cancer papers published in 2022 – that is a staggering 750 papers every day. It's great that cancer research is such an active field, but it makes finding the pubs that are critical to your work a challenge. What if you had an AI that paid attention to the papers you read and suggested others as they appear in PubMed? That is exactly what the NCI is building with an app called NanCI. With me to discuss NanCI are two members of the team that are creating NanCI: Chris Perrien of Blue Pane Studios and Duncan Anderson of Humanise.ai.

Chris, you've been building apps for NCI for over a decade. What is new about NanCI?

Chris Perrien

Fundamentally NanCI represents a shift in the scientists user experience – in the prior generation of apps people had to know where to look to find things. Now, they can find the information using AI agents. I think of NanCI as a friendly research assistant who makes suggestions and answers questions. Of course, it is early days, and NanCI is still learning from their users, but they will get better and better over time.

Oliver Bogler

Duncan, you bring AI expertise to the project. Can you tell us what capabilities that brings to NanCI?

Duncan Anderson

Yes. NanCI is all about connecting scientists. Right now the focus is on connecting them to papers relevant to their interests, which NanCI does by matching vector representations of abstracts and looking at co-citations. If you tell NanCI that you find a group of papers interesting, by bookmarking them, the app will keep an eye on PubMed for you and suggest related publications. You can also share these folders with colleagues and export them to your reference manager. You can read the paper right there in NanCI, and follow any author to see when they publish preprints. Down the road we intend to help people network based on shared scientific and career interests. And much more – these are just some of the features of the app.

Oliver Bogler

Thanks, Chris and Duncan. Right now NanCI is available in the Apple app store, and it will be coming to android later this year. Download it and give it a try! Your feedback on NanCI is very welcome – you can send that to us here at [email protected].

[music]

Oliver Bogler

And we're back. Dr. Jacks, I'd like to pivot to your own science. Your lab's web page says that your group is interested in the genetic events contributing to the development of cancer with a focus on mouse models. How did you come to focus on this? How did you get into science in the first place?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, my story goes back to college. Entering college, I don't think I knew for sure what I wanted to do. Science was on the list but it certainly wasn't at the top of the list. And I was lucky enough, like many people are, to take a course that really changed my interest level dramatically. It was a course in molecular biology taught by a professor named David Dressler. And he brought to life this young field of molecular biology. This was in the early 1980s. And I got captivated by what we could know and what we could do.

He fortunately offered me an opportunity to work in his laboratory, which I did, and began to do firsthand cancer research at the bench, which was very exciting to me. I then had another pivotal moment in college where I was taking a cancer biology class, not unlike the one that I teach myself today. And along the way, this was back in 1982, by the way, a young Bob Weinberg wandered up the road from MIT and gave a special lecture on work that he had done and his laboratory had done just in the last several months, which was the cloning of the first human oncogene, HRAS. That was unpublished work that he was presenting to us at that time. And I remember well sitting there in that class thinking, this is the future. This is how we will understand the cancer problem. And this information will give us ways to treat the disease better and diagnose the disease better. I decided at that time that this is what I really wanted to do in my life. So, I applied to graduate school, went off to UCSF, and was fortunate enough to join the laboratory of Harold Varmus, who, as you know, became one day the NIH Director and then the NCI Director.

Oliver Bogler

Indeed.

Tyler Jacks

He was a tremendous mentor. I was interested in cancer, as I mentioned. It happens that the project that I worked on in Harold's lab was one that was deeply in the field of retrovirology and the retroviral life cycle. I'll just say parenthetically to the audience that the reason I worked on that project is that my first project, which was on the cloning of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene, failed miserably. So I had to go to my backup plan, which was to study ribosomal frame shifting in retroviral gene expression. But I always maintained an interest in cancer research, and so when it came time to choose a postdoc, I returned to my interest, actually in the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor gene, which by then had been cloned by Bob Weinberg's lab. He comes into the story again. And I decided that if you can't beat him, join him. So I joined Bob Weinberg's lab. The gene had been cloned, and fortunately, the techniques for generating knockouts in mice using genetic engineering and embryonic stem cells had just begun to become available. And I decided to use that set of techniques to create mouse models of familial retinoblastoma and eventually other familial cancer syndromes. And that's the work that I did in Bob's lab. So I became interested in using the mouse as a model system and using genetic engineering as a postdoc.

I will also say parenthetically to our audience that for the first three and a half years in Bob's lab, nothing worked. It was a series of failures. I couldn't get any of what I was trying to do to work. Bob fortunately was very supportive and allowed me to continue and eventually after three and a half years things began to work and I was able to make those knockout strains and they really did form the foundation of the research that I do today.

So we continue to use the mouse as a model system. We continue to use genetic engineering. But of course it's become so much more powerful. What we can do today with more precise targeting technologies, including importantly with CRISPR, allows us to make any mutation in any gene, in any cell of interest. And we've also been able to push the biology beyond, not just studying the cancer cells, but studying the cells that interact with the cancer cells. So a large fraction of my lab today works on how the immune system sees and fails to see cancer, and ultimately what we can do about that.

Oliver Bogler

So I would like to challenge you, perhaps you know what's coming, but Dr. Richard Klausner, former Director of the NCI, has been quoted in the LA Times as saying, quote, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn't work in humans", end quote. So I'm curious, how do you feel about that statement and what is your perspective on mouse models?

Tyler Jacks

I'm extremely disappointed in my friend Rick. [laughs] Others have said that, but I actually didn't know that he said that. In any event, if he were sitting here, I would challenge him to get the facts right. On one level, it's true. Using certain types of mouse models, one can quote unquote "cure the disease". And those models typically are xenograft models where human cancers are placed under the skin of an immunocompromised mouse, maybe they're mouse tumors grown under the skin of an immunocompetent mouse but still in an ectopic site. They are not endogenously arising tumors like the ones that we create and many, many other labs create, which arise from otherwise normal cells in their normal context where they're surrounded by the proper microenvironment and interact with the immune system in particular ways. Those models are much, much, much harder to treat.

I used to show a slide actually in my talks when I talked about these models taking on this question. I would say I would show these models that we've built of lung cancer or pancreas cancer, and I would say you know people say that these types of models in mice are easy to treat, easy to cure, and I would flash up a notice that said 'cure this', and I actually would offer money, never my own money, I would offer other people's money. Maybe today I'll offer Rick Klausner's money.

Oliver Bogler

[laughs]

Tyler Jacks

$10,000 if you can cure this mouse. I would put that challenge out there. I give you 10 lung adenocarcinoma bearing mice from the models that we create, cure them. I can tell you all the way to today, that was probably 15 years ago, no one has succeeded. We haven't, no one else has. So there are models and there are models.

Now having said that, I do not, and my colleagues in this field do not pretend that the cancers that we have developed in these so-called autochthonous models, genetically engineered models, are perfect mimics of human cancer. They are not. There are many differences in the genetics and the biology, and they are, in fact, simpler. They grow, they develop more rapidly, their genomes are less complex. They are not perfect mimics of the human disease. But Rick is wrong that it's easy to cure cancer in the appropriate mouse model of the disease.

Oliver Bogler

Thank you. So your work has involved many different types of cancers, some of the common genetic drivers like p53, retinoblastoma you mentioned, and then more disease-specific molecular changes. I think one of the hardest things for any scientist is to identify the most important questions that are tractable to study. How have you achieved that? You've had many successes.

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, I think that both how I've approached problems like that and how members of my laboratory over time have approached problems like that, I personally think it best comes together when there are two important elements that are synergistic. Important element number one is the interest level of the individual graduate student or postdoc. They have to be, passionate about what they're studying. They have to find it exciting and interesting. It's the sort of thing that keeps them up at night and wakes them up in the morning. That sort of drive from within to understand the nature of the problem and whether it's a cancer genetics problem or a cancer immunology problem or what it might be. So that sort of inherent interest and passion from the investigator is one.

And then the second is the ability to pursue that question, ideally in an interesting and powerful new way. So this is the bringing together of emerging technologies and technological opportunities that might not have existed a year before or six months before. And the application of that technology or set of technologies to the problem. And that allows not just iterative, incremental advance, but rather more transformative advance. And so I encourage my people to think about their problems in that way. Don't just take the next step. Try to take the next leap. And that next leap might be enabled by the application of a new technology. And that might take time. It might take you months. It might take you years to bring together the biology and the technology in this powerful new way. But to the extent that you can do that, I think you bring valuable new insights on the one hand and you position yourself as an investigator to have a special skill set that, if you will, is quite sellable as it relates to your career advancement.

Oliver Bogler

So I want to look at the other side of that. You already mentioned your own time in the Weinberg lab and the challenges you faced where you had a dry period. How do you mentor the members of your team through those times that come to almost all scientists, I would say?

Tyler Jacks

I think they come to all scientists certainly at some point or other in their careers, but typically they occur every day. And it's not always easy, and I don't know that there's a simple right answer to how to manage through that, because the fact of the matter is that sometimes it is important to stay the course and to continue to push, because eventually the problem will yield, the technique will get refined and the hurdles will be overcome and you and the field will benefit from the fact that you persisted.

But sometime it doesn't happen that way and things don't yield. You were wrong about how you thought things worked and there was just no way that project was ever going to get there.

Or the technology simply wasn't mature enough to be used in the way that you tried to use it. And therefore, at some point, one has to pull the plug and go to plan B. And I think for all mentors and probably for all trainees, there's a realization that there need to be a series of projects that somebody is working on, especially in these sort of high-risk, technology-oriented projects, where if things don't work there's an escape hatch that allows the individual to pick up another project and pursue it.

Oliver Bogler

So you have a truly impressive publication record. It starts in the 1980s. You've seen a huge change in our field and you've already alluded to some of the technological advances. But I wonder if there are things that you feel we may have lost in the course of this, these successive revolutions that the cancer research field has undergone. Is there anything you miss from the early days, the old days?

Tyler Jacks

From the old days? The good old days. Yeah, I think there are some things that we've missed through the ways in which data is generated, collected, and analyzed leads the investigator sometimes to be a bit removed from the work that they've done.

Samples are processed by others, data is generated by others, data is sometimes analyzed by others, and a summary of the data is supplied. Now, those are all good things because they speak to efficiency. If you had to do all those things with your own two hands, it would take you multiples of time to get things done, and we don't want to do that.

But at the same time, it creates a distance between the investigator and the investigator's brain perhaps, and the problem at hand, and the data at hand. And so I think to overcome that one can't be lazy and one needs to really dig in, understand exactly what's happening with your sample and understand exactly what the data are and what they are teaching you and don't rely on shortcuts that one could actually in this environment take. And sometimes that would be fine, but sometimes I think important things would be missed and would fall through the cracks.

Oliver Bogler

So the co-authors of your early publications read like a who's who of cancer biology. You already mentioned Dr. Varmus, Dr. Baltimore, just to mention the two Nobel laureates, many others, Dr. Weinberg and so on. What was it like to launch your career in that kind of a community at MIT and in Boston at that time?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah. I've been very fortunate to have outstanding mentors throughout my career. I mentioned Harold and Bob, but I've had many mentors even since I've been a faculty member. And one thing that struck me at the institutions where I've worked is despite the fact that I've been surrounded by really smart and experienced and accomplished individuals, the willingness of those individuals to take the time to help their junior colleagues and their trainees, to mentor them, to advance their careers has been extremely heartening.

I've always felt like I was part of the community, even when I was a graduate student. I was not a junior member of the team, I was a member of the team. And that's been true interacting with people all the way through. MIT, in particular, is an amazing place to work. It's full of incredibly accomplished people, Nobel laureates, as you mentioned, but a remarkable lack of ego and a remarkable openness and access. And to me, that environment, and it doesn't just exist at MIT, of course, I think it exists throughout our community, makes the doing of what we do so much more fun, and so much more enjoyable. That opportunity to interact with people as people, and not as revered scientists, really makes the day to day of it so much more enjoyable.

Oliver Bogler

So Dr. Jacks, I don't know if you remember, but I remember meeting you when you came to visit the lab of my postdoc mentor, Dr. Web Cavanee, back in the mid 1990s in San Diego. You took the time to meet with all the junior scientists at the Ludwig Institute there. And I wonder in that context, I remember enjoying your advice. What has the advice been that you have given to the many scientists you've mentored? And what would you say to people listening today who are early in their careers?

Tyler Jacks

Yeah, I think the most important advice that I can give to a junior person is to find their passion within the field. And that's not always easy. It's particularly challenging as you're entering the field and you know less.

I think it's important for younger people to, in effect, pay close attention. That is to say, read a lot, go to meetings, go to seminars, integrate all that you're hearing, pay attention to the trends that are developing in the field, the important questions that are emerging, the opportunities that exist because of new technologies, and sort of to bring all that together with your own inherent interests in a scientific problem that you wish to participate in. I think that... when it works well, it is a combination of those two things. The passion that exists within the individual to do science on the one hand and to pursue a set of questions more specifically, and then to integrate the opportunities that exist within the field most effectively through their own hands and through their own minds and through the colleagues and collaborators that they will have the opportunity to interact with over time.

Oliver Bogler

Well, thank you very much, Dr. Jacks, for sharing your views and your experience and your advice here on our podcast.

Tyler Jacks

My pleasure.

[music]

Oliver Bogler

But before we go, it's time for a segment we call Your Turn, because it's a chance for our listeners to send in a recommendation that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip for a book, a video, a podcast, or something you found interesting and send it to us at [email protected]. You can record a voice memo and send it along. We may just play it in an upcoming episode. I'd like to turn to our guest, Dr. Jacks. Please take your turn.

Tyler Jacks

Well, thanks. I think I'm going to take your question in a slightly different direction. We've talked a lot about science and sort of the rigors of science and sometimes the disappointments associated with science. It's hard work. It's serious work. And we are serious in what we do. But for me in my career and frankly in my life, I think it's really important to also focus on the lighter side. The humor. And incorporate that as much as possible in what we do, even day by day.

Cancer research, science in general, is hard. And frankly, we face more challenges than we do rewards. And to kind of complement that, I think it's important to focus on the lighter side.

When I was a graduate student at UCSF, I spent a lot of time in comedy clubs, as a matter of fact, not performing but listening to comedians. And that was sort of the highlight of my week. Likewise, in my lab, I like to keep things light and to interact with people with a joke and just sort of with the balance of what's happening in their lives. And a feature of our calendar every year is to have the lab go out on a lab outing, Jack's lab outing every year, which has now become quite famous after 20-plus years of doing this. The Jack's lab summer outing typically involves a scavenger hunt, where the members of the lab, and there might be 30 or so in the summer, are divided up into teams. The teams can choose their own team themes, and they will dress accordingly. And they will wear extravagant dress, very extravagant, embarrassingly extravagant.

Oliver Bogler

[laughs]

And these teams will then be tasked to go out into the cities of Boston or Cambridge or somewhere and carry out various activities. They might have to apply for a job. They might have to slide down a fireman's pole. They might have to perform and raise money through their performance on the streets of Boston.

Oliver Bogler

Serious challenges!

Tyler Jacks

These are serious challenges, and in doing that, they have a tremendous amount of fun. And they interact with people out in the world, and those people have a tremendous amount of fun. And in addition, they, as team members, and then of course as the lab as a whole, begin to interact with each other in a slightly different way. They let their hair down. They embarrass themselves, and they kind of revel in the fact that they've embarrassed themselves. And so, taking the time to have some fun, every day, even in the course of your cancer research, I think just makes life more enjoyable. So, if I had to leave your audience with a message, don't always focus on the hard things, focus on the lighter side as well.

Oliver Bogler

I think that's fantastic advice. Thank you very much.

And I'd like to share a listener recommendation, our first here on Inside Cancer Careers. It comes from Dr. Yinzhi Lin, a research fellow in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Aichi Medical University in Japan. Dr. Lin recommends The Sound of Waves, written by Yukio Mishima. Dr. Lin says the book is a romance between two teenagers in a seaside village and found the description of the lives of the local fishermen and pearl divers 70 years ago, particularly interesting and touching.

Dr. Lin recommends the book because reading beautiful sentences can cool down a hot brain after a concentrated working day. We'll put links in the show notes as always.

[music]

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

EP 13: Launching a Million Rockets

In this episode of Inside Cancer Careers, we hear from Nucleate's leadership team, Sonia Setayesh, Alex Kim, and Dr. Geraldine Ezeka. They tell us about their fellow led organization and how it helps early career scientists learn about startups and what it takes to launch science into that marketplace. Later, we hear from Dr. Gleb Kuznetsov, CEO of Manifold Bio. He shares the process for starting up his new company as an early participant of the Nucleate program and his career path from academia to biotech, plus more.

Sonia Maryam Setayesh, PhD candidate at USC: Vice President of Partnerships

Geraldine Ezeka, PhD: Executive Vice President of Culture

Alex Kim, MD-PhD candidate at UCLA: Global Head of Activator

Nucleate

Activator Program

Nucleate Summit

Genesis Program

Ad: NanCI

Gleb Kuznetsov, Ph.D.

Pierce Ogden, Ph.D.

Shane Lofgren

Manifold Bio

BioCurious

George Church, Ph.D.

Wyss Institue

Your Turn: Guest Recommendations

The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of a New Future, by Sebastian Mallaby

Cells at Work!

Creativity, Inc.: Overcoming the Unseen Forces That Stand in the Way of True Inspiration by Ed Catmull

Ten Funny Science Songs that you Need to Hear on Hello Bio: Oliver's favorite "Postdoc Me Now"

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER BOGLER: Hello and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers, we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and we hear their stories. Today, we're talking to early career scientists who are becoming entrepreneurs. First up is Nucleate a student and fellow led organization that helps peers learn about business and what it takes to launch great science into the marketplace. Our guests are 3 members of their leadership team. After the break, we talk to the CEO of Manifold Bio, a new company that was an early participant in the Nucleate program. He took the leap from academia to biotech early in his career and tells us about how that came about. Stay to the end to hear our guests make recommendations and hear how you can take your turn.

OLIVER: In a prior episode, we spoke to Michael Weingarten of NCI's SBIR Center and heard about the programs that he and his team manage to support the early development of discoveries trying to get to market. One challenge they are working on is building a workforce capable of doing that, and it's from Michael that I learned about Nucleate and their work in this space. So it's a great pleasure to welcome three of the leaders of Nucleate to the show. We have Sonia Setayesh, a PhD candidate at the University of Southern California and Nucleate's VP of partnerships, Dr. Geraldine Ezeka, EVP of Culture for Nucleate, and Alex Kim, an MD PhD candidate at UCLA and Global Head of Activator for Nucleate. So welcome.

GERALDINE EZEKA: Thank you for having us.

ALEX KIM: Thanks Oliver. It's a pleasure.

OLIVER: So I'd like to start with learning a little bit about each of you. I'm always interested in what sparked people's interest in science and what path they took to get to where they are right now. So maybe we'll start with you Sonia.

SONIA MARYAM SETAYESH: I did my undergrad in biology, I initially wanted to pursue med school, but after just being introduced in research in my freshman year and understanding the amount of creativity that you could employ with, you know, scientific discovery, it was -- that was it for me. I knew that I was going to pursue a career in research. After finishing my master's in immunology, I went to City of Hope and worked on cancer research and developing and designing CAR T-cell therapies. So it's a type of immune cell therapy that utilizes the adaptive immune system to fight the cancer at City of Hope. And there, it really cemented my interest in pursuing oncology for my scientific career. I then came to USC to pursue my PhD. I work on the early detection of breast cancer and multiple myeloma, and in the beginning of my PhD, I really assumed that there were two types of careers you could have, you could either do research in a lab in academia or you could do the same kind of research in industry in just a much fancier building. So I was really interested in learning more about the different careers that exist, and coincidentally, during my PhD, I was able to discover a blood-based liquid biopsy platform for the early detection of breast cancer. I was very interested in learning about the journey to potentially take this scientific discovery to the clinic. So I was introduced to Nucleate through some of my colleagues and have had just the most wonderful time during the past year being part of the organization and working with partnerships.

OLIVER: Great. Geraldine, I think I, I murdered your last name in the intro. I think even though you just told me how to pronounce it. It's Ezeka, right, Dr. Ezeka. So my apologies for that. Geraldine, please tell us about your own journey to where you are today.

EZEKA: Yeah. So ever since I was a kid, I always told myself that I wanted to be someone that identifies new ways to treat diseases. Coming into undergrad, I thought that clinicians and physicians were those people. So very similar to Sonia, I came in as a biochemistry and molecular biology major thinking that I wanted to go into medical school and become a clinician. It wasn't until my junior year of undergrad that I finally had my first-ever research experience outside of actual class where I was studying HIV in a structural biology lab. And it really opened up the world of science for me. I was able to take the things that we were learning in class and directly apply it physically with the research that we were doing. And for me, that kind of solidified my decision into going into a PhD program. Since I had only had structural biology research experience, I went into a postbaccalaureate research education program after undergrad at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine, and that was where I got my first cancer research experience where we were trying to understand why certain people have a higher -- a higher likelihood of getting HPV-mediated cancer, and we were trying to understand why exactly certain people have those higher propensities for those diseases. That led me to pursue my PhD at the University of Maryland Baltimore with Dr. Richard Eckert, and my thesis project was titled Identifying Molecular Targets of Sulforaphane in Mesothelioma, and mesothelioma is a cancer of the mesothelium, which is a sticky layer that surrounds a bunch of your internal organs. But ultimately, it was super interesting because my thesis project really gave me the opportunity to kind of put to -- give molecular information to kind of ancient therapeutics, if you will, kind of pay homage to how a lot of different ancient therapies use plants and different nature-derived factors have mechanisms to suppress disease. And we were literally identifying those molecular mechanisms and really kind of putting to paper how those different therapies were actually impacting disease. So maybe my last year of grad school or my second-to-last year of grad school, I had a friend who had come. He was also in the biochemistry department, and he was really interested in entrepreneurship. My best friend and I, we created what I -- what we like to call a biocreative company our first couple of years of grad school, not necessarily cancer-related, more artistic and merging art and science kind of using science as an art form. And so, a lot of the people in my like immediate area kind of knew that we had -- knew that I had a lot of interest in entrepreneurship. So I had a really great mentor who was a senior graduate student who pretty much came to me and was like, hey Geraldine. I know that you're interested in this entrepreneurship stuff. If you only stay in the lab, you won't be able to really get to experience these things. So he connected me with some people at Nucleate. He was working at Flagship Pioneering at the time. He connected with me with some people at Nucleate, who had been working with the organization and who had been working at Flagship, as well. I literally emailed one person just to learn more information and they were like, do you want to join us, and I was like, sure. So that's actually how I ended up getting involved with Nucleate, through a really great mentor that knew that I needed to kind of just go beyond what my immediate surroundings were doing and get access to the world of entrepreneurship and the ecosystem beyond, beyond just being in the lab.

OLIVER: Connections can be so important. Alex?

KIM: Yeah, so when I was an undergrad, I studied physics. But I think even then I knew that I was really interested in medicine, and I think I saw kind of this growing vision for how health care could really be revolutionized, and I was really excited to be a part of that in some way that I didn't fully know how to define yet. I guess it went to the others who joined us today. You know, I initially thought I could study physics and really dive into kind of basic scientific thinking, and then go and just do medical school, and I would somewhere along the way, learn how to connect those two together. As I got further along, I realized, oh, maybe just a regular MD program wasn't going to give me the opportunity to do that, and it wasn't until actually my sophomore year of college that I even learned about MD/PhD programs. And I was really fortunate to have a couple of incredible mentors that were able to give me perspective on that and just show me more how research can make such a great impact even in the areas I was thinking about. So then I thought, okay, the MD/PhD program is perfect. I'm going to apply to this program and from day one, when I start, it'll just be a training camp where all the scientists who are working on, you know, bringing brand new technologies or therapies and everything else into medicine will all be working together. I pretty soon realized. Okay, actually, you probably need some more training before you're ready to do that. And the MD/PhD program in all honesty is certainly more -- feels more like you're there to learn medicine, and then you're also there to kind of step away, really do a PhD, and learn how to do science. And certainly, I wanted to learn how to do that. Ultimately, I ended up taking a very kind of basic science choice for my PhD. So I'm now studying basically developmental neurobiology. I became fascinated in cell biology and how, you know, in the future, we could use that for regenerative medicine, tissue engineering, and so on. But the lab I joined and what I'm studying is essentially how specific types of neurons know to connect with the right partners. Hopefully, one day we'll know how to actually program that, which I think would be really amazing. But I wanted to learn how the science worked, how to ask questions about it, really dive in. I've seen my PhD as, I think, an incredible opportunity to get that kind of training, and I'm certainly having a lot of fun. But still I was kind of left with this question of, you know, I did this program because I wanted to, you know, I envisioned that I wanted to work with a team of scientists who are, you know, leading some larger effort, who have a shared kind of grand vision for what can be accomplished and how that can be put into the world, and I was fortunate that I had a close friend. His name is Kevin Dong. He had just started his PhD at Harvard Medical School. I think from the very beginning, he knew what he was looking for, and he got involved with Nucleate in the very early days, and when there's a decision to essentially expand beyond Boston, he basically tapped me and convinced me over a series of phone calls that took several weeks to really get involved, and as soon as I joined, I was just totally in. It was the exact community I was looking for, and the people that I wanted to work with, and so, it's been terrific.

OLIVER: Fantastic. Thank you all for telling us how you got to where you are, into Nucleate. So what is Nucleate?

SETAYESH: So I think I'll start and I think everyone can jump in from --

KIM: Thanks, Sonia.

SETAYESH: Yeah, so we are a nonprofit 501(3)(c) organization; we're an equity, free educational programming. So we like to say we are by students for students. So we're almost completely trainee led. So the leadership comprises of PhD students and such as you know, myself, Alex, and Geraldine, and many others that are, you know, come from all around the United States, and now, you know, this year we have actually three international chapters, as well, that we have launched. So, what we started noticing is that in biotech entrepreneurship, in that journey, right, you have, you know, the need for risk-tolerant capital. So there's a lot of VCs, SBIRs, for example, different kind of programs that provide that capital, and then there is you know, the need for real estate. So then there's a lot of incubators/accelerators that provide that, as well. But then there was really this gap missing in social capital. So in order to be able to really translate these projects outside of a lab and into a fully formed venture, teams needed to understand, you know, the pipeline, how that works, how to put a pitch deck together, how to understand not only the scientific questions that they need to phrase and ask properly, but also, putting together a comprehensive business plan. And then how do you network with different investors? How do you get connected with different people that can help you along the way? So once we saw that there was really not many resources that people could go to get equity free, you know, just education on social capital is this is kind of where Nucleate kind of was born out of and what it comes from, and then it really started with the flagship program of Activator where we pair PhD students that have a technology very early stage. Oftentimes it's still in the lab. It's early in its development, and we pair them with MBA candidates that kind of bring that business forward thinking and background to the team. And then once we have that team formation, we put them through a series of seven workshops. And each of those workshops really focus on a specific area that teams need to get feedback on to be able to put a successful pitch deck together. And then, the program culminates in a formal pitch at the end.

OLIVER: Fascinating. So I'm impressed by the fact that it's kind of by students for students. So there, I understand there are hundreds of students involved, maybe even more even in the leadership group, so to speak, kind of all across the US. How does that all work then if you're all -- how do you coordinate your programs? How do you work together?

KIM: Maybe I can touch on that. So, yeah, what Sonia, described and I think she did an excellent job, was an overview of how the Activator program works. Which again, yeah, in the early days was really all that Nucleate does. I think we've grown even larger now, and Geraldine can definitely comment on just the vision for the larger community that we have. So when I started, when I got involved, I basically helped set up the LA chapter, and our goal was to actually reproduce this program, the Activator program, in LA. And so, I led that last year. We had seven really amazing teams and then got pulled in to basically lead that effort this year across all our chapters. So, you know, I think that Zoom has been kind of a hidden blessing that really made all this possible. We work really closely and we're able to do that, you know, across all different time zones and get together because we have these kinds of tools. But really, the way that it works, I guess, is every chapter that comes into the organization that reaches kind of a certain threshold that we're looking for and has done the -- taken the time to kind of map out their ecosystem and really carefully think through how is this program going to work? Who's the network that we can lean on to bring experience into the program, you know, bring mentors into the program and so on? Where are the relationships we need to build? For instance, with our tech transfer offices to be thinking about the technologies that are going through the universities? We're now at a point where that is starting to come together. Each of those chapters starts recruiting both kind of for their leadership team as well as the actual teams that will go through it, which I'd be happy to go into the details of how the program actually operates. But I think we have a central vision, an essentially defined curriculum, and series of workshops that every chapter is going through. You're right that our leadership organization has several 100 people in it as well. I think what's made Nucleate so special and the reason why we're able to deliver this really great program, is like you said, Oliver, it's truly kind of by students or by trainees and for trainees. And so, we have almost an equal number of people in leadership as people going through the program, because everyone in leadership is equally passionate about getting experience in this space, learning about entrepreneurship, working with, you know, budding startup teams and so on. And so, we're able to put a lot of attention into thinking who would be a great mentors for these teams? You know, who are the great people we could bring in to come and speak with each of these teams? And it's a model that I had to see first-hand to believe, but as soon as I was able to sit in on some of the workshops and see that happen in real time, it's really like magic when you get the right people in the room together.

OLIVER: It's fascinating. Geraldine, you're the EVP of Culture. I guess -- I surmise from that culture is going to be really critical to the success of these chapters and the organization as a whole, right? Can you tell me a little bit more about that?

EZEKA: Yeah. So we define culture as how we all as a unit and as a community kind of think about our values, how we think about our mission, how we think about the attitudes and beliefs that we all share to work together towards a central equal mission. And as Sonia said, an amazing introduction of Nucleate, we simply empower biotech innovators. Our ultimate goal is to empower academic trainees to feel that they can do whatever they want to do in the Biotech Ecosystem, whether it be a CEO. Whether it be a founder. Whether it's venture creation. Whether it's venture capital, and we have all of these educational tools to empower these trainees and academic students to be able to do so. We also democratize access to academic resources so that people who are at a state university or a community college can feel that they have the same exact resources as a Harvard/MIT/Yale/top-name university has to be able to produce whatever biotech interests that they have. So what we do in the culture sector is we really focus on leadership development, but also building community with the external ecosystem, and this looks like a lot of things, as we say that we are the newest innovators of the biotech ecosystem that also looks like innovating how we interact with people. We help -- so Sonia talked a little bit about how at the end of the activator program, we host -- pitch essentially -- a pitch out for all of the different activator participants that are involved in the program. And at the end, we actually held our inaugural Nucleate Summit at the end of last year. And we really innovated on how to make this program unique, inviting, welcoming, but also centering the people who matter in our community most, not the big CEOs but the actual students and the leaders that are a part of our community. So we wanted to really address and kind of speak to their hearts and what would be fun and inviting, but also exciting and still intellectually invigorating for all of the people being welcomed. So we had our summit in the club. Yeah, a 1930s theater turned club in downtown Boston. And then, we had an after party afterwards, and it was awesome, and it was great because one of the co-founders of Gingko [Bioworks], Austin Che walked up to the other Oliver [Dodd] and I and was like "whose idea was it to have this summit at this place?" And it was awesome. So we really tried to think about, try to go beyond what is understood to be normal, what is understood to be professional, what is understood to be innovative. And we try to go beyond what that is and help define who we are in this biotech ecosystem space to really newly define what innovation actually is and what it could be.

OLIVER: Yeah, I mean, why shouldn't things like this be fun as well, right?

EZEKA: Exactly. Why? Why can't things be fun? Why can't we have fun learning with each other? And it was really awesome because on our -- so we had a two-day event. On the first day, it was just a day of shared experiences where people in the biotech ecosystem got to connect with each other through kayaking. We had a beer tour at a biergarten. It was awesome. It just really allowed people the opportunity to first and foremost build communities and then get interested in science together.

OLIVER: I wanted to come back to one of the things that I thought was really intriguing about Nucleate, which is you've already touched upon, I think, Sonia, the matching of, of co-founders, right? The matching of a scientist with an MBA. I mean, that was always intriguing to me because it's not easy to bring people together in a way that works, right? Because there's lots of different axes. They have to have shared interests but also good chemistry and all these kinds of things. So how do you do that?

KIM: Yeah, I would you like me to take this, Sonia.

SETAYESH: Oh, absolutely, yeah.

KIM: The team formation, part of the activator is really crucial to taking someone who has an idea and getting them to the point where they feel like they can actually start to think about what it would look like to turn that into a company or to raise money toward bringing that out of the lab. And I think it's really important because a lot of scientists who are working on an innovative project have never even thought about these concepts. And they're looking for one other person that they need to kind of form a team before they can go into a lot of the other opportunities that are out there. So whether something like Y Combinator, et cetera, they're usually looking that you, you know, you might not have an incorporated company, but they're looking for you to already have a team, but a lot of scientists just can't look left and right and have a bunch of business students that they're already connected with who they can form a team with. So the team formation part of the program takes a couple of months, actually, it's the, it's the first part of the program before you enter essentially the full curriculum. And it's really a chance for business students, which now we've really opened that up. You don't even have to be an MBA student. You can be even a PhD student who's really interested in business. Maybe you've done a fellowship with a venture capital firm, or you have other, some other kind of background that you're really excited to bring to the table, and we have a series of events. I think that, that those networking events are some of the most fun events actually during the program where all the scientists and business track applicants actually get to meet one another, and it's almost like a speed dating event where they essentially rotate through and get to chat with one another. It's really fun, and it's a high energy event and that allows everyone to kind of get to know each other. But I think the other thing that really makes this a good program is that we're obviously totally free, and the Activator is an educational program. So you're not committing to forming a, you know, a partnership, by participating in the program. You form a team, and you are an Activator team and you're going to go through this. You're going to treat it like it's what would you do if this became a real startup, and at the end of it, many actually do go on and become real startups. But you aren't basically committing to that when you agree to go through the program. So it's a great learning opportunity that it's meant to feel kind of with no strings attached. You can really just enjoy the learning.

OLIVER: Alex, that brings another question to mind, which is from what you said, I seem to understand that you don't actually have to have a mature, commercially viable idea or concept yet. I mean, you may have an idea but you haven't tested it yet. At that early stage, you could still benefit from Nucleate.

KIM: Absolutely. I mean, this is a question we get a lot. What I often tell chapters who are newly joining and are about to run their academic program for the first time is basically as a litmus test. You know, ideally you would have patented IP, but you don't need that. Maybe you have proof of concept data, but you don't necessarily even need that. I think the litmus test that I use is we're looking for scientists who have expertise in a field and have an idea in that space. And so, if you're kind of pitching like wouldn't it be cool if we could do this, but you're not the one that actually knows how to do that, then maybe it's not for you. But if you're a scientist in the field and this is your, what you've studied and this is what you really know about and you can actually see a way that this could be done, and you have a real idea and you want to know if it has legs, then this is a great program for you.

OLIVER: Thank you. That's really -- please, Geraldine.

EZEKA: Yeah, and to kind of piggyback on Alex's point, so the Activator program is typically for people that have an expertise for some IP or an idea that has just a little bit of legs to kind of be carried off into the development of actual companies. But Nucleate has several other programs for people that maybe just have an idea that they want to be able to explore with other people. So we have the Genesis program which is like our venture creation program that allows people the opportunity to kind of pretty much ideate around a specific topic and think about innovating in novel spaces. Even if there is no data generated, this is all about ideating and being creative in different spaces that maybe is not your expertise. We also have an Insights Program which is essentially like a journal club, but like a very cool version of the journal club where you get actually sit and chat with the author of the paper who -- and the paper might be the defining paper that launched their company or launched whatever therapy that they are -- that they are pretty popular for. So that's kind of our Insights. And we also have a clinical version of the Insights Journal Club where there are different publications by different clinicians that are invited, and we get to sit and chat with those different people and talk about those publications. So there's a lot of different, while we are -- the flagship program is the activator, we have a bunch of different other educational programs that really unlock the power and the abilities and the different opportunities within the biotech ecosystem.

OLIVER: Yeah, lots to explore. Thank you. Thanks. Sonia, you touched on the fact that Nucleate is now moving beyond the borders of the United States. I'm curious to hear more. You were born in Boston, right? So that's clearly one of the hubs of biotech in the US. But there's so much out there. Tell us about your, your global strategy.

SETAYESH: Yeah, absolutely. So this year, we're actually really excited. We have launched our UK chapter. We have a chapter in France and Switzerland, as well. Actually, our UK chapter this year has been able to source 30 new technologies, I believe, so, and as I was looking through them earlier this month, they're all very exciting and very promising. So as part of our, you know, mission to really, as Geraldine touched on this beautifully, to democratize access, we don't really want to be centered around just the classical hubs where, you know, there's so much information and so many resources that students can go to and learn. But we really want to take this global, and we want to have the approach as no matter where you are, whether it's a biotech hub, whether it is, you know, located in a small rural town in the US or whether it's even overseas, our educational programming can still help you and can -- you can still benefit from it. And as a matter of fact, even beyond the international chapters that we have, we have five teams this year just as part of our global program that are not, you know, associated with any immediate chapters in the US or overseas.

OLIVER: Interesting. I believe you've already mentioned democratizing access a couple of times amongst the three of you, and I'm curious. What is Nucleate's role in diversifying the biotech space? It's not one of the more diverse sectors in the world.

EZEKA: Yeah. So I think that -- I think that it's, it's quite difficult, right? Because I think that, oftentimes, the difficulty for diversifying the biotech space means that we are targeting different institutions, HBCUs, minority -- other minority-serving institutions, community colleges, state universities, universities that you often wouldn't think have access to some of the commercializing your science efforts. Maybe they don't have a venture program within those institutions. Maybe they don't have tech transfer offices within those institutions, but really allowing ourselves to be uniquely positioned in the space so that we almost exist everywhere. So that people who are at these different institutions have the opportunity, not just to learn about other career opportunities that exist within the biotech ecosystem, but then network and connect with people who would actually be able to give them opportunities. I am from a state school in Baltimore, but I am currently an associate at Flagship Pioneering and I only know one other person at my institution who is actually even a -- who's been allotted this opportunity, and I can really say it's because of the network that I was able to build through things like Nucleate, through things like just literally getting out there and meeting people that have allotted me the opportunity to continually, to try to bring more and more people, and I think that we really tried to leave a ladder down in our pursuit. If there is someone that has been given a unique opportunity in the venture creation world, the entrepreneurship world, we're working towards bringing more and more people who look like us, whether they're women, men that are of minoritized groups, of a historically minoritized groups, by bringing them into the fold, bringing them into the new leadership opportunities, developing them as leaders, thinking about how we can develop their careers even further so that they can continue to bring more and more people in their own personal network into the fold.

But also having things like we are hosting a diversity panel. I believe it's next week with several different women of color who are founders or CEOs. Having different opportunities like that, that show that we're not just talking the talk, but we're also walking the walk. We are highlighting and centering these different people. And then also taking it a step further to think about how we can partner with other organizations that center women and non-binary people of color in STEM and thinking about how we can really bring those groups to be in what we hope to be a more diverse biotech ecosystem in the future.

OLIVER: Thank you. That's a great vision. Alex, the last question to you. I think we already sort of touched upon it, and Geraldine just mentioned, you know, trying to involve entities/institutions that, perhaps, don't have a Nucleate chapter yet. What does it take? If we --if someone is listening to us right now and thinks, oh, I really want to get involved now, if they, if they're at a place where Nucleate exists, I guess they can just reach out and connect quite easily. But what if there is no Nucleate where they are yet? How do they go about getting to be part of this amazing program?

KIM: Well, Oliver you are asking a very interesting question and at an interesting time for us as an organization, I would say, because we're really rethinking what it looks like to be a part of leadership, how to really come and join us. And the ultimate answer is that we really want this, like Geraldine and Sonia said, we really want Nucleate to be a global community that you can access and tap into anywhere, and I think there's really kind of two, two schools of thought that we have for how you can get involved. Every year, and this typically happens around the recruitment period, when we're looking for applicants to do the Activator program, we always have a question that says, oh, do you have a technology or are you interested in this but you don't have a chapter in your area? And if they say, yes, then we ask them another question. You know, are you interested in helping set this up in your region? So we are actively looking for leaders who want to step up and start to organize kind of their -- among their peers and their local community, a new chapter, and we're very -- we're very welcoming to that, I think, and we have even now many additional emerging chapters that aren't hosting a full-fledged activator program, but are already brought into the fold, and like you said, make it a little bit easier for the next person who's in that city to get involved. But at the same time, at least I personally think not every single city should be required to run a full-fledged Activator program just to be a part of our network, and we're thinking also just about how that can really be globalized and centralized. So on top of that, I think we're working to just grow our direct kind of HQ leadership community. So if you're listening and you're looking to get involved, you know, I think I can say from first-hand experience, kind of getting us -- a chapter started in your own city is just a really incredible experience. I've never done anything like it per se, and I think it opened a lot of doors, and so it's definitely something to think about, and we do basically poll for that. So look out for that. But also, if you're just looking to get involved and not necessarily take on that kind of grand-scale mission, you know, we have a leadership application, it's open year-round and we basically review it on a rolling basis, and in there listed are all the different initiatives from HQ. You know, we have partnerships which Sonia is leading. We have culture, which Geraldine is leading, we have Activator if you want to come and help me out, as well as my team, and many others. So there's plenty of opportunities to get involved. All you have to do is apply.

OLIVER: And I'm guessing that can happen through your website.

KIM: Yes. Yes. If you go to Nucleate dot XYZ, we should have the leadership application link up there.

OLIVER: Great, and we'll provide links in the show notes. Well, anything that we haven't touched upon that you'd really like our listeners to know? I'll just open it up.

SETAYESH: I think one thing that I really want to emphasize is the community that Nucleate has built. So through this community, not only have I been able to, you know, as a PhD candidate, talk to many CEOs, expand my network, and, you know, especially being part of Partnership and able to, you know, work on everything from sourcing to contracting to alliance management with some of the industry leaders. I've also been able to make friends. I've been able to make friends outside of, you know -- I'm based here in Los Angeles, and I'm very involved with, you know, several different organizations that, you know, do outreach, you know, across the community between UCLA, USC, and Caltech. But after I got involved with Nucleate, I was really able to expand and, you know, learn more about everyone, you know, across the US, and now, you know, that we've gone global even beyond borders. So I think the community that we have built, and just the amount of time and effort that we invest into each leadership member, you know, outside of, you know, our main focus is obviously, you know, our events and our, you know, activator and the different programs that Geraldine touched upon. But I think so much of our time, we also invest in each leadership member, and in cultivating these, you know, long-lasting relationships. And I think that has been just the highlight of my experience and is something I really wanted to touch on.

OLIVER: Thank you.

EZEKA: Couldn't emphasize the community aspect any more. I mean, we are a community of people that like to have fun but also get things done as our EVP of Operations, Mani Harb always says, and just like Sonia said, this community that we've cultivated is rich with ingenious people that love to just be creative, bring people together. I know on my team, specifically, we regularly have conversations about what people's career goals are, and how I can help them be uniquely positioned to do whatever they want to do. And if there is any way that I can specifically help or other people within the executive team have the opportunity to help them in any way, we provide those opportunities, and it's been really, really awesome just getting the opportunity very similar to what Sonia said, to get to talk to CEOs and partners at VC firms. To be completely honest, before I joined Nucleate, I didn't know what venture capital was, venture creation, business development. It really just opened my eyes to all of these different career opportunities within the biotech ecosystem. And I think that people really need to be educated on those opportunities, just so that your eyes can get -- your world, can be expanded to what you could potentially do and how you can create real breakthrough in whatever it is that you want to do in your future. So I hope that everyone listening feels empowered to do whatever it is they wanted to do, whether it be research, whether it be coming into the biotech ecosystem as a venture capitalist or a venture creator. And really be empowered to innovate and be creative with your science.

KIM: I would really echo Geraldine's comments. I think that I've made some incredible friendships at Nucleate. It's been an amazing experience and, you know, as a graduate student, it's easy to feel siloed. It's easy to -- I can say that expanding, you know, Nucleate it -- we had pushback here, you know, at times some -- it's easy to kind of be told you're a graduate student, you should just focus on your PhD, and I think it's really important to get the training that you get in graduate school, but it doesn't need to be the only experience that you get, and we're here trying to be brave, you know, really pushing that charge forward. And so, you know, come join us.

OLIVER: Fantastic. Thank you so much and thank you for sharing the great work that you're doing, and I wish you all, each of you, the best success with your, with your future. So, thanks very much for joining us today on the podcast.

KIM: Thanks so much, Oliver.

EZEKA: Thank you so much, Oliver for having us.

OLIVER: All right, we're going to take a quick break, and when we come back, we will be talking to Manifold Bio, one of the companies that has engaged with Nucleate.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER:: PubMed lists over 270,000 cancer papers published in 2022 – that is a staggering 750 papers every day. It's great that cancer research is such an active field, but it makes finding the pubs that are critical to your work a challenge. What if you had an AI that paid attention to the papers you read and suggested others as they appear in PubMed? That is exactly what the NCI is building with an app called NanCI. With me to discuss NanCI are two members of the team that are creating NanCI: Chris Perrien of Blue Pane Studios and Duncan Anderson of Humanise.ai.

Chris, you've been building apps for NCI for over a decade. What is new about NanCI?

CHRIS: Fundamentally NanCI represents a shift in user experience – in the prior generation of apps people had to know where to look to find things. Now, they can find the information using AI agents. I think of NanCI as a friendly research assistant who makes suggestions and answers questions. Of course, it is early days, and NanCI is still learning from their users, but they will get better and better over time.

Duncan, you bring AI expertise to the project. Can you tell us what capabilities that brings to NanCI?

DUNCAN: NanCI is all about connecting scientists. Right now the focus is on connecting them to papers relevant to their interests, which NanCI does by matching vector representations of abstracts and looking at co-citations. If you tell NanCI that you find a group of papers interesting, by bookmarking them, the app will keep an eye on PubMed for you and suggest related publications. You can also share these folders with colleagues and export them to your reference manager. You can read the paper right there in NanCI, and follow any author to see when they publish preprints. Down the road we intend to help people network based on shared scientific and career interests. And much more – these are just some of the features coming to the app.

Thanks, Chris and Duncan. Right now NanCI is available in the Apple app store, and it will be coming to android later this year. Download it and give it a try! Your feedback on NanCI is very welcome – you can send that to us here at [email protected].

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: And we are back. It's a pleasure to welcome one of the cofounders of Manifold Bio to the pod, a startup that's connected with the Nucleate program we just heard about. Dr. Gleb Kuznetsov, the CEO, welcome.

GLEB KUZNETSOV: Thank you so much, Oliver, a pleasure to be here.

OLIVER: Before we hear about Manifold and the Nucleate experience, I'd like to ask you to tell us a little bit about your career path. What led you to become a scientist?

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, my career path was interesting, you know, it wasn't the standard undergraduate science degree into PhD degree, et cetera. I actually had an undergrad in computer science, believe it or not. So I went to MIT as an undergrad, came there, never, you know, I took AP Biology in high school and so had basically tested out the requirements. And believe it or not, I took all engineering computer science classes throughout, was really interested in robotics, was really interested in, had some tangential interests in hybrid vehicles, in artificial intelligence. And it was actually in my final year of undergraduate where I took a bioinformatics class as a sort of final credit. And that was actually this interesting moment for me where I realized, you know, this is 2010, we've just got 40 mammal genomes sequenced, so just to kind of date that moment in time. And part of our class, this was Manolis Kellis' class. He sort of had, we had dibs on taking a stab at what patterns we could find in these sequences. It's, for me, diving into those DNA sequences, looking for those patterns, understanding evolution through the lens of this new up and coming DNA-sequencing technology was super-exciting for me. And so for me, I started reading a lot in my spare time about biology. I went on, became a software engineer at Google for about a year and a half after undergrad. And still continued to have in the back of my mind how interesting biology was, I attended a space called BioCurious in San Francisco as part of a DIY hacker space--

OLIVER: Interesting.

KUZNETSOV: --for learning about, they'd have post docs give talks, we would do some very basic experiments like taking a green fluorescent protein gene and putting it, transforming it into E. coli and watching the E. coli turn green the next day. So these sort of assembly of experiences motivated me to do what, at the time, my parents said was quite an irrational move, which was to leave my well-paying job as a software engineer, reach out to some labs, one of them was George Church's lab, and just take this leap, where I showed up and started working helping out as the computationalist and understanding what, you know, starting to learn about biology. And there's actually a lot of transformations, I had a lot of realizations from there.

OLIVER: Yeah. And then you, in Dr. Church's lab, you switched from being, as you say, a computationalist to doing a PhD with him in synthetic biology, I guess, or something related to that.

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, exactly. It's funny, my personal hypothesis coming to George Church's lab was I could come in and help people build software, maybe I could help automate experiments, you know, maybe the naive view that some engineers have externally, I had this, which was, biology is inefficient, it's old fashioned, people are doing things manually, you know, with the power of compute and AI and whatnot, we could transform it. But the interesting thing is I came to appreciate the nuances of innovating in biology. You really have to start with low, non-scalable approaches, really understand the fundamentals of what's going on. It also opened me up to a different approach to biology and actually a different approach to engineering that's unique to biology and synthetic biology, which is this idea of multiplexing, or being able to measure many molecules, many molecules, many designs simultaneously in mixture. It's very analogous to how evolution happens at the molecular level. You have RNA, there's sort of an RNA world at some point, molecules bouncing around, the best ones survived and replicated. Eventually, proteins appeared on the scene, eventually cells. And so we kind of, in George Church's lab where the teams there, the people there were innovating in that way, leveraging DNA synthesis technologies to be able to actually build the constructs and sort of push and guide evolution and engineering. So that's, you know, synthetic biology, for example, has a lot of definitions, a lot of different ways, that's sort of the flavor that I really got into is this DNA synthesis coupled with DNA-sequencing in these sort of design-build-test cycles of experiments, so building many different protein or genome constructs, testing them, competing them, measuring what happens, and then closing the loop. So I got, you know, very interested in that kind of approach, learned experimentation, learned how to design experiments and how to execute them. And sort of my PhD was focused on everything from genome scale to protein scale. And today, there's a lot of the elements of that that's gone into the company into Manifold Bio.

OLIVER: I just wanted to probe a little bit deeper. So synthetic biology, the protein mixtures, or nucleic acid mixtures, those are not exclusively naturally occurring entities, these are also entities that are new?

KUZNETSOV: Yes, so what's so cool and what's so powerful about the kinds of technologies we have today, so, you know, we talk a lot about DNA-sequencing and, you know, in 2010, 2012, when I was starting out in the field, it was very much about reading genomes, or mostly people were thinking about reading human genomes, and how that's going to translate into health. But in George Church's lab, it was about reading the output of many different experiments. And the way you can generate those experiments is you can actually design, many specific protein sequences that you want to test. And specifically, you can order the DNA that codes for those. So already in 2010 or 2012, when I joined Church's lab, it was pretty standard, at least in his lab, to be able to send a spreadsheet with 100,000, or a million DNA sequences encoding for that many proteins you want to test. And you would start with natural sequences, but then you could introduce mutations. And already at that scale, you could potentially search the space of every single mutation or every pair of mutations to a particular protein, and really start getting at the nuances of how these systems work. And there's this approach to engineering, which was so unlike anything that's really possible anywhere else, you know, just drawing a comparison, when we build, when folks are building rockets, you sort of get one shot at a time. You have to build the one rocket, you better hope it's right. There's so many pieces that could fail. It's very expensive to launch and you have this will-it-fly moment. The advantage you have there is we understand the physics at that macroscale a lot better. Biology physics, it's this physics of complexity, and it's much more complicated to understand. But we don't have to build one rocket or one protein at a time, we can build a million at a time, and sort of and launch them all simultaneously very inexpensively, and see what works. that to me, is at the core of synthetic biology, just build things, try them out, and then learn from that data and then continue.

OLIVER: See which ones make it off the launchpad, that's very, that's a really good way of thinking about it.

KUZNETSOV: Many of them blow up, which is fine, as long as a few go up, then you have a starting point. And you also learn from everything that didn't work.

OLIVER: So I'm curious from a career point of view, being an engineer and a computer scientist, coming into biology, how do you think your perspective of biology sort of differs from someone? I think your CSO came a more traditional path, right? He went through a sort of biochemistry/molecular biology-type path. How do you complement each other in terms of your scientific worldviews?

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, it's very interesting. So my CSO, Pierce Ogden, we met basically the first day of graduate school, very talented, brilliant scientist. So he indeed came from a more classic molecular biology-type background and undergrad, he had spent some time in a few labs in UCSF, between Jim Wells' lab and I think Brian Shoichet, and I think the Wells' lab was about empirical high throughput automation and testing, so sort of robotic-type testing. The Shoichet lab was more about virtual screening and docking-type experiments. And Pierce's role as sort of in between undergrad and grad was to try to combine and find integration between those two sides. And the interesting thing is, he was attracted to the Church lab because he had read George Church's book, which was talking about this idea of multiplexing, where instead of doing experiments one at a time and maybe scaling them by automation and robotics, you could just build these mixtures that compete them in small reactions, again, much closer to evolution. And now to do that, you again, bring this sort of, you have to have a computational design edge. So Pierce came over to the George Church's lab, he had already started taking some bioinformatics class, and as we teamed up, I started sort of transferring knowledge to him of good robust software and computational bioinformatics practices. From him, I learned about how to think as like a molecular biologist, how to design experiments and it became this really nice relationship where, you know, I was thinking very much as an engineer of how to kind of structure experiments, testing, et cetera, while Pierce thinks a lot more like a biologist, about the fuzziness, and everything. And together, we've sort of merged in the way that we think, and continue to be very complimentary, and very productive collaboration that now almost has lasted 10 years.

OLIVER: So take us through the moment, if you would, where you decide to launch Manifold Bio. You're finishing graduate school, correct, right? And you've chosen not to do a post-doc.

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, so I can take you through that time. I wish I can say there was an obvious moment where we woke up and said, "Let's start Manifold Bio." But you know, it's a little bit more of a journey. I think about halfway through graduate school for Pie rce and I, maybe around 2016-2017, we started working more closely together on various experiments. And critically, we were really excited about the potential of bringing these really interesting multiplexing methods that can really push the throughput and the measurement capacity of what you can do with engineering proteins. And so we were quite excited, especially about the space of antibodies. So antibodies are very useful, obviously, they are the body's natural immune system. They've been now sort of industrialized to be become both reagents as tools for measuring biology. They've also become drugs for actual therapies. So Humira was, I think, one of the first ones commercialized, very successful drug. And then, of course, many different oncology-based antibodies, a lot of those spanning, you know, the early days of Genentech. And today, of course, I think there's over 100 approved antibodies and many hundreds or even 1,000s in clinical trials. And so we're really excited about the potential going that direction. And as we were wrapping up our PhDs, we were starting to experiment with new methods of creating antibodies. So our idea was, rather than raising antibodies the traditional way, which, you know, there have been a few different approaches there, there's been, of course, immunization, so you know, taking an animal, immunizing it with an antigen, pulling out/purifying the B-cells, and ultimately, the antibodies that are reactive there. There was other methods with display technologies, phage display, use display, et cetera but all of them kind of have this approach of screening against a single target. We were quite excited about could we raise antibodies against many targets simultaneously and, specifically, not just targets but even components of those targets' specific epitopes. And we had this concept of how to do this, we started prototyping this in the lab. We are fortunate, so the Wyss Institute is set up, the Wyss Institute portion of Harvard is set up as a translational Institute. So it's actually not an unusual pattern for graduate students as they're either during the grad school or even wrapping up and sort of transitioning post-doc to sort of have a shot to try to translate some of their work, and have a little bit of extra time there. So I graduated 2018, I had an extra year or so of doing some more experimentation. Pierce, likewise, had a similar timeframe. And so, in addition to that experimentation and proof of concepts, we also had time and space to go out and talk to folks in industry, so that was really, really important. So we went out and talked to antibody engineers, leaders in the field in big pharma companies and biotechs, entrepreneurs, as well as clinicians and academics and really tried to understand the problems, the white space that was out there. And we came to appreciate that, you know, just having a new antibody discovery technology in itself was not, you know, by itself was not going to be potentially enough to set us apart. It could be something special, we could pick one target and pick one drug and go for it, it's kind of like everyone else. But in those conversations, we came to appreciate that there's actually other parts of the drug discovery approach that were pretty big bottlenecks. In fact, such big bottlenecks that folks wouldn't talk about them as maybe this is a problem you can solve but would talk about them as "Well, your technology is good, but you're going to hit these challenges that we all hit anyway." So you know, kind of "good luck" or "just FYI". And so for us, being engineers, liking to really not just, you know, we wanted to come in and were interested in therapeutic discovery but we're also interested in challenging the paradigms and really changing how things can be done, especially if we could open up new opportunities, new possibilities. So we got really excited about these bottleneck points. So some of these bottlenecks are these functional tests. So the drug discovery workflow starts broadly, you have many possible molecules early on, you start characterizing them in vitro, you funnel in further, you do optimization based on those in vitro tests. And ultimately, you have, you start to actually look like that will-it-fly moment for a rocket where you have a few molecules. You're going in vivo, you're hoping that you get the efficacy, you know, for example, shrinking a tumor in a mouse, you're hoping that you're going to get the safety, so making sure the molecule is not causing a systemic effect, is going where it needs to go. And these were very low throughput steps. And this is sort of this bottleneck, this constraint was what really started inspiring us to bring what we've always been good at, what George Church's lab has trained us to think about, which is how do we take a low throughput problem and make it high throughput, being able to test things. And here's especially for something like in vivo testing, which is a really big bottleneck, you can't really bring automation to solve this problem, because you can't just scale the number of animals you can use, both for, of course, ethical reasons and financial reasons. But what you can potentially do is you can test more molecules at a time simultaneously. So this was the sort of origin of that invention, which was the core for us, this protein bar-coding concept. And so that started ruminating in our minds and this is sort of the point of just before we had, in retrospect spun out, there's this big question facing us, do we try to build this technology in the labs sort of as post-docs, or do we spin out and just trying to start a company and do it ourselves?

OLIVER: Interesting. So what you described just a moment ago, where you and Dr. Ogden were sort of taking a landscape survey of the field of antibody engineering and think, that sounds almost like moving into business, into entrepreneurship, right? Was Nucleate a component of that? Did they help you with that? Is that an experience you have that helped you plan those activities?

KUZNETSOV: Yes, so Nucleate was a really important catalyst for our sort of transformation from scientist into entrepreneurs. So the timing for Nucleate came around, we did it in early 2019, so Pierce was finishing his PhD, I had just finished a few months ago. And the interesting, so this is going to be the first year of Nucleate and at the time, it was called Activate. And so it was a very small program, it had just been created by Soufiane Aboulhouda from George Church's lab, and Marissa Pettit, who was an MBA student at the Harvard Business School. And basically, Soufiane came to us, he was working a few benches away, and asked us, "Hey, we're going to do this program, you guys should do it. It sounds like you have this company idea." And our response was, "I don't know, we want to sort of keep tinkering in the lab, we were not really sure what we will do." So credit to Soufiane, he kept coming back every few days and saying, "You know you guys should really do this program. I think it'd be good for you, you'll have some reps of, you know, creating a slide deck, will bring you in front of folks, you know, experienced biotech company-builders and entrepreneurs and give you some feedback." So, you know, we warmed up to the idea. We thought, "Okay, maybe we're a little early here, we don't really have our science ready. But you know, let's do it, it can't hurt." And again, Soufiane, you know, to his credit, this is why this organization has become so big and successful is Soufiane is a very talented, persistent person. And of course, working with Marissa, Marissa's super-talented, organizational person and, you know, sort of the history speaks for itself what happened there. But yeah, so we joined Nucleate. It really provided the pressures and the education to go through all of those first reps, our first slide deck, our first operational budget plan, our first sort of mapping out therapeutic indication areas and all of these were done with feedback from really talented folks, you know, folks from RA Capital. We had, I think, we had a chance to speak with investors, one from 5AM, Jamil Beg, another one from Atlas Venture, Kevin Bitterman, so, you know, folks that have built, you know, very impressive companies. And so really, you know, got a lot of feedback and sort of closed the loop there. And by the end, we had an initial story for Manifold. And, you know, that was really is the foundation, you know, our deck a year later, when we raised our seed was not, you know, tremendously different, the core story had been formed there.

OLIVER: So the science and this entrepreneurial component kind of came together in a great way. And is that, the timing of that seems to have given you the confidence not to go the traditional post-doc route, staying in the lab, but actually taking another leap here into the private sector. What was that like? How did that feel?

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, so I think, after doing that, it was really exciting, because all of a sudden, we started to see by starting some of these business development-type activities earlier, they started influencing and driving our science in a good way. We started realizing which experiments to prioritize, how to think about risks, how to communicate those risks and so that was quite important. So sort of the second half of 2019, we kept, I don't think we had the full concept of what Manifold would become but now we had sort of different kinds of de-risking on our mind. And also, it sort of did start to reduce to practice, what were the pieces that we needed to put together. We had a sense of what investors were going to be thinking about, so those, yeah, all those key pieces, were there. It also motivated even further customer development, going out and talking to folks, getting feedback and closing the loop, you know, a pattern that continues to this day. That's kind of part of my role is part on the science and part going out and continuing to stay engaged with potential pharma partners, with experts in the fields and prioritizing what we're working on internally and what we could be doing together with folks outside, and that all started there with Nucleate.

OLIVER: So give us a snapshot of the Manifold Bio today. It's how old, four years, three, four years?

KUZNETSOV: Yes, so we officially spun out of Harvard in May 2020--

OLIVER: Oh.

KUZNETSOV: --so at the time, that was basically myself and Pierce and our other co-founder, who had just joined us, Shane Lofgren, so he heads business development, he'd previously been a bioinformatics scientist who sourced and built a company with Atlas Venture. So he brought a little more of that deep therapeutic experience, especially in the oncology space and that really, you know, brought us into some of our old core internal initial applications in cancer. And so that fundraise happened, believe it or not, right as COVID was setting in, we were still debating "Do we want to do more de-risking and maybe stay longer as post-docs at Harvard? Or do we want to spin out and take a…, see what we can do?" We were leaning towards spinning out because the conception of what it would be required to do was more of a engineering-type risk set and we were very confident and had a good track record as engineers and so we were less concerned that there would be sort of some biology that would appear and trump us. And so we started that momentum, still not sure. And then in March 2020, of course, the world shut down, the labs shut down. So all of a sudden, we had nothing to do except sit there and think and talk to people on Zoom, as we all did for a while. So in that moment, we started, you know, continued conversation with investors, and spoke to a number of folks and sort of pushed through the inertia and confusion that was happening in that time, and found some really supportive early investors who liked the concept, liked the team, and we raised a $5.4 million seed, and sort of gave us a shot. So that was the beginning there, you know, and, you know, fast forward today, it's now about three years later, we recently raised a $40 million Series A.

OLIVER: Congratulations.

KUZNETSOV: Thank you. We are 24 people growing, you know, another, continue to grow the team very carefully and gradually, importantly, to maintain that long horizon and continue to make really good progress. And, yeah, we have a beautiful lab here in Fenway, not too far from, actually the Wyss Institute is going to move in, they've had to change buildings, so they're going to move into the same building as us. So that's going to be really fun.

OLIVER: So when you say, Fenway, are you close to Fenway Park?

KUZNETSOV: We are close to Fenway Park. Today is the opening day of Red Sox as well, so we can actually see the, we can actually see the Jumbotron and almost into the park, so it's a beautiful lab for folks ever come visit us.

OLIVER: That sounds great. What can you tell us about the work that Manifold Bio is doing and you've had M code, this is the bar-coding technology, you're selecting active proteins in a variety of assays. You mentioned oncology, is that an area of focus for you?

KUZNETSOV: Yep, so for Manifold, so ultimately we're making antibody-type therapeutics, so not just monoclonal antibodies, but also more complex format multi-specifics and drugs that have been very interesting but challenging from an engineering standpoint. And what our many advantages and many different places we're investing from a technology and platform perspective, our core platform is this protein bar-coding approach. So this is where we overcame, this was our invention that addressed that bottleneck we saw in the field, which is that low throughput fixed state that all drug programs reach when they get to sort of further functional or in vivo testing. And the insight that we had was for many drugs, you know, especially in oncology, but for many different indications, the challenge is how do you get a drug or a, you know, a very toxic payload to deliver specifically just to the tissues and cells that are cancerous, and avoid all the other healthy tissues, so really getting at the core of a key aspect of that therapeutic window, you know, having action only where you want it or more pithy way we like to describe it as getting the drugs to go where they should and not where they shouldn't.

OLIVER: It's important.

KUZNETSOV: And so, yeah, and so if you have a way to have a quick feedback cycle of testing a molecule actually in that complex in vivo environment, of not just getting to see how well it gets to a target, but how well it overall navigates that complexity of a 3D mammalian environment, you know, that's something that's really hard to replicate in any kind of in vitro system. And so critically, you want to do that for many molecules at a time, since every in vivo test is quite precious. So we built this protein bar-coding technology. And the way to think of it is it's an extra bit of protein, like a protein tag, think of like a FLAG-tag that folks might be familiar with, with some of their assays. And that tag, all of a sudden, makes the antibody or drug trackable. And now given a mixture of these tags embedded in tissue, or sorry, mixture of these tagged drugs embedded in some tissue and sampled from the animal or embedded in or in the blood sample, we can take that sample, we can, with our proprietary platform, quantify the relative and absolute abundance of those different drug entities, and basically get a snapshot for hundreds of drugs in parallel, which ones are specifically ending up where they need to be, as well as which ones are ending up in other areas where they should not be or which ones are just having poor compatibility with the sort of challenging environments of in vivo.

OLIVER: So will this technology enable you to target proteins, for example, that have historically been hard to target?

KUZNETSOV: So where we actually focus, and this is sort of from our kind of customer business development knowledge and strategies, is we're actually thinking about areas where these are targets that have been well known. We know if we target them, they can be very efficacious, the tumors will definitely shrink. But the challenge has always been one of toxicity. These are often targets that are very prevalent elsewhere. And so we've seen tests in clinic, where it's really challenging. We start to see high toxicity, sometimes even patient deaths, when you start to increase to a dose, when you start to see that efficacy. And so by really focusing on that challenge that those molecules, those targets that have had these clinical challenges, and bringing our approach and then bringing novel protein designs paired with our measurement approach, this gives us, what we believe, is a really big advantage to take on some of these targets that, classically, many of them basically have been labeled as intractable and our goal is to make them tractable and do that through our technology edge.

OLIVER: So the biology of the target is well enough understood to make it validated but you're going to be in a position to actually take advantage of that.

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, exactly. And that's sort of the first version, you know, as an entrepreneur, you have to be disciplined in terms of the applications and the staging. You know, we're also thinking about targets that are less understood, and, or even new targets. So we're also quite good and have a team of folks that can do bioinformatics and target discovery-type work. And so we have lists of targets that are less well understood. And again, where our technology comes in is, it could be risky as a new entire program to invest in. But because we can reduce it to some of those critical tests, as you know, into the most translational systems, we can get into short of humans and we can do that quickly and efficiently with relatively low capital, all of a sudden, we have an edge as well to try to attain some of these more novel targets as well.

OLIVER: A quicker point of failure, if you will, for something that is a new target, unexplored target.

KUZNETSOV: That's right and that's super important. As a startup, you want to really learn quickly and make decisions as quickly as possible.

OLIVER: Yeah, it makes total sense. Well, thank you very much. I did wonder, your career path is so interesting, what advice would you give to our listeners who are fascinated, not only by the science that you do, but also by your decision and that of your colleagues to sort of go into the entrepreneurial space?

KUZNETSOV: Yeah, there's, you know, it's one of those things that, in retrospect, it seems like maybe you've made some of the right paths and decisions and maybe it's clear where things can be more efficient. You know, I just reflect on my own experience. I think there's a common pattern of following my curiosity was one key pattern. So just if I, you know, I became really interested in biology. I sort of thought "Wow, this really could be transformational, kind of this new DNA-based lens into the natural world." And so I think just recognizing if something makes you super-excited, and you're also positioned, you have some resonance there, I was a computational, trained as a computationalist, so I could immediately start playing with computational data as sort of a low barrier to entry in that way for me. I think that was important. I think a second thing is also erring on the side of when you have sort of an option between more of an engineering or applied-type opportunity, whether it's a job or an academic program, versus something that takes you more down the path of business, like unless you feel saturated on the engineering and the science and learning, I tell people to err on the side of choosing that path, staying more hands-on. Even before I took my job at Google, I had one job offer that was more of a product manager that would have been less technical at an exciting startup or the opportunity was to go to Google learn from the best to how to be a really good computer scientist, good software engineer and I chose that path. And I chose that path when I chose to go into biology and even as a computationalist in the lab, I chose the path of learning to do experiments and I kept sort of choosing the more technical path until almost the opportunity, the need from a business perspective became such that it had to shift to other things, I had to start thinking about the business, start thinking about operational. But now so I have so much knowledge and experience coming from my time as a technical contributor, as a scientist, as an engineer, that it gave me the context and credibility to be able to do that work and to build teams. And the last piece of advice is really to be looking around at people around you and constantly trying to find the best people to work with. So I've been very fortunate, maybe the most intentional thing of my path was paying attention to people around me so when I chose to come to George Church's lab, it's because I'd spoken to a few really talented scientists there, Mark Lajoie and Jon Goodman and I could just tell they had a good vision of what they wanted to do. They had a clear vision of how I could help them and they would be really good mentors to me and also, eventually, really good colleagues and teammates. And then likewise, I started working with Pierce Ogden and Pierce Ogden, you know, is one of the best collaborators I've had in my life, obviously, and just the resonance there and the complimentarily has been super-important. So those three things, I think, are the key, you know, follow your curiosity, err on the side of doing and engineering science as long as possible and really pay attention to teams around you and curate that and, you know, keep seeking that, never turn that off.

OLIVER: Well, thank you so very much, Dr. Kuznetsov, that's fantastic advice and I wish Manifold Bio all possible success. You seem to be on a very exciting journey and as a cancer survivor, myself, I hope you develop all kinds of fantastic new agents to help patients.

KUZNETSOV: Thank you so much. Yeah, this was really a pleasure to be here and I'm excited to share some of our story and, you know, it's just the beginning of the story. It continues, you know, we obviously are continuing to take on new problems and continue to grow the team, so I'd love to hear from folks if they're interested to team up.

OLIVER: Of course and we'll put a link to your company website in our show notes, so people can find you easily. Thank you.

KUZNETSOV: Great, thanks so much.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: Now it's time for a segment we call Your Turn because it's a chance for our listeners to send in a recommendation that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip for a book, a video, a podcast, or a talk that you found inspirational or amusing or interesting. You can send those to us at [email protected]. Record a voice memo and send it along. We may just play it on an upcoming episode. Now, I'd like to invite our guests to take their turn. Let's start with our guests from Nucleate, Sonia.

SONIA MARYAM SETAYESH: Awesome. Thank you so much for the opportunity. So, I would love to recommend the book The Power Law: Venture Capital and the Making of a New Future, by Sebastian Mallaby. It is definitely an incredible read. It really will be worth your time, and it really highlights how the Silicon Valley came to be as a marker of innovation in the US.

OLIVER: Sounds like an inspirational story. Of course, we'll put links in the show notes, Geraldine.

GERALDINE EZEKA: Oh Sonia, I'm so glad that you did something educational because now I feel less bad about doing anime. So preface, I'm a super anime nerd, and we were just talking about this anime last week at one of our company's Happy Hours. So there's this anime called Cells at Work. There's two main protagonists, a red cell blood cell and a white blood cell. And it's a really cute kind of humanized version of cells that were kind of going through a bunch of different ordeals. It's kind of like Osmosis Jones but a little bit more anatomically and cellularly correct. So, it's really fun, a really fun show if you're into immunology.

OLIVER: And can you see this on YouTube or where?

GERALDINE EZEKA: I think you can actually watch it on Netflix.

OLIVER: Oh, okay, Netflix.

GERALDINE EZEKA: If you don't have Netflix, you can also watch it at Crunchy Roll. That's where a bunch of anime shows are on.

OLIVER: Okay. We'll try to dig out those links if we can. We'll be emailing you, Geraldine.

GERALDINE EZEKA: Awesome.

OLIVER: Alex.

ALEX KIM: All right. That sounds great. I think I'm going to defer there. I think we have some great recommendations.

OLIVER: All right.

---

OLIVER: Dr Kuznetsov, go ahead your recommendation, please.

GLEB KUZNETSOV: Oh great. So, one of my most influential books for me, personally, has been a book called Creativity Inc, and it's written by Ed Catmull. And why I love this book so much is it's been something that's been so important to me throughout my career. It's so important to us here at Manifold is the importance of team and culture and doing really hard things. So the story of this book, Creativity Inc, it's about Pixar. It's about the -- you know, the very transformational company that originally created Toy Story and then sort of started a whole field of these kind of next generation of animated stories. And what's really interesting is the challenge they faced is they started with a really strong technical team, really next-generation high-performance compute, could generate these really powerful renderings. But the product was a story, was something of in many ways of a fundamentally different nature. So you have the great technologists and working on cutting-edge technology and you have the product and you have great storytellers that are trying to tell an amazing story, and you need to combine those two types of folks and get them to work quite well together. And so, what Creativity Inc talks about is, how do you build that culture? How do you motivate folks to, you know, both harness creativity but also drive it towards something that ultimately has a very finite end. So for me personally, as CEO of Manifold Bio, you know, we are trying to do something analogous. We use cutting-edge technology to invent new ways of engineering biology, and our product is ultimately a drug. It's something that's going to impact and save the lives of patients. So there's slightly different ways of thinking, and it's important to both harness creativity and innovation. But ultimately, keep it focused towards solving that core problem of creating that drug or creating it. That's something that's going to work, be safe, and ultimately something we can, we can give to a patient.

OLIVER: Great. Thank you. That's a fantastic recommendation. Really appreciate it, and I'd like to make a recommendation as well. This is something lighthearted. "Ten Funny Science Songs that you Need to Hear." They're gathered on one page by Hello Bio, a newsletter. My favorite is actually the first one on that list, "Post-Doc Me Now." I can't sing. So I won't but be careful, one viewing and you might be humming it to yourself for the next few days, and we'll, as always, put a link in the show notes.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar and Edited by Janette Goeser.

A special thanks to Lakshmi Grama and Sabrina Islam-Rahman.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

This is an extra episode, courtesy of our colleagues at the NIH podcast, All About Grants. Listen in to meet the host of All About Grants, David Kosub and also one of the hosts of NINDS' Building Up TheNerve podcast, Lauren Ullrich. David interviews Lauren and me about our podcasts, and we discuss what we are talking about in our shows with a focus on early research careers.

Show notes:

NIH's All About Grants Podcasts:

https://grants.nih.gov/news/virtual-learning/podcasts.htm

NINDS' Building up the Nerve:https://ninds.buzzsprout.com/

[MUSIC]

Oliver Bogler: Hello and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI, in the Center for Cancer Training.

Did you know that there are other NIH podcasts? Well, today we are dropping an episode from a sister pod, All About Grants from the NIH into our feed. It is hosted by David Kosub, and focuses on everything that is involved in getting a grant from the NIH. They've organized the episodes by the stages of the application process and so you can hone in what you need to know at a specific time.

David invited Lauren Ullrich from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, who hosts their pod, Building up the Nerve and me. Listen to our convo about common areas we cover and maybe check out these other pods as well. We will be back soon with our regular episodes.

[MUSIC]

David Kosub: Attention all researchers, especially those early in their career: grad students, postdocs, career development awardees. Do we have something in store for you today. We know you're thinking about your career and how to get funding to do your research from NIH, but what else should you be thinking about as you try to embark on your new career? This is David Kosub. And I'm with NIH's All About Grants.

>> From the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland this is All About Grants.

David Kosub: All right. Welcome to the show. I am glad to say that we have two very special guests with us, two other podcasters here at NIH. We have Dr. Oliver Bogler. He hosts the National Cancer Institute's Inside Cancer Careers podcast. And we also have Dr. Lauren Ullrich. She is a co-host of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes podcast called Building Up the Nerve. Welcome Oliver, Lauren to the show.

Lauren Ullrich: Great. Happy to be here.

Oliver Bogler: Thank you so much.

David Kosub: All right. So if you recognize those voices check out their podcasts after this show. So Oliver, Lauren before we jump right in, tell us more about your show and why you're interested in, you know, helping early career researchers.

Lauren Ullrich: You want to kick us off, Oliver?

Oliver Bogler: Sure. Thank you. Glad to. So we started Inside Cancer Careers earlier this year because it's an amazingly exciting time in cancer research, and we wanted to have conversations about all the different things you can do related to ending cancer as we know it. We need people with all kinds of talents from all kinds of backgrounds thinking about all kinds of ways of approaching the problems that we have in cancer research and so that's what the podcast is all about. What can you do. What kind of backgrounds. What kind of paths. And what kind of skills and ideas and creativity can you bring to cancer research.

Lauren Ullrich: And over at Building Up the Nerve, this podcast is really designed to demystify NIH grants and science training in general in a fun, portable and hopefully a little bit more accessible format than our standard, you know, NIH tip sheets and webinars. And we also know that it's helpful for our listeners to hear directly from peers, so we try to get a wide variety of guests who are or were going through exactly what our listeners are going through and can really speak from experience. And we started way back I think it was in 2017 with the NIH grant cycle and what's going on behind the scenes. And then we had season two was about the fellowship and career development award application. Season three was all about mentoring. And now season four is focused on the hidden curriculum throughout a scientific career.

David Kosub: Demystifying grants process. I'm glad we're aligning in that as well. You said hidden curriculum. I actually want to jump on that. You know, this hidden curriculum what exactly does this mean? You kind of touched on its all these other parts to it, you know. Why is this important to know this? What's going off underneath the surface?

Lauren Ullrich: Yeah. So we know that, you know, education in general it's not only what you learn in the formal classroom, right? But it's also this other hidden curriculum that's the values, and the beliefs, and the behaviors and all these pieces of scientific culture that are implicitly there, right? What are the norms of practices of being a scientist. And so some examples of that is like, okay. In the classroom you're learning about the scientific method, you're learning about responsible conduct of research; how to write a paper. But you also need to know: how to find mentors, how to build networks, how to dress, how to speak, how to secure funding. And some programs we know are getting better in sort of teaching these things explicitly. Some mentors really go out of their way to teach these things but not all of them. And our podcast, you know, from the beginning has really been about trying to level the playing field and making that implicit information explicit for everyone in the conversations that we have so it doesn't depend on who your mentor is or who you know. That this information is out there for anyone to access.

David Kosub: How to dress. My mentor failed on that one when I was in school. Actually just jumping on that mentorship, you know, but maybe both of you all can take this. How do you find the right mentor? How do you know it's the right person?

Oliver Bogler: Yeah. I think that's a really important aspect of any career. And one of the things we illuminate in the stories that our guests tell is that very aspect. So we have guests from all different career stages that talk about their paths so far in science and one of the themes that comes out all the time is the importance of connecting with other people who can help you find that right insight, guide you in the projects you're doing or in the hidden curriculum, right? How do you build those relationships? How do you find those jobs? And how do you get those grants and papers published? I mean, we're very grateful to both of you for demystifying the grants process. We have not focused on that because you're doing such a great job with it. But there's a lot of other stuff that needs to be demystified and finding a good mentor and making that relationship work is one of those things.

Lauren Ullrich: Yeah. And I'll just follow up and say that nobody should have just one mentor, right? This should be a whole host of people who are helping you and invested in your career. You know, one of the things that's really come out and I think I kind of new in the background but has really solidified for me during the recording of season four is how much of science happens through cold emails. Like we just have story after story of people being like, "Yeah. I found my postdoc mentor through a cold email." I read their paper and I just reached out to them, or my summer research opportunity, or my collaborator. And so I think a lot of people feel like: "Oh, I don't have a network. I don't know anyone." But we've found that if you reach out then you might be surprised by how many people do respond and are interested in working with you and collaborating with you or help letting you in their lab. So as long as you reach out and do that due diligence then you might be surprised.

David Kosub: And kind of building on that kind of communications. Those emails once, you know, you got the footing, you get in that lab you're working with someone. You know, how do you keep those communications open? How do you work with your mentor to make sure that, you know, you're growing as a researcher? And it's going beyond just like simply writing a scientific publication or helping to draft a grant. I mean, just these other kind of inherent communications that need to happen on a daily basis.

Oliver Bogler: Yeah. I think that's critical. The process of becoming an independent investigator out of someone else's research team is a process, and most scientists are introverted and most scientists aren't focused on the communications of this kind. But we certainly hear stories where early and explicit clear negotiation of these kinds of issues can be incredibly beneficial to all parties concerned, including the mentors. So that's something we definitely emphasize.

Lauren Ullrich: Yeah. Good communication is so important and something that I wasn't always the best at, especially during graduate school of my early career because it's hard, right? It requires trust. It requires vulnerability sometimes if you're talking about these difficult subjects. But hiding from these issues or these issues or this communication definitely will only make things worse. So, I'll say from experience. The good news is that you can get better with practice, but the bad news is you actually do have to practice. And it may be hard and kind of awkward, but it's really worth it to just-- You know, figure out what you want to say and then, you know, practice; practice with a trusted friend. And then just jump into it and you'll probably find your mentor will react better than you think they will.

David Kosub: As I teach my four year old, practice makes progress.

Lauren Ullrich: Yes.

David Kosub: You got to keep at it. And Oliver, you mentioned introverts and we mentioned networking earlier. As someone who's an introverted person who doesn't do much networking I could go away from it I guess, but I know it's an important thing that, you know, has to be done in research. No researcher is an island, if you will. We're constantly working together. We're constantly collaborating. You know, do you have any thoughts? Have you heard, you know, from your experiences on your shows about how networking is important?

Oliver Bogler: Absolutely. I mean, I would say that the one thing I would think about if you are feeling a little introverted is that, what is a common thread in all our conversations is a passion and interest for science. That is something that is very common and drives people in different ways maybe but certainly is there. So rely on that as a great way, a great chance to build common interest with someone even if you're approaching them out of the blue, so to speak, you don't have a previous relationship. Connect with them around your common interest in science and you're bound to have at least a good conversation to begin with and then that can lead to many other things. You know, communications tools are so handy these days. Scientists are really quite accessible in a way that maybe 20, 30 years ago it wasn't the case. I would encourage everyone to make themselves and make use of that, avail themselves of that and, you know, reach out. Scientists are almost always willing to talk about science, you know. That's a truism

Lauren Ullrich: That is true. I'll also say like, networking doesn't have to mean going to a reception and standing around awkwardly with like your canapes and your glass of wine. I like to tell people to think about it in a much more broad sense. For me small talk is very hard, just like my mind goes blank I don't know what to say. But one way to build your network in maybe a more approachable way is volunteering for things because you have a built-in conversation starter like that thing that you are working on together and you have a chance to develop those relationships a little more organically. People remember people that were really useful or helpful in these kinds of situations and so that kind of experience can build even stronger connections than just some random person that you met at a conference. So being a little broader about your definition of networking is one way to help overcome some of those introverted tendencies.

David Kosub: Yeah. And if you need any conversation starters just say, "Hey, did you hear that really great All About Grant's podcast with those two other podcasters? That's a great show." Well, Oliver and Lauren this has been a great opportunity to kind of hear from you all and your experiences on your particular podcasts as it relates to, you know, helping early career researchers. Before we go, I always like to leave an opportunity to, you know, have some final thoughts from our guests. Feel free and share. You know, anything that you want to leave the audience with about, you know, kind of starting their careers and what they should be thinking about.

Lauren Ullrich: I'll say there are a lot of resources out there, I think you'd be surprised. At NIH we want to provide the information that people need to be successful, like we're not trying to be gatekeepers. But we also recognize the resources can be hard to find. You know, speaking of hidden curriculum. The number one lesson from our podcast at least is, talk to your program officer. And how do you know who that person is? If you're applying to a funding opportunity, you scroll down to the bottom, it will have a name and an email address. And you can reach out and say: "Hey, I'm thinking about applying. Here are my specific games." Or "Here's the general topic of my research. Can we have a conversation and see if this is appropriate for me?" If you've already applied that name will be in eRA Commons or in your summary statement of who the program director is and just reach out. Even if you just come up and say, "I was told I'm supposed to talk to you." Like most program officers are going to take that in stride, you're not the first newbie that we've talked to. And we really are here to try and help navigate what we know is a confusing system.

Oliver Bogler: Yeah. And I would just say, you know, it's a phenomenal time to be in biomedicine and cancer research, come take a look at all the different career options if you're not engaged. If you're already engaged listen to our podcast it's a great way to imagine your future where you might go and learn from people who are maybe just a couple of steps ahead of you or way down the road. And then the other thing is, you know, we created this podcast to have a conversation. So we are always interested to hear from you. We'd love to get user feedback and listener feedback. And also if you have ideas for our podcast for people we should talk to or things we should consider we'd love to hear from you. And if you just Google up Inside Cancer Careers from NCI you'll find our webpage and our email address and a way to reach out to us. So, please get in touch.

David Kosub: Well, thank you very much Oliver and Lauren. This has been a great opportunity to learn more about, you know, what early career researchers should be thinking about when they're embarking on their careers. And, you know, to echo something Oliver mentioned, check out the NCI's Inside Cancer Careers podcasts and check out NINDS's Building Up the Nerve podcast. It's a great resource to learn, you know, more about what it is that you should be thinking about, what others who are experiencing what you're going through how they're addressing it and all. And there's also lots of other NIH podcasts that you should check out. And stay tuned for another podcast coming soon that's going to be focused on knowing yourself and knowing your science. And it kind of helps you as an early career researchers think about that as you're, you know, considering applying for NIH. This has been David Kosub with NIH's All About Grants. Thanks.

In this episode of Inside Cancer Careers, we hear Michael Weingarten, Director of NCI's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Development Center. Mr. Weingarten shares the various programs and resources available through SBIR. We then hear from Dr. Margaret Jackson, Co-Founder of BYOMass. Dr. Jackson recounts her experience of becoming a scientist and a small business owner. She also provides insightful tips on how to effectively apply for a small business grant.

Show Notes

• Michael Weingarten, MA
• NCI Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Development Center
• Small Business Transition Grant
• Small Business Applicant Assistance Program
• Innovation Corps (I-Corps)
• Investor Initiatives
• Presidential Management Fellowship
• NASA Technology Transfer Program

Ad: NanCI by NCI

• Margaret Jackson, D.Phil.
• BYOMass
• The Capital Network
• Grants.gov
• Small Business Administration
• eRA Commons
• SAM.gov
• FreeMind Group
• Eva Garland Consulting
• Royal Society Fellowship

Your Turn

• The Whale (movie)
• A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER BOGLER: Hello and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer Training. On Inside Cancer Careers, we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today, we're talking to Michael Weingarten about how NCI supports small business develop technology and agents to end cancer with grant mechanisms. After the break, our guest is Dr. Margaret Jackson, the CEO of BYOMass, a company that's been supported by a grant from Michael's center and which is developing therapies for one of the big problems that many patients with advanced cancer face. Listen to the end to hear recommendations from our guests for interesting things and where you are invited to take your turn.

I'm a cancer survivor and as I went through my treatments, chemo, surgery and radiation, and now long-term hormone therapy, I became aware that everything that was used to manage my cancer was made by a company. Sure the research behind it may have had its roots in academia but to get from that bench to the proverbial bedside, a commercial entity had to get involved. There are rare exceptions, some experimental therapies maybe, but even here more often than not, companies are involved. It's for this reason that the NCI funds innovation in the business world. To talk with us about that is Michael Weingarten, the Director of the Small Business Innovation Research Center at NCI. Welcome Michael.

MICHAEL WEINGARTEN: Thank you, thanks for having me today, I appreciate that.

OLIVER: Yeah, before we dive into the SBIR work, I'd like to ask you about your own path and your career. How did you come to do the work that you do today? I understand that you started by studying political science at Northwestern, isn't that right?

MICHAEL: That's right, that is right. Yeah, so, I did my undergraduate work at Northwestern, political science. I then actually went to Columbia after and I studied international relations. And I went into my career thinking I was probably going to go into the foreign service.

OLIVER: Huh.

MICHAEL: And that that was going to be my career, focused on U.S.-Russia relations.

OLIVER: Interesting.

MICHAEL: But as things changed, for many of us, I had the opportunity when I was at Columbia to join the government in a management training program called the President Management Fellowship, which is an entry-level program for folks to get into the government. And I started at the State Department actually for about a year and then I was able to do a rotation over to NASA in my second year. And NASA actually ended up being where I spend a good part of my career, I was there for about 15 years. And I had the wonderful opportunity when I was at NASA to actually build NASA's Technology Transfer Programs. NASA is famous, probably when you think of technology related to NASA maybe you think of Tang and you think of Velcro as famous spinoffs from the space program, there've been many of those. It was my job at NASA to identify some of the most valuable technologies that NASA was developing and to then find private sector collaborators to license the technology and then to commercialize it for other applications. And I enjoyed that job very much. I had the opportunity to create a marketing and business development program when I was at NASA and while I was doing that, the Deputy Director of the NCI at the time happened to see some of my work and she was quite interested in really reinventing the program at the NCI for the Small Business Innovation Research Program.

OLIVER: Uh-huh.

MICHAEL: So she was able to bring me over back in 2005 and it was really a unique opportunity to really take a clean look at how the SBIR Program should best be managed. And I was given a great opportunity to actually take a step back and really reinvent the program here at the NCI. That's been a lot of fun. I've been doing that for the last 17 years now.

OLIVER: So tell us what is the SBIR Center do? It funds small business but how and why?

MICHAEL: Yeah, so the way the program was actually set up it's a program that Congress set up back in 1982 and the goal is to fund small businesses to meet the mission of the agency it's a part of. So our goal as part of the NCI is to fund a whole range of cancer companies, cancer-focused companies, really cutting across the whole spectrum of technology development that the NCI supports, so that includes drug development, devices, diagnostics, digital health, and also research tools. And we work closely with our colleagues across the NCI to identify emerging technology areas that are high priority for the institute. We come out with targeted funding opportunities in those areas, encouraging companies to apply in those areas. But we also, actually the real opportunity in the program is for companies that are working in cancer research to apply in areas that they're pursuing. We fund most of our projects actually through an omnibus grants funding announcement that is wide open. And if you're a company that's engaged in cancer research, you're likely going to fit within the goals of the SBIR Program. Our budget this year, actually, it's $200 million so it's a significant budget. And our goal is to move as many of these early-stage companies that are developing promising cancer technologies to move them through pre-clinical development into the clinic and ultimately to get those technologies out to patients or to the research community as a whole. So we offer funding to do that but we also offer a whole range of other resources that our companies need to be successful.

OLIVER: Yeah, I want to get to those in a minute but why does a company apply for this particular source of funding? Obviously, funding is good, everybody needs it, but why SBIR instead of, for example, angel funding or venture capital or other sources of money?

MICHAEL: So what's really cool from the company's standpoint about the SBIR Program is it's non-dilutive funding. We don't take any sort of an equity position in the companies that we fund. We fund projects through either grants or through contracts but we don't get any percentage of the company. We also don't get royalties back if the technology's successful. And the IP is owned by the small business, so it's a very attractive program for companies, new startups in particular, that are developing a technology. But if you look across our portfolio of companies, we fund all the way from startups to more mature small businesses, so it's a very wide based portfolio.

OLIVER: Now, if I recall, you have two core mechanisms, the SBIR and the STTR, is that right?

MICHAEL: That's right. So the larger of the two is the Small Business Innovation Research Program. The percentage is the dollars that go to the program are set by Congress. But 3.2% of the NCI budget is set aside to go into the SBIR Program. That's in the order of let's say, $175 million. And then the Small Business Technology Transfer Program is the sister program of SBIR and that program, around $25 million or so, that program is specifically focused on trying to transfer technologies that are being developed in academia to a small business. So the goal is to fund researchers, while they're still at the university, move those technologies out of the university to a company in order to enable their commercialization.

OLIVER: Right. So the STTR application requires the presence of an academic organization, right, while SBIR can have that but doesn't have to have it?

MICHAEL: That's exactly right, exactly right.

OLIVER: Great. Alright, so you mentioned a little bit about other ways that you support people who are interested in entrepreneurship. Can you tell me a little bit about that?

MICHAEL: Yeah, so if you look at kind of the typical company that applies for funding from us, many times, they're an academic spinoff. You know, you have a researcher at a university that's been developing a technology, they've developed some IP around the technology, they think there's some value there, so they're interested in seeing if there's a commercial opportunity. So the opportunity with the SBIR is a lot of times we'll be the first source of funding that a spinoff company will look towards when they're first getting started. So maybe they were able to get a little bit of university money to support the transition to that technology. Usually, it's not a lot, you know, maybe $100,000 or so. But what they can do at that point is they can apply for one of our early stage awards and we will, what we offer to every company that's applying to our program is we offer to review their specific aims ahead of time, and to give them some advice on things that they should be considering as part of their application. So we actually spend a lot of our time talking to potential applicants about their projects, advising them on how to write stronger applications. And if they're not successful, that sometimes happens with first-time applicants, we'll review their summary statement with them so that they can write a stronger application when they resubmit. And we find that actually, the second time people apply, their success rates are probably three times higher than the first time they apply. So it really does make a difference. And so one of the things that really separates the NCI from the rest of the NIH as a whole is we've actually set up a center whose sole responsibility is to work full-time with small businesses, and to advise them, but also to create these other resources that our companies need to be successful. So just as an example, we run a program, we call it our Applicant Assistance Program. These are for companies who have never received an SBIR in the past. And we actually will offer them a coach that will work with them over a 10-week period, and actually assist and advise them as they're writing their application. So it's particularly helpful for newbies who just don't really understand the NIH peer review process, don't understand all the different pieces of the application, and what they really need to put in into each of those different parts of the application. So we have found that the Applicant Assistance Program has been quite helpful to many of our companies, particularly companies that are made up of underrepresented scientists. We are very interested in increasing the numbers of applications from that community. We went back just this year, we looked at how successful companies made up of underrepresented scientists have been who have gone through that program. Across the NIH we've actually given 55 awards to folks in that community. But it's not just for that community, it's actually available to everyone.

OLIVER: So I mean, that reminds me of how program officers work with academic scientists also to help them, you know, guide them through this process that is the application for an R01, for example, and you're doing the same for the business side. So peer review, you mentioned in passing, these grants that your center receives are peer reviewed, right?

MICHAEL: Yes, so every application goes through peer review just like an academic application would. And if you look at the review criteria, they're actually going to be similar, in a lot of different specs to what the review criteria would be for an R01 or another academic grant. The one thing that really separates SBIR is, rather than being research-focused, the application is supposed to be product-focused. So companies as part of your application, you're supposed to identify what the product will be, and what the application of that product will be and we will also like you to identify if there's a specific cancer that that technology is geared towards. So thinking about the end application, also thinking about what the value proposition of the technology is, how is it an improvement over this current state of the art. It's important for applicants to really make the case about how their technology is going to actually move the field forward, move products that are going to be available for patients forward in terms of meeting a currently unmet need.

OLIVER: Yeah, having an impact on the patients, I mean, that's ultimately, ultimately the goal. Now, you mentioned at the beginning that you were invited to NCI to sort of rebuild the center, reimagine it, what else is part of your center?

MICHAEL: So we, in addition to the Applicant Assistance Program, I'll just mention a few other programs that we run for our companies. I think one of the most interesting programs that we offer to companies soon after they receive a grant or a contract from us, they become eligible for a program we offer called I-Corps or Innovation Corps. And what's really cool about the I-Corps Program is, in particular, it's helpful to companies that don't have a lot in the way of business backgrounds. So our I-Corps Program, I like to think of it as kind of like a business school boot camp in a way, because it's an eight-week long program. And it essentially teaches companies over that eight-week timeframe, how to build a business model around the technology that they're developing. So just as an example, they look at things like value proposition, what is, trying to really crystallize what is the unmet need that their technology can actually address. So over the course of that eight-week program, the way they do that is they actually go out and they conduct customer interviews. They meet with different people that are in the area of the technology that they're developing, and they get direct feedback from them and information from them on what need their technology can best meet. And then based on that, that really helps them scope out what the market opportunity is that they can best pursue and also what are the steps in actually moving that technology all the way from the earliest stages of development through preclinical development, ultimately into the clinic, and then ultimately to be commercialized. Because, as you know, in the life sciences space, it's a long pathway to develop a technology. It requires a lot of different parties to be involved. Funding is just one piece of that. We provide the funding but we also try to interweave all these other resources that our companies need and I-Corps is a really helpful program. We find that that program, in particular, helps set up our companies to be successful over the long-term, that's just one program.

OLIVER: I-Corps exists in other institutions across the nation as well, correct?

MICHAEL: Yes, so actually, I-Corps was initially started by the National Science Foundation, and they continued to offer I-Corps. What really separates their program from our program is we've really targeted towards life sciences, specifically. So we bring in domain experts, for example, in the areas of therapeutics, devices, digital health, and those domain experts really tailor I-Corps to the specific needs that life sciences companies have. NSF's program is much more broadly based.

OLIVER: All of science, of course. Now your grant mechanisms are a stepping stone, they're not, that's not the only funding a company needs is a step towards this. So what happens after the SBIR grant or your STTR grant is finished? What do companies do then?

MICHAEL: Yeah, so we understand that, you know, for example, to develop a new drug, depending on the estimates that you look at, could be $1.5 billion. Huge amount of capital required to be successful there. That's over the long term. So we try to set them up and move them as far enough along, get them to a key inflection point where they can raise additional capital. But we assist in that fundraising process from the private capital community. So the way that we do that is we run a program we called our Investor Initiatives Program. And the way that program works is over the last 15 years since I came to the NCI, I've been able to build a really strong network of relationships with the investor community. So I have relationships with the top venture capital investors from across the country, as well as the top pharmaceutical and medical device investors across the country. Once a year, we tap into a network of about 80 different investors. And we actually use them to help them review our portfolio. So they'll actually do almost like a peer review, except from the business side of our portfolio, and help us identify the top companies that we're currently funding in our portfolio. And typically, that's in the order of 30 to 35 companies out of our total portfolio. And then based on their recommendations, we will actually provide funding and coaching for those companies to then go and present at private investor events, events like BIO, which is the largest biotechnology industry event in the country. We prepare them and fund them to then go and present at private investor events to help them raise additional capital. And we find that, because we're the NCI, we can help open doors for them that they otherwise wouldn't be able to do. That's one example of a program that we offer.

OLIVER: So you really thought about the whole continuing. So if a scientist comes to you with a great idea that has commercial potential, obviously, it has to have commercial potential, they can access all these different resources and services. I wonder if there are early career scientists who are listening to us, and they might be wondering, how can they get into this world that you're supporting? And they're interested in entrepreneurship, they want to apply their science to the patient, ultimately, what are your recommendations and how do you support that community?

MICHAEL: So a couple of different mechanisms that we offer, one that I'm particularly excited about is a program called the Small Business Transition grant. This is a program we just launched over the past year. And that program is specifically targeted at post-docs and early career scientists who are still at the university and are working to develop a technology and they're interested in moving that technology out of the lab and potentially to a company. So the way that program is actually set up is post-docs can actually apply for that funding under the Small Business Transition grant. The NCI, they can access up to $2.4 million in funding, just through that one program. The way that program is structured is we call it a Fast Track Award, which means it's a combination of a Phase 1 SBIR and a Phase 2 SBIR. So it's two pieces of funding. The Phase 1 piece is up to $400,000 in funding, and the Phase 2 piece is $2 million in funding. So the way that program works is they collaborate with a small business, they develop their application, they submit it and then it goes through peer review as with other applications. It's really ideally suited for early career scientists. And one of the things we are learning is we actually we need to be more active in communicating with academics about that particular program, because we're not getting as many applications as we would like to see. So we want to do as much as we can to work with that community, and to help them and advise them in applying because we think it's ideally suited for them. Another special thing about that program is it doesn't just provide funding to the post-doc for research, it also provides funding that will support a business mentor and a technical mentor to advise that post-doc. We understand, you know, maybe applying for an SBIR can be somewhat of a daunting prospect, so the funding can help support the needs of the post-doc and through these mentors, specifically.

OLIVER: Under this mechanism, the post-doc themselves could transfer into the commercial entity as part of that, is that correct?

MICHAEL: Yeah. So I think we try to think of it as a multi-step process.

OLIVER: Right.

MICHAEL: When they apply for the funding for that first piece of the award, the--

OLIVER: Phase 1--

MICHAEL: --what we call the Phase 1 of the award, they actually will just stay at the university for that first year of the project because we understand, you know, there's going to be some learning and knowledge that they have to gain before they're ready to move to the company. So the Phase 1 will be they will receive it while they're at the university and then as they complete the Phase 1, they're ready to move to the Phase 2 part of the project. At that point, they're supposed to move to the company, and then the funding will go with them to the small business.

OLIVER: So what's your advice to early career scientists, maybe even people still undergraduate or in graduate school who are thinking about this as part of their future? What kind of skills could they be getting today even and what kind of exploration could they be doing?

MICHAEL: Well, a lot of universities have entrepreneurship programs and almost all of them have technology transfer offices. So if someone is interested, and they've got a bug to be an entrepreneur, most of these universities are going to have classes they can take that will school them in a lot of this. And then there's a lot of hands-on competitions that they can participate in where they might have the opportunity to be teamed with maybe someone from the business school, as an example, to actually develop a business strategy around their technology, so that's probably a really good piece of advice, initially. The other thing I would strongly suggest is, if you have an idea, and you really want to explore SBIR, please contact us. You can go on our website at sbir.cancer.gov and get access to all the different resources we offer and just send us an email and say that you'd like to have a conversation with us and we'll be happy to set up a call where we can learn about you and your interest and give you some advice about SBIR.

OLIVER: Thank you, Michael. We'll also put some of those links on the show notes for the podcast and on our podcast webpage. But thank you so much for spending some time with us and telling us about this exciting stuff.

MICHAEL: Sure. Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: PubMed lists over 270,000 cancer papers published in 2022 – that is a staggering 750 papers every day. It's great that cancer research is such an active field, but it makes finding the pubs that are critical to your work a challenge. What if you had an AI that paid attention to the papers you read and suggested others as they appear in PubMed? That is exactly what the NCI is building with an app called NanCI. With me to discuss NanCI are two members of the team that are creating NanCI: Chris Perrien of Blue Pane Studios and Duncan Anderson of Humanise.ai.

Chris, you've been building apps for NCI for over a decade. What is new about NanCI?

CHRIS PERRIEN: Fundamentally NanCI represents a shift in user experience – in the prior generation of apps people had to know where to look to find things. Now, they can find the information using AI agents. I think of NanCI as a friendly research assistant who makes suggestions and answers questions. Of course, it is early days, and NanCI is still learning from their users, but they will get better and better over time.

OLIVER: Duncan, you bring AI expertise to the project. Can you tell us what capabilities that brings to NanCI?

DUNCAN ANDERSON: NanCI is all about connecting scientists. Right now the focus is on connecting them to papers relevant to their interests, which NanCI does by matching vector representations of abstracts and looking at co-citations. If you tell NanCI that you find a group of papers interesting, by bookmarking them, the app will keep an eye on PubMed for you and suggest related publications. You can also share these folders with colleagues and export them to your reference manager. You can read the paper right there in NanCI, and follow any author to see when they publish preprints. Down the road we intend to help people network based on shared scientific and career interests. And much more – these are just some of the features of the app.

OLIVER: Thanks, Chris and Duncan. Right now NanCI is available in the Apple app store, and it will be coming to android later this year. Download it and give it a try! Your feedback on NanCI is very welcome – you can send that to us here at [email protected].

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: And we're back. It's a pleasure to welcome Dr. Margaret Jackson to the podcast. Dr. Jackson is founder and CEO of BYOMass, Inc, a startup company focused on developing novel biologics and small molecules focused on TGF beta and cancer-induced cachexia and anorexia, complicated metabolic syndromes characterized by muscle loss. Welcome.

MARGARET JACKSON: Thank you so much for inviting me on.

OLIVER: Of course. My pleasure. Dr. Jackson, why did you decide to start BYOMass?

MARGARET: You know, I started BYOMass in 2017. And I think it was really a constellation of three different things. One is it's -- I wanted to work on something I'm very passionate about, and anorexia cachexia is something that I know very well because I know the patient, right. My father passed away with cancer. But what was never discussed -- this was when I was about 14. I used to visit him in the hospital. He'd been hospitalized for the last year of his life, and I used to visit him every day. And I was very excited because there's always food waiting for me. And what was never described or discussed was that my dad was -- really wasn't eating. And he was a big farmer, very muscular to then becoming skin and bones after a year of being hospitalized. And we now know that that's a disease in itself and causes over a quarter of deaths within cancer directly. And so, even 30 years later, there's still no treatments. And so I'm at a stage in my career where I can work on what I really, really care about. And that's a really great opportunity for me to work on that area. And then the second is, what would I bring to a startup. You know, I probably wouldn't have been as brave to have started a startup except that, you know, I've had a lot of training. I've been in large pharma for now doing R&D for over 20 years, taking programs from early idea to Phase II clinical studies. So I know how to choose targets. I know how to develop drugs, biologics and small molecules and how to build translatable plans and take them to the clinic. So I'm at a stage in my career where I can combine my passion with what my background training. And then the third is, if you really want to work in that area, you have a choice, then, right, in drug development. You can pursue someone else's idea in large pharma or another startup company in biotech; or you can do your own. And so, hence, I started my own and thought I would try it. And, yes, that was the start of my journey of BYOMass in 2017.

OLIVER: So what's the origin of the name of the company? It's spelled capital B capital Y capital O and then Mass. Can you help us understand that?

MARGARET: I know. Well, I have to give some credit here now to my husband, Dr. Mike Atlee. And we were brainstorming, like, what would we call the startup? It was a fun activity. But, actually, it's quite hard to choose a name for a company. But because our vision is right, muscle mass, fat mass, and we're based in Massachusetts, we felt mass really had to be in the name. So that's where the mass part come from. And then we're also -- we're a precision medicine company. And we are able to use biomarkers that will stratify patients to enrich them to get more transformative efficacy when we're doing our clinical studies. And so, as part of that, we were like, Okay. Well, it's personalized. And coming from the UK, we have this thing called bring your own bottle, byob. So we thought, why don't we have bring your own mass, which then extended to build your own mass. So that's really the origin of BYOMass. And even today, it still really holds true because we've now learned that we're not just going after prevention and treatment for fat mass, muscle mass. We're also now extending our science into bone mass, liver mass, also tumor mass. So, yes. That's the origin of BYOMass and holds true today.

OLIVER: It makes sense. So I understand that BYOMass was a recipient of support from the National Cancer Institute. We spoke to Michael Weingarten before the break about the SBIR program. But what was the nature of support from NCI that BYOMass received?

MARGARET: So I actually got two Phase I awards. One was an SBIR. The other was a federal contract, was call for proposals that comes out annually. And one was specifically for anorexia cachexia, so it was really written for BYOMass. That was why we applied for two SBIR grants. And then we -- you know, at that time, I had never actually been in the NIH system. I'm actually from the UK originally. And then with move, with, you know, working in large pharma, I was moved to the US. So I was never really in the NIH academic system. So the process was very new to me. And so it was a steep learning curve, just learning that process. I learned about it through, first of all, through a network here in the Cambridge area in Massachusetts called the Capital Network where they have a session on, like, non-dilutive funding, and brought in people that had been awarded SBIR grants and to inform about how you go about doing these grants. And that was really my reason for reaching out for us to do that. And so then it also was the first time I reached out to a program manager. I -- that time was Patti Weber, and she was excellent. You know, basically, she, you know, made it clear you need to, you know, just describe what your aims are and whether it's a good fit and then apply for the process, which -- which I did, and both were awarded. So that was really the first funding we got within BYOMass that really helped us, you know, get the company off the ground.

OLIVER: So you mentioned the program officer or program official. That's the individual working in the SBIR center helping companies understand it. They use another term, non-diluting, I think you referred to. So I think people are familiar with startups looking for money from angel investors, from, you know, venture capitalists and so on. But what is it about the SBIR funding that makes it attractive to a startup?

MARGARET: Yeah. I mean, I never heard of the term non-dilutive funding until I went to this capital network event in Cambridge, Massachusetts where they were really, you know, trying to help startups get off the ground because, really, the most expensive money that you ever take is that first VC money, right, because the VC, or angel investor, whether it's seed or series A money, you know, they give you money but at a cost. They take an ownership part, a stake of the company. And so it was the first time I hear this division of non-diluted -- diluted at this network event that I was at. So the value of the non-diluted funding is it's multiple. One, it's a peer-reviewed scientific process, which I think is tremendous. So when you're going out to raise money, you're going out with an idea they've never, ever heard of. Many have never even heard of the indication of cachexia. But the fact that it's been scientifically peer-reviewed and validated by the NIH, then that gives it credibility, number one. Number two is having that Phase I really helps you generate data, which is creating value in your company. So you've now, you know, increased the valuation of your company, if you've achieved milestones, you've now got composition of matter, or you have proof of concept from in vivo studies from an idea that you might have had, that you can then present to a venture capitalist. And then I think the third is the non-dilutive funding, you get it, and it doesn't take any ownership of a company. So you're creating value, increasing the valuation of your company, you know, with a scientifically validated peer-review process that actually allows you to have -- you know, create value and have ownership of that company before going out to raise VC money. And what I'm talking about is the Phase I, but then there's also the -- you can take it even further with the SBIR grant process. By then, once you've got Phase I is really about proof of principle. And if you've validated that proof of principle, get in there and get that Phase II grant as soon as possible because that's a tremendous amount of money for a small startup to get a Phase II award and then, ultimately, Phase IIb. So many companies, if they're very savvy early on in the startup to actually think about a strategy of going for the non-dilutive funding in parallel to trying to raise money because, ultimately, our goal with a CEO is always to raise money and where it comes from. But if you can create value at that early stage to get your molecule to as far as you can without actually having been diluted in your company, that's a really, really great offer for a startup.

OLIVER: So, from your perspective, I wonder why do you think that the -- a public funder like the National Cancer Institute is interested in supporting the work of a commercial entity startup like BYOMass?

MARGARET: Well, obviously, it's all good for economy overall. But I think, you know, from my experience with the NCI, they're as equally as passionate about anorexia cachexia treatments as what I am. They're well aware that this is a high unmet medical need. There's no approved treatments. And it's not about producing that next paper. It's about getting an actual therapeutic that's going to be beneficial to patients. So, from my experience, I'm sure there's many other reasons. I have no official answer apart from I just know from my experience there's been a lot of passion around anorexia cachexia I've received from NCI.

OLIVER: Yeah. I would just -- I would add. I'm a cancer survivor. And during my treatment, there wasn't anything that I received that wasn't ultimately coming through a commercial entity, right? I mean, for something to reach a patient, it needs to go through that model. So that makes great sense. So what would your advice be to our listeners who might be interested in the NCI's SBIR program and might be thinking about applying?

MARGARET: Well, I think you should definitely do it. I mean, I -- my whole motto is, you know, you shouldn't be scared to fail. You should always be scared not to try. So you really should, if you're thinking about a startup, if not already have a startup, it's never too early to apply for the SBIR. When I started BYOMass, I had which I felt were two great ideas. We need a lot of preliminary data that's in there. This is really proof of principle. Can you get to, you know, validate, be your target or to get a program up and running to generate molecules, which was one of my programs. And, yeah. And we were awarded. So having that idea with a clear plan of, you know, how you're going to write your aims, what those aims are, we have a couple, and clear deliverables and clear milestones that are achievable in the time period is all you need to start putting down to paper. I think it's also a really good exercise for a startup to really write that out because it's also good when you're having discussions with VCs, etc., that you have a clearly thought-out plan with a budget attached to it and a timeline attached to it. So that itself was a process. Whether you get the grant or not is a really good exercise. I also think that the advice I would give is, you know, when you're thinking about doing these grants, it's not like, oh, my goodness. There's a deadline next week, and I need to apply for it. There is a process. You do need to have a lot of registrations in place. So you really need to be thinking about it about a couple of months before the deadline for the grant and getting those registrations in place. That means getting your company incorporated. It needs to be a company. It needs to be a US company. It needs to have an employee identification number. It needs to have the grants.gov, Small Business Association registration, ERA Commons Association, and that all takes -- and sam.gov. And those all take a little bit of time to get to where you need to give yourself a good six to eight weeks for that is the other advice. I actually had never been through the system. I actually reached out. And I think this is just a -- it's a skill that you need for any startup is, you know, don't be afraid to ask. I did a lot of phone calls to people that I felt would have had these grants to understand the process of how to write those grants. There are also books available you can buy that people that have done this have lived it. And have written books on how to write Phase I, Phase II SBIR grants. You get them on Amazon. I bought those and, you know, takes you step by step of how to write these grants. There are also if you feel that maybe you're not going to be great with doing the submission process, etc., there are companies at the end. These are people that have achieved grants and have now set up their own business to help people submit grants, the administrative process, companies like Free Mind, David Garland Consultancy. They are available to help you. I didn't have much money at the time, and I wasn't going to spend money at that time. But if you had some money, that would be a good use. So I think that would be my guidance. One is reach out to people who've received it. Don't be worried about applying too early, and just get your registrations in place. And reach out to some companies that have actually had this experience, and they may be able to help you with the submission process.

OLIVER: Thank you, Dr. Jackson. You've already alluded to this. You've spent some time before you went into the startup world in a large pharma company. I wonder from a -- sort of that perspective of having experienced both what you might say to someone who's listening who's thinking about going into the commercial sector with their science to do science, and maybe they are thinking about a big pharma company or a startup company. What are the differences?

MARGARET: Well, first of all, I wouldn't change. I wouldn't change what I've done. I actually felt -- I went -- so just my background is I'm a neuroscience biologist by training, and then I went to large pharma, and that's really what I see as a tremendous training ground. You work with fabulous talented people across different disciplines as first time. You get exposed to working with chemists; you know, BDM; safety; toxicology; clinicians, everybody who are excellent in their own discipline. You get involved in working in project teams, and you learn about your little bit of science but sent to the whole bigger project. And it's not just about trying to think about generating a paper. It's around really making sure it's all validated that you can actually then convert that idea into a preclinical drug development program, that then you build a translatable plan to nominate clinical candidates and then get into the clinic and what you're going to measure in the clinic. So I felt I had a tremendous training ground, and I did that over and over again. I'm taking programs from early idea to Phase II clinical studies with multiple teams across multiple different sites within the company. I was in the UK and in the US. So that was a tremendous experience. And that enabled me to be coming with the confidence and doing a startup that that was what I could bring to a startup was moving those programs along from a great target to a great clinical candidate and development program. I think the downside of that is, you know, usually when you work in large pharma, they're huge organizations. They change every three years. There's never really continuity. There's always changes that are occurring. That brings you another skill, to be adaptable and flexible. But it also means that you're not always focused on one project. You're also competing against multiple other projects, not just within your own therapeutic area, but across multiple therapeutic areas. Also, it can be a large time sink. You have meetings, for meetings, for meetings. I used to spend my whole day with meetings and then the evening to find trying to catch up on the, you know, hundreds of emails that you have to respond to. And it really was never just about that key project, but you're moving things along. So the advantage, then, for a startup is you can be smaller, more nimble, and more faster decision-making. So when the data comes in, you have your core team, and you decide the next step in that meeting. And then things progress. So the pros definitely for a large firm is tremendous talent, and it has the resources to get things done. But, for a startup, you don't really have that hierarchy, that bureaucracy; and decision-making is much, much quicker.

OLIVER: So you mentioned you were in neuroscience. I'm always curious. What sparked your initial interest in science? How did you choose to become a scientist?

MARGARET: Well, I guess it goes back to my story about my father. I, you know -- I'm probably the first person in my family that actually went to university. You go to school, and then there was the standard jobs thing. There's a long time ago. There's standard jobs that, you know, that you would -- you would either continue to work in like whether your family was working in or you work somewhere local. We didn't really travel. And so it was only whenever -- whenever you have someone that you're visiting everyday in a hospital, you can see that there are lots of other opportunities in that medical space. And I actually thought that I initially would like to, you know, maybe work in the hematology space. So I actually then went to university to do that, but I had a great opportunity when university was the first year that introduced a placement year where you could go out and actually have experience in -- you know, to learn an area of science and actually do the job. And I actually took the opportunity to go to the States, and I actually worked at Reno, Nevada was the first time. Wasn't doing hematology. The role that was given to us was actually electrophysiology and working on the gut nervous system and pacemaker cells, and I absolutely loved it. I just -- that was just for me. And then that experience then helped me then to get a PhD. So it was just a natural progression to move in and to do a PhD in electrophysiology and in neuroscience. I was working in peripheral neuroscience. And then just serendipitously, it typically then I applied for a grant that gave me a Royal Society fellowship when I went to Australia. So I was able to combine travel with actually the science. But the initial trigger for the science really came from, you know, just being able -- being in the hospital every day for a year and seeing other jobs who were there, and that just sort of catapulted me to go to university.

OLIVER: So I wonder, then, as you progressed through your career, did you consider academia as a path?

MARGARET: Yeah. I think everybody does. It's comfortable. I actually did my PhD at the University of Oxford, which is a fabulous place to be and great resources. And I also postdoc'd there, and then I went to -- went to Australia where I started a fellowship. And it would have been very easy to stay there, and it's comfortable. It was -- it was great. I did see that, you know, there were people who were still postdoc'ing after many, many, many years. It was hard to get funding, hard to get opportunities that time, which was sort of the first negative I really saw in my early academic career. And then the second was -- you know, so I was recording from neurons. I'd write a paper about it, what was it actually doing that was going to change the world. It wasn't -- I didn't see where it fit into the bigger picture. And then that's why I applied. It was many years ago wasn't really the experience of whatever you developed in your lab could be a spin-out for a company was not part of the mantra at that time. It was either you work in academia, or you go to large pharma. And my -- so my reason for going to large pharma was, one, it spelled more, like, job security to go there. And, number two, it was more about, you know, would this actually be able to transform what you were doing as your basic science into potential therapeutic. And at that time, I was just interested in learning how to develop medicines. I wasn't -- it wasn't about a particular disease area at that time that I was interested in. But I was privileged enough that I got to go, and I worked at Pfizer in the UK, which was a great place and got to work in multiple disease areas. And you could see, again, how you -- your little science that you're working on fit into the bigger picture of moving things along. I also had a privilege that I had an idea that I had that actually there was already a molecule that was already sitting on the shelf at Pfizer that I was then able to lead straight away and catapult into a clinical trial without having to do all, you know, the five years build-up of a preclinical program, which helped me really accelerate and see how you're doing clinical trials. And there's nothing more exciting than getting a drug in for the first time into a patient population. That's incredibly exciting.

OLIVER: I can imagine. Fantastic. So, you know, we've had guests on the podcast who've just started their own academic research labs. You've started a company. I wonder what your thoughts are. What are the things you're thinking about as you start with a blank piece of paper and you're going to found BYOMass. How do you start that? How do you do that?

MARGARET: So, really, it comes down to do you have a good target? Do you have the right modality to go after that target? And then do you have the right patient population to go after? All those steps all fit in with, like, the indication you're going after. So, in case of anorexia cachexia, I knew that I really wanted to work in this space. And you start looking at, well, why have people not been successful in this space? And it's because they didn't really understand the patient. People went in with therapeutics for appetite or went in with therapeutics to increase muscle mass, but they were not the underlying causal mechanism of the actual disease itself. So, within BYOMass, we wanted to understand what was the cancer making that was causing that loss of appetite and that loss of muscle mass. And then the fact that you have something then that is -- that they're making that is then elevated in patients, you can measure from a simple blood biomarker meant then you could stratify patients. And, actually, because this is -- anorexia cachexia, it's such a heterogeneous population. So to recruit trials just because so much body weight has been a failure. You need to have body weight plus if they've got a biomarker that we think is causing that weight loss, and then we can enrich those patients and then go on to understand the modality, how we would go about, you know, being able to block that signal. And then that really comes down to, then, starting the drug development program. So it shouldn't really start from -- it should really start with the patient. It should start with that, you know, what we know is the causal mechanism within the patient, not within a mouse or within a preclinical model but really understanding that causal mechanism. Have you got a biomarker to stratify the patients, and then can you therapeutically target. Then you can work up what your preclinical models are that translate to the patient, not try to translate your preclinical models to fit a patient population. I think that's quite often -- that's often probably a concern, I would say, for many who start from working always living in a lab working with mice, what they find and then trying to translate into patients, that you have to start with a patient and then -- and then build your program from there.

OLIVER: That makes complete sense. I guess another parallel between a startup company and a starting research lab is probably the people that you bring into your team, right. So are you recruiting, like, an academic lab? Does -- are you recruiting postdocs, probably you don't have graduate students but postdocs on your team? And how does that look?

MARGARET: No, no. Great question. So when you're starting to set up a company, you don't really have a lot of money, right? And you really -- it's called bootstrapping when you're trying to get that initial idea off the ground. And so, in a startup, you know, people would normally think, oh, I'd fill it up with like a lot of C suite level individuals that, you know, will cover everything from finance to legal to operations to science. And you really don't have the money for the talent that you really need. So, at an early stage of a company, like think about seed or even early series A, you don't really need all of those positions full time. And so setting up the company meant that thinking of a different way of being able to access that talent but not having to pay it as a full-time employee rate. So we were able to identify really terrific consultants to cover those roles, that you can then cover by contract or by hourly basis. So you're actually minimizing spend but getting what you need to help the company move along at that stage of your company. From the scientific part, we've set up a -- we didn't bring in PhD postdocs necessarily full time. We started off by having -- at the startup, we actually set up collaborations with academic labs. And I've got some terrific collaborators that can continue even because we started off BYOMass. They've been able to support us to get the work we -- we've done and using their facilities and their university because you -- as a startup, you can't afford necessarily all the facilities that you need to actually deliver what you need in your program. But you certainly can achieve it by having really exceptional PhD and postdocs and then also using their facilities. And then the goal would be that if those individuals would be interested to working full time in BYOMass, that they would move to BYOMass or to a startup company, or they would continue that, just that collaborative relationship. But I feel it has to be a really great collaboration between academia and a startup company and sharing resources and experience.

OLIVER: So BYOMass is about six years old; is that right? So, to finish, could you tell us how are things going?

MARGARET: It's going good. We've just completed our first IND toxicology study, which was -- looks great.

OLIVER: Could you explain that a little bit more, just in case our listeners are not familiar.

MARGARET: So BYOMass started off de novo, which meant that we started off building everything internally ourselves. We didn't license in therapeutic molecules. We actually set up screens. We identified our own targets. We set up our screens to identify our – they're molecules, biologics and small molecules. And then we took that from -- the way this drug developed process work is we have called hit identification stage where you've set up all your in vitro or in vivo screens. You start off with the in vitro screens. You make libraries of molecules, therapeutics or small molecules, and you screen against to see if they hit the target. And then you look at selectivity of that. And then you triage those and do a thing called hit expansion, where you would then try and build SAR. And, basically, can you understand that there are relationships association or in the molecules that you are -- that you are making, that informs how they're targeting the target that you're going after.

OLIVER: That stands for structure activity relationship, right?

MARGARET: That's right. Yes. Exactly. And then the next step, then, is once you've actually got really great hit lead, you start to get a lead optimization. So you have a couple of lead series that you're interested in that you want to optimize further to make them developable as a potential clinical candidate to work for potential clinical studies. That stage typically takes 12 to 18 months to then get clinical candidate. And then, once you get your clinical candidate stage, then you start for a biologic, which was our lead program, which we start manufacturing and toxicology studies, which are part of the IND enabling package required to submit to the FDA to initiate your clinical development program.

OLIVER: And IND is?

MARGARET: Investigational new drug.

OLIVER: Ah.

MARGARET: These are documents that are required to submit to the FDA. So we had a very successful pre-IND meeting with the FDA to discuss what we were going to do as part of our safety package and for our manufacturing package. And with that, then we were able to trigger our toxicology package. And so we were able to complete our toxicology safety studies. And we're now ready to enter into Phase I clinical studies. So that's a really great achievement. We start off with the two programs from -- that were funded through the -- through the NIH, the NCI, the SBIR and the federal contract. And fast forward to today, we now actually have five programs from -- originated from those two programs. Just completed our first IND package, right to enter Phase I. So the stage we are, like many startup companies, is raising money. It's all now about raising money and trying to fund, which I consider to be the expensive parts now, which are the clinical development program.

OLIVER: Of course. Well, it's fantastic. You made tremendous progress. I wish you nothing but success in the future. Your -- your work is very important, obviously, to cancer patients. So thank you for that.

MARGARET: Well, thank you very much for having me online today. And yep. Also, if anybody is interested in reaching out directly, more than happy to help or speak to anybody that is interested in, you know, really starting a startup.

OLIVER: Fantastic. Thank you for that. We will put your contact information in the show notes, and maybe some folks will reach out to you. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Jackson, for joining us today on the pod.

MARGARET: Sounds great. Thank you. Bye.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: Now it's time for a segment we call Your Turn because it's a chance for our listeners to send in their recommendations that they would like to share. If you're listening, then you're invited to take your turn. Send us a tip about a book or a video or podcast or a talk that you found inspirational or amusing or interesting. You can send these to us at [email protected]. Record a voice memo and send it along and we may just play it on an upcoming episode. Now I'd like to invite you Michael, it's your turn.

MICHAEL: Oh, thank you, thank you. So I guess in thinking about this, the one thing that I would recommend to folks is go see a movie called "The Whale". I had the opportunity to watch it this past weekend and for me I just felt like that was a movie that really connected with me. It's about a man who is a recluse. His only connection to the outside world is actually through his caregiver and through the person who delivers his food every day to his door. And the only person he actually sees every day is his caretaker. But unfortunately he's obese and he's eating himself to death.

OLIVER: Huh.

Michael: So obviously that part of the movie, it's very difficult to watch but despite all those challenges, he's still able to have this optimistic outlook on life and he spends the movie trying to reconnect with his daughter that he's been estranged with for a number of years. So the movie follows a lot of scenes where, you know, she's very distant from him when she first comes to visit him. She's kind of disgusted by his appearance but over the course of the movie, those barriers break down and he's able, slowly, slowly, to connect with her and it's just a very heartfelt moving story where you feel a great deal of empathy for his situation. But ultimately he's able to connect with his daughter in the end which really brings the movie home for me.

OLIVER: Well thank you, that sounds like a very interesting movie, thank you.

And I'd like to make a recommendation as well. So I'm a scientist but I also have other interests. One is history and I recently reread one of my favorite books, a real classic of medieval history. It's called "A Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman. It focuses on the history of the 14th Century, a calamitous period with endless war and recurring plagues and is centered on what is happening in France and England. De Coucy, a noble family with ties to both kingdoms, are at the center of the narrative. It's a substantial book but very well-written and as the title suggests, you will discover that there are so many similarities between the concerns of people 600 years ago and now, which is both heartening and unsettling.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar and Edited by Janette Goeser.

A special thanks to Lakshmi Grama and Sabrina Islam-Rahman.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.

In this exclusive episode of Inside Cancer Careers, we hear from Dr. Nancy Hopkins, Amgen Professor of Biology Emerita at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Dr. Hopkins shares the exciting early days of the molecular biology revolution that she was a part of, how she decided on a career in cancer research, and the obstacles she encountered, and gives advice on selecting a career in science. She also tells the riveting story of the movement she led to achieve gender equality at MIT and beyond, the subject of a recent book.

Show Notes

• Nancy Hopkins, Ph.D.
• The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science by Kate Zernike
• ABC News Interview with Dr. Hopkins and Ms. Zernike
• A Genetic Switch by Mark Ptashne

Ad: NCI Rising Scholars: Cancer Research Seminar Series

• A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT (The 1999 Report)
• Mountains Beyond Mountains: The Quest of Dr. Paul Farmer, a Man Who Would Cure the Worlds by Tracy Kidder
• The Age of AI: And Our Human Future by Henry A Kissinger, Eric Schmidt, Daniel Huttenlocher

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER BOGLER: Hello, and welcome to Inside Cancer Careers, a podcast from the National Cancer Institute. I'm your host, Oliver Bogler. I work at the NCI in the Center for Cancer training. On Inside Cancer Careers we explore all the different ways that people join the fight against disease and hear their stories. Today we're talking to Dr. Nancy Hopkins, Professor Emerita at MIT, about her career in science and her work on gender equality, both remarkable and written about in a recent book by a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist.

OLIVER: It's an honor to welcome Dr. Nancy Hopkins to our podcast. Welcome, Dr. Hopkins.

NANCY HOPKINS: Hi.

OLIVER: So Dr. Hopkins is Amgen Professor of Biology Emerita in the MIT Biology Department, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the recipient of too many awards from Harvard, AACR, UCSF, and other organizations to list here. She's renowned for her work on the control of gene expression, RNA tumor viruses, and the use of zebrafish to identify key genes, including many involved in cancer, and she's an advocate for cancer prevention and early detection research. Dr. Hopkins is also famous for her work on gender equality in science, and a book by the New York Times journalist Kate Zernike was published in April of this year and titled "The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, MIT, and the Fight for Women in Science." In learning about you from the book and other sources, Dr. Hopkins, one thing that struck me was the tremendous courage that you showed throughout your career and how that shaped your path, and I wonder if we might start with your decision to leave the graduate program at Yale to return to Harvard and work in a technical role, a step that I think few people would have risked. Why did you do that?

HOPKINS: That's an interesting question, and at the time, science for women was a very different thing than it is today, and I was obsessed with a couple of scientific problems, and I thought that my career in science was going to be very short. So my goal was, I was going to do some Nobel Prize-winning experiment by the age of hopefully 25. If it had to be 30, so be it, but hopefully 25. Anyway, I wanted to focus on the most interesting question, and the two questions that I had -- I was interested in from the day I heard about molecular biology was I wanted to understand cancer and I wanted to understand the human brain, human behavior. Those were two things I had in mind which I thought would take a couple of hundred years before people would understand them. However, anyway, I decided to go after the cancer problem, it's easier than the human brain. But to me, one of the things you had to understand was gene expression, and I knew at Harvard there was a young man named Mark Ptashne who was trying to solve this problem, and I ran around Yale looking for somebody who was working on it and they said nobody -- I couldn't find anybody. So I said, "Well, I got to get out of here. I got to go back to Harvard," and the only way to do that quickly was to just become Mark's technician, so I wrote to him. He said, "Yeah, I need a technician. You want to come work for me?" I said, "Great, I'm on it." So that's what I did. So for me, the science was -- I was -- I mean, it was a luxury, really. You know, in some ways, you could say it was risky, but in some ways, it was a luxury. Women were not expected to stay in science. I didn't expect to, so if I could be a technician, well, that was better than going to graduate school as long as I could work on the problem that I wanted to work on.

OLIVER: Interesting perspective. So it was really the science, but also the fact that you saw your career in a different way than you might now, looking back.

HOPKINS: Well, yes, because the expectation of what women's careers would look like was so different from a young woman today. Often people say, "Oh, there hasn't been that much progress." I say, "You don't know how much progress there's been." You know, just the way we looked at the whole thing was so different. The idea that I would be a professor in a university was not on my mind. The idea that I could win a Nobel Prize was on my mind, which is odd, isn't it?

OLIVER: Well, it's interesting, and I think in the book, you -- Ms. Zernike certainly portrays it that you, as you said, strategically went into this, right? You thought at around age 30 you might focus on having a family. You might -- your life might go in a different way, and so you had to have that high impact, and that explains the decision. I still think it was a courageous one.

HOPKINS: Well, thank you. It was a lot of fun, and it was the right one for me, but I'm not sure that -- in some ways, I do think you have to follow your passion in science, and that was really what it was, and figuring out how do I -- is it possible to do that? Is it too risky to do it? Will I survive if I do, do it? What's my goal?

OLIVER: Right.

HOPKINS: You know, what do I do to get there? So --

OLIVER: So the passion you referenced, for you, started really in a quite dramatic fashion.

HOPKINS: Well, yes. I mean, that was a thrilling thing, to be at Harvard at that time, to have met Jim Watson as an undergraduate, to be at the center of this revolution which was clearly going to change our understanding of what life is, and, you know, to believe, rightly or wrongly, that if you understood DNA and how it was controlled, you would understand every single biological problem there is, and then to have been able to go and work with Mark on this repressor problem, isolating the repressor and showing it could bind to DNA, it was extraordinary. Yes, I look back on my life, one thing I have to say, your listeners, be sure to live a long time. It's really fun to get old. Who knew? Who knew?

OLIVER: How much -- yeah, how much we would see. I mean, I remember as a graduate student, post-doc, reading Dr. Ptashne's book "The Genetic Switch" and just loving it and being fascinated by the elegance and beauty of the molecular mechanisms you uncovered with him and others.

HOPKINS: Well, he did -- went on and did it, but those initial experiments were so hard, and so hard to get them to work, and when they did, you know, you really were running up and down the halls screaming and yelling.

OLIVER: So you just mentioned a moment ago that you chose cancer. I mean, that is another indication in my mind of your willingness to be courageous, because at the time that you chose to work on cancer, you know, people were considering it a "graveyard for careers", right? That's one of the quotes. That is not the case today, but again, help us understand why you chose cancer.

HOPKINS: Well, I think that, again, that being at the Harvard biolabs at that time with Jim Watson and Wally Gilbert, Mark Ptashne, Guido Guidotti and a number of these people, you were at the center where this revolution was happening and you realized that anything might be possible sooner than you thought because what DNA had opened the door. So this question of whether cancer was possible -- and Jim would take people down to Cold Spring Harbor in the summers and there were really two different approaches at the time that were very interesting. One was from John Cairns which was that cancer was a preventable disease to a large extent, and the other was, who knows if it is or not? Maybe it is, maybe it's not, but maybe we can get to the real cause of it through these cancer viruses because, you know, here are these viruses that cause cancer and we know how to deal with viruses now. That's what these phage people had figured out. So my gosh, once you saw the progress that was made in that short period of time, from the time -- and phage, understanding how phage work in genes that control, oh, my gosh, it's just a virus. It's not that different from phage, after all, is it? So maybe there's a hope that you can get to a mechanism. So those were the two approaches right from the start that were very interesting to me, and I chose it, yes, again, I think I had this luxury of nothing. I had to make a long-time career in science, but that it could be a 10-year career and I'd be out of there. So you could take a chance.

OLIVER: But then you decided to join the faculty of -- at MIT, right, in 1973, in the new Center for Cancer Research, and you focused your energies there on tumor viruses becoming an authority in their genetics and how they cause disease. What was that like? That must have been a really exciting period of time in the early days of cancer, cancer research.

HOPKINS: Well, of course, it was, I mean, because, you know, tumor viruses were the key to cancer genes, and so really, the Bishop-Varmus experiment and others showing that these genes, normal genes could be turned into cancer genes and what those genes were, that was the era of that, and that was really remarkable in such, again, such a short period of time to go from not imagining you could work on cancer to, oh, my God, here are genes that actually cause it and they're inherited in the genome. So that was a remarkable thing to be there at that time in the field. And then I think came, I almost think, a kind of a long period of churning along after this big breakthrough to these genes. We thought -- I think we were a little overconfident, and in a way, it kind of stalled in a bit because we thought, oh, yeah, all you have to do is find inhibitors for these genes, you know, drugs that target these oncogenes and we'll be done, you know, eureka.

OLIVER: Yeah.

HOPKINS: And it didn't turn out that way on the whole, as you know. But meanwhile, you know, this other track was going along of the prevention people, and ironically, I think if you look back, and I don't know what you would call the golden age of smoking cessation, but -- so we were doing this, and I think that era was the breaking open of the mechanisms that cause cancer at the molecular level. But yes, there was a lot of other things going on, too, that we were less aware of and including, you know, early detection and prevention and the actual causes of cancer in the environment, the viruses that really do cause human cancer which turned out not to be the ones we were working on, and all these ironies, and so things went along for quite a while. I think we were a little overconfident about how long it was going to take, honestly.

OLIVER: Yeah, and how simple the mechanisms would be and how tractable, right?

HOPKINS: Yes.

OLIVER: And cancer turns out to be really flexible and evolution, you know, capable of evolution, and yeah, those are things we didn't know. I wonder, this is probably a terribly unfair question, but given that you have both, you know, devoted a lot of your efforts both in the sort of very highly mechanistic biology of cancer and then in cancer prevention and associated fields, looking back, would you, knowing what you know today, if you were to go back to the 1970s, would you plan your research program differently?

HOPKINS: Ah, I've spent a lot of time thinking about that question, so thank you for asking me. Unfortunately, I didn't -- we haven't been able to answer it yet.

OLIVER: Okay.

HOPKINS: Okay? So I don't know the answer. I mean, here's the problem, I think. I really did want to see cancer cured. I really did want to see this problem solved, but I found that I really did love basic science. So I had -- I could have gone on forever, I think, studying viruses. I think they're fascinating. We never can know enough about. It was wonderful. But I really did care about -- thinking all the time, is this really going to lead to results that are going to help cure this disease? And I'm still sort of torn about it, and I think, you know, then we ran into problems that we may talk about later but that I felt had to do with gender and I thought about leaving the field and I was debating this, and I went to a meeting to give a talk and I happened to hear somebody talking about the fact that 50% of cancer deaths in the United States were preventable and 70% worldwide by proven methods, and I was shocked back to my roots when John Cairns at Cold Spring Harbor had been talking about how much cancer was preventable and I had set that aside while we all went off to work on the mechanisms and find the genes and this and this, and that exciting era, and then suddenly being woken up again and thinking, oh, but wait a minute. How did we lose track of that? Now, so you ask, what should I have done? I don't know that I could have gone into public health and been a happy worker in the field, and I think this is one of the things young people, you know, of course, have to think about. You have to do the thing you love to do and that can be complicated. It can be a combination, and in my case, it was a real goal, medical goal, and at the same time, what do you actually like to do, and then what needs to be done, and I think that's a tough one. And so you have to figure that out for yourself.

OLIVER: Yeah, I mean, I want to get to that in a moment. Before I do, I wanted just to touch on another inflection point in your career where sometime then after joining MIT and working on RNA tumor viruses, you decided to take a complete pivot. Again, that strikes me as quite courageous. I mean, perhaps it's fair to say you were mid-career at that point, and having established a very strong reputation in one field, you now ventured into something quite different, which is challenging in the environment of, you know, requiring to get funding and get published because, you know, now you're no longer the expert you were in that original field. So tell us about the pivot you made and how you made it and why.

HOPKINS: Well, I did come to think I had had a wonderful time as a student, and a student and post-doc. I had had this wonderful experience of feeling I was part of, particularly in the phage community, I mean, it was such a community, and it was such a wonderful thing, and I had so many colleagues and we'd talk science all the time, and so forth. In the cancer field, I had found it to be a different experience and I didn't know why. I didn't know if it was the fact that you get older, you're no longer the kid, you know, you're not a student, so everybody else has to take care of you, but whether it was the nature of the field, because the field was closer to medicine, and the medical field at that time I felt was more dominated by doctors and by men than the basic science of phage molecular biology had been. It was such a new and open field that sort of women could come in, anybody could come in. So I thought, well, maybe it's the field, so maybe I should try looking at a different field to see whether it might be possible. So I thought back to my other passion, which I'd always wanted to understand the brain and neuroscience and maybe I could study the genetics of behavior or some crazy thing like this, which was, believe me, naive and wrong, but I went on a sabbatical to the lab of Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard who was the great Drosophila geneticist in Germany, and I did fall in love with the zebrafish, which she was starting to work on the zebrafish and I thought, well, maybe you could do genetics of behavior and zebrafish. Well, you couldn't, okay? But I thought, you know, I'll go see, and I kind of fell in love with the organism and I thought the developmental biology field was a much more woman-friendly field. It had many more women in it than the cancer field did at the time. So I thought, well, I'll give that a whirl, and I really got excited about it, and it was courageous and really suicidal, and your comments sound very much like my first grant proposal to the NIH. The reviewer wrote, "This middle-aged woman thinks she's going to go and -- are you crazy?" You know, it was basically that kind of thing, you know, "What is she thinking?" And I think there I was really lucky to be at MIT where there's so many resources available, and by chance, I tapped into funding from this company, Amgen, and they offered me a huge amount of money and I said, "Okay, I'm in," and off I went, and so that was a lot of fun and just a miracle, and yeah, we had a great time and helped establish the zebrafish field and developing insertional mutagenesis technology with my wonderful -- I had a wonderful team in my lab at the time, and so it was a lot of fun and ultimately brought us back to cancer by chance, and so that was when I came back to cancer and discovering, ah, so who's winning the race here? Is it the molecular biologist or is it the cancer prevention people?

OLIVER: Right, right. Interesting. So, you know, you've tried so many different things, you've worked in so many different areas, and you've also had some interesting mentors. I use the word "interesting," you know, judiciously. I wonder what you might say, when I ask you, what does it take to be a great scientist? I would certainly describe you as a great scientist. What does it take? In the book, there's some interesting quotes. Jim Watson, Dr. Watson apparently said that you had, quote, good taste in science. What's your assessment of this question?

HOPKINS: Ah, I don't know, you know. I mean, first of all, I don't think of myself as a great scientist. I think myself as a good scientist, confident scientist, a successful scientist, a passionate scientist. I think part of it, a huge amount, in my case, certainly, I think, was passion. I really do. I mean, I don't know if that's true for everybody. I think that passions can be different. Some people want to make a lot of money. They go into biotech. That's fine, too. I really was passionate about understanding cancer and seeing it cured and that drove me for a long time, and then I discovered that this passion for science itself and how nature works was so intense that that could drive me forever. So I was really lucky, I think. I don't know if all people have that sort of feeling.

OLIVER: Another thing that Jim Watson said is, again, I'm quoting from the book, "You should be a scientist. You're like me. You have a one-track mind."

HOPKINS: It's a very complicated thing about Jim Watson, as you know. He was an extraordinary mentor to a very large number of people and one of the first men that I knew in science to encourage women to be scientists, and he, it was me, it was Joan Steitz, Susan Hockfield, Shirley Tilghman, a whole number of people, he was hugely important. So that was a remarkable thing, and we can talk about the later Jim Watson, if you want. It's very painful for me, because later on, I don't know why, he changed his views about everything in some ways. He was a very different person, in half the way that he was then. But this obsession quality, the thing that science is intense, and people are there night and day, and that's kind of the way it was around, and that was -- I loved that. I mean, I didn't want to go home. I just wanted to be there. It was that exciting, and so forth. So I think -- but I don't know that every scientist has to think like that. I think there are different routes, different kinds of people, but I don't know anybody who ever did really well and wasn't pretty obsessed, I have to say. I think, you know, just loved it. Loved it.

OLIVER: I mean, I think we're trying to encourage a generation today to come into science and into cancer research who, to some extent, have a slightly different view of this, right? They see their life more holistically and maybe they're not, you know, maybe they are looking to go home at the end of the day, not spend, you know, night and day in the lab, and so on. Is that your perception, and what are your thoughts about that? Does that mean they won't be able to be great scientists?

HOPKINS: First of all, I have -- I want people to know, I have been retired for 10 years, so I don't -- I'm out of touch, really, with very young people. However, I've worked in the last few years with an extraordinary woman who's really opened -- made me understand a lot more things. Her name is Sangeeta Bhatia and she's a professor at MIT, and she and Susan Hockfield and I worked together on the gender equity project we might talk about, and there's a person who is a member of all the academies, I believe. She is a parent of two children, a wife of a wonderful man, takes excellent care of her parents. She has lots of friends. In her spare time, she is dedicated to mentoring young women, encouraging women, women of color to go into science. She has a sort of open hours for people who want to sit, you know, ask expert opinions of her. So there are people who can do amazing amounts of things, and I don't know that I was one of them. I'm not quite sure what to say about that, but different people have different capabilities. They can do all these things at once. In my generation, I think the women really felt they couldn't be a parent easily and be a great scientist. But today, all our junior faculty, they have children, almost every one of them, whereas in my generation, they didn't. So something has changed and I don't really understand exactly what it is, but there is something else that I don't understand. Maybe you can explain it to me, that people -- because you talk to more people probably, and that is I do sometimes hear young people say -- who have married, who have children, and who are, you know, doing science at a high level, "I wish I had time for life," and I'm saying to myself, "Excuse me, you have a life. That is a life. It's an extraordinary life." And that's, I think, how I felt about it. I mean, all these lives are so rich and full and so privileged, really, and so why do people feel -- what are they missing that they feel they don't have a life? You know, I do see from my generation that women really did have to do a lot more to succeed in making a choice of having children, for example, even, you know, whatever, but something's changed because they're doing it. I think it's still too hard for most people. I don't know I could do it, but we have to keep working at that.

OLIVER: Well, I have a hypothesis of what might have changed, and I think that things have gotten better for women in science, and I think you are one of the people who deserve credit for that, and after the break, we'll dive into that when we talk about some of the culture-changing work that you did on gender equality and science.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: The NCI recently launched a new online seminar series. Here to tell us more is Nas Zahir, the Director of the Cancer Training Branch.

NAS: Yes, we launched the NCI Rising Scholars Cancer Research Seminar Series in January to highlight the research and contributions made by NCI-supported postdoctoral fellows and early career investigators at NCI laboratories and NCI-funded institutions nationwide.

The talks are every month on the third Thursday, and you can see them and register for them on the NCI website. There will be a link in the show notes, or you can search for "NCI Rising Scholars".

OLIVER: That sounds great. What kind of topics are the speakers covering?

NAS: We have a broad range of topics – pretty much any kind of cancer research. We have had basic science topics, clinical research, health disparities, cancer prevention, immunology and many more. Each talk is related to a recent publication by the presenter and there is plenty of time for Q&A.

OLIVER: What if you missed a talk?

NAS: We post a recording of the presentation a few days after the talk, along with a transcript and captions so you can always catch the talks at your convenience.

OLIVER: Thanks, Nas – check out NCI's Rising Scholars seminar series if you are interested in some great research that's increasing knowledge right now.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

OLIVER: All right, and we're back. I wonder, Dr. Hopkins, if you could describe for us some of the challenges you faced during the late '60s and early '70s as you were building that early phase of your career. You already mentioned that there were very few women in science, so there were some fields, like early gene expression, where you felt there was room. How was that different from today?

HOPKINS: Ah, I think that, you know, it was so unusual for a woman to be there at the time, and our expectations of them, as I've just said, were different from our expectations of a man. We didn't expect them to be a great scientist. We didn't expect them to have a long career. We didn't certainly expect them to join the faculty, and when your expectations are like that, that has consequences. We see people a certain way in the culture and, guess what, they do what we expect them to do. And so to break out of those and to go -- so for example, women were supposed to be always nice and polite and this and that, and men were very -- supposed to be aggressive and whatever. I remember, you know, when I became a professor, it was hard for people to believe that you actually were a professor, and you didn't want to pull rank and say, "Oh, I'm a professor, you shouldn't speak to me like that," because you're a woman, so you had to be nice and charming to everybody, which you were because you wanted to be, you were what you wanted to be. But it meant that, you know, you were signing for the packages and you were doing all the work of the technician and the secretary and the whatever and people kind of expected -- or didn't expect it of you, but if you pulled rank, it could be a problem of not being seen as likable, as nice, as staying in your place, and your place was not the one that you really needed to be in to be a professor. So I think a lot of it -- when I look back on it, I'm going to say this. I think Kate Zernike did write a rather brilliant book. We're going to talk about it maybe, but I don't know that I understood my life till I read the book. I think when you see the culture of the time, you see that women were -- who did have the life I had were considered a bit odd and, you know, to go off and not have children and do this work like that hard in this field of science, there weren't many women, and it turns out, as I say, there are consequences to that, and now we look back on it and I think that research, we understand it so much better, that when people are out of place, they tend to be undervalued and excluded from participation. It's kind of like a splinter that wants to go away, and I, you know, I don't like to -- I think at the time it was hard to understand that, and I think it was a feeling that, oh, these people are so competitive and they'd, you know, trample on their mother, but actually, I think it was more that it was just inappropriate for a woman to be doing this, and I think we've seen it also when minority faculty tried to integrate into the system. I mean, they face a much more extreme problem and where it makes it even more stunning where they are not expected to, you know, even be necessarily on the campus. I mean, it's -- and so the problem extends outside of the science situation into the whole living situation and being where you are just physically. So all these, it's a fascinating thing and we could talk about it.

OLIVER: Yeah. Since you mentioned the book, I'd love to get a little bit deeper into that. You just said that you didn't understand your life until you read the book. The book is part biography and I think a very interesting biography of you, and one of the things that I perceived and I wanted to check in with you, whether you think this is accurate, is that it seems to me almost as if your perspective changed over the years. So when you are described in this book in your early career, you were not really seeing any gender discrimination, but obviously, that changed. Is that accurate? Is that how it was?

HOPKINS: It is accurate. I think I saw the differences, but I didn't understand that they had consequences and that cumulatively they were discrimination. And I think the reason was that we so strongly believe that science is a meritocracy. We believe that we really can rank the experiments. Certainly, when -- certain experiments, somebody would come along, tell you result, "Oh, that's going to win a Nobel Prize," and it does, okay, you can tell. You can tell instantly. So we're very good at telling what's important and what's not, but we think that if you or people aren't treating you a certain way, it must be that you really aren't good enough, and that belief, which really underlies sort of all of the discrimination, it's this cultural belief that women can't do science and blacks can't do science, certain people can't do science, only certain people can. That undervaluation is sort of what underlies it, and the people themselves absorb this belief as well, and so you think, oh, I must have done something wrong. Either I wasn't -- I didn't express myself well, I wasn't aggressive enough, something I did wrong, or I'm just not a good enough scientist. I'll keep trying harder. I'll do better. I'll make a better experiment. And I think finally, after 20, I figured it out really not from myself, my own experiences, but from watching how other women were treated, because there you could be, you know, you could see it more objectively. In your own case, you can always say, "Maybe I'm not good enough," but when it's other women, then I could see it and it was very clear, no, these -- this woman is as good or better than this man and she is not treated equally. And so over 20 years, I've started to watch how other women were treated, and finally, it was very clear to me, and then finally, it was clear that I could finally have the confidence to say the things that were happening to me were also not things that would have happened to a man.

OLIVER: I wonder in this context, you spent some of your time at Cold Spring Harbor Labs, I think, before you joined the MIT faculty, right? And one of the leading scientists there, Dr. Barbara McClintock, who would go on to win a Nobel Prize, from the book I perceive she had a slightly different take on that issue, but -- and you knew that because you interacted with her, but at the time it did not affect your worldviews.

HOPKINS: Yes, I thought she's so old, of course she's experienced discrimination, she couldn't even get a job. Why is she telling me this, it's not happening to me. And in fact, I think it was not happening to me because I was young and that's the way it was when you were young. And so when I was offered a job at MIT, she said, oh, I don't think you should go there, I mean you'll never be able to stand the discrimination. I thought, why is she telling me this, you know, it was so odd. And of course I came to understand what she was telling me, I just hadn't understood it at the time. But it took, it did take 20 years to figure it out, and looking back on it, I was very slow, I mean I really was. I can't-- it is remarkable how slow I was to understand it I think.

OLIVER: Let me turn to how you underwent that change in perspective, in part I think it was through the amazing work that you did, which led to what is known as the MIT Report. You started in the mid-'90s, as a member of the faculty. The report was published in 1999. It's another instance of courage if you permit, in my mind, and as the report itself says, it's important to realize how difficult this effort was for the senior women faculty at the time. This is a quote, "Driven all their professional lives to achieve at the highest possible level, to many it seemed they were putting a lifetime of hard work and good behavior at risk. They feared being seen as radical troublemakers, as complainers." So help us understand what motivated you and you and your colleagues, the group that you led to take this risk?

HOPKINS: Well I think, you know, as I say, I watched how other women were treated and I finally realized that none of them were valued as they should have been, and were treated with you know, sort of respect and recognition they should have had. And I was looking also at women outside MIT, it wasn't just MIT, I could see what's happening to other women. And then as I took another five years to realize in my own case it was when I need some more space for this new project I was doing, I couldn't get it, and then I looked at the space I had and looked at the space everybody else had and I realized I had, you know, my own, was like a starving assistant professor and I was by then a tenured professor that they had much more space. And I couldn't get it, you know, it was, it was this crazy argument that went on for you know, a year or something, a year more, about space until I finally went and measured the labs to prove a point which, you really honestly could've just walk through the space and seen it, you know. So I, that was the first thing and I was by that exhausted, and then there was one more final blow where I was removed from teaching a class that I had co-developed with somebody else because he wanted to turn this thing into a company with some man. And I said, you know, that's it, I'm done. And I think it was the, I suddenly realized the energy and exhaustion it took for women to do all this extra work to try to be accepted, to try to be seen as good enough. And I'd been doing it for 20 years and I finally came to the point that I couldn't continue to do it, I was worn out, exhausted and either I was going to you know, fight and fix it or I don't know, leave science, retire. I think if I'd been older, I would have retired right then and there actually. But I decided I wasn't old enough or rich enough to retire so I would have to fight this battle if I wanted to keep being a scientist because I just couldn't do it any longer. And I thought I'd be fighting alone, and that would have been really hard and probably would have gotten nowhere, but the extraordinary-- because the funny thing was, I thought I was the only woman that figured this out, it was so, something you didn't talk about because people would think you weren't good enough if you said, you thought women were undervalued, of course they'd say oh, they're just not good enough, which is what people secretly believed, you know? So I thought, they don't know and if I tell them, they'll just be hurt and feelings would be hurt so I was afraid to even discuss it with them. But I finally did and when I went and spoke to this woman I had so much respect for named Mary-Lou Pardue, and she said -- I wrote a letter to the president of MIT and before I mailed it I wanted to get the opinion, and I asked her and she said she wanted to sign the letter and she thought we ought to go and see the president. And that started the entire movement at MIT really, because if that woman had figured it out and felt the same way, then MIT had a problem. It wasn't just the women who had a problem, it was MIT. And so, from there we went on discovered that you know, they'd offer you to, some of them had not figured it out the same way, but they had, they knew something was wrong, they hadn't figured out what it was. Some were so isolated, there were no women in their field. You know, and so they couldn't see the comparison. But when we got together it was listening to each of those women, there were so few of them, you know, total we were 16 people, but listening to their individual stories you could see the pattern so easily, really. And so, it really was an extraordinary thing that happened.

OLIVER: So the report showed several things; it showed obviously the unfair treatment, the space, the salaries, honors and awards and other kinds of things. Another thing that it showed, which I thought was fascinating, was that, and again, this is a quote, "that junior women faculty feel well-supported within their departments, and most do not believe the gender bias will impact their careers." Which to me reflected sort of your own path when you had been early in your career, you felt the same way. So this was fascinating to me.

HOPKINS: Yes, it was and it was fascinating to the president of MIT. That was one of the things that really captivated him. It was when women said, I felt that way when I was young too. And then he realized, we realized, you know, this is a, that's how it works. When young women, the ones who don't get driven out by sexual harassment or who knows what, they can't have children, whatever. The ones who are well-mentored and encouraged by powerful faculty, they are having a good time. They're not having a problem. And it's when they have to stand on their own and become you know, not equals to and competitors to this powerful faculty, that's when the problems begin. And yes, however, I have to say one thing about that, that one thing you just quoted from the '99 report, I've thought about it a lot, because something we didn't study was the distribution of resources to junior faculty. We couldn't have done it, the numbers were too small and the fields so diverse, but years later a man, a man who was running a foundation in Boston, collected the data on the startup packages of women versus men in comparable fields and discovered they was a huge discrepancy in biomedical. So, they thought they were equal, they felt they were equal, but it's not absolutely clear that in terms of resources, they were equal. So I'd worried about that because I think it's, the one sort of inaccuracy in the report. But what they, we only interviewed them and you know, that's how they felt, and yes, you're absolutely right, that was the pattern. And it's the pattern is still true, I think, that, and I think it's also still true there are women who say I never experienced discrimination. I live now in a retirement community and it's fascinating, and there are women there who are scientists who are older than I am. And never went through this kind of process that I have at MIT, with my colleagues at MIT. And a couple of women have said to me, I didn't have that experience, that's so interesting and I'm older than you are. Now, it's true that when I discovered the salaries, it turned out I was seriously underpaid, but that really was just something that happened. In other words, they can't see those things that happened to them, that's what we're talking about.

OLIVER: Right. It's again an individual experience rather than a systemic problem.

HOPKINS: Right, right.

OLIVER: And of course another thing the report showed was that in actual fact that tenured women at MIT, MIT at the time were more accomplished than their male counterparts, right? By easily measured metrics, academy memberships and all these you know, these kind of impact measurements.

HOPKINS: As a group, as a group, they are, were yes, I mean it's a tiny number of people, I wouldn't put… the MIT faculty is pretty amazing. But we don't have, we haven't had a women Nobel Prize winner and that bothers me. But I did a calculation at one point and I said, well, we've only had enough women here that we shouldn't be expecting the first woman now, you know, so there haven't been that many that you can expect to have many. But you know, they were hugely accomplished and of course yeah, those woman, the majority of them are members of the academies. One of them went on to be the first head of the National Academy of Sciences and four of them won the U.S. National Medal of Science and so forth. So, I mean they were extraordinary, to know them was a privilege.

OLIVER: Right, and the fact that they had fewer resources really was not a reflection on their abilities or accomplishments, it was a systemic problem. Now, that's what the report showed, what was the impact to the report?

HOPKINS: Unimaginable, it was, you know, I honestly did believe you know, that this was a problem that pertained to this tiny number of people, women who wanted to be, you know, scientists at the high end places like MIT and Stanford, and Harvard, CalTech. I just had no idea that it was going to, that it was a universal problem. I mean how naive was I? It's shocking. But anyway, that's how it was. There was a person, her name was Lotte Bailyn, who became the chair of the faculty at MIT and she was a sociologist and she did know and she was the person who pushed us to write this report up into something that could be made public. And so when it was published and Kate Zernike was the reporter who was at the Boston Globe at the time, who got wind of it and decided to write about it, and she came to interview me and I was telling her all this stuff, and who knew, you know, I thought I had no idea what was going to happen. And when it happened, it changed my life, I mean there were cameras up and down the halls, the phone never stopped ringing. There was email deluges of email from women saying thank you, you won't believe it the exact same thing happened to me and no one will believe me. And it went on for, I mean, 15 years. And the press called every day, I mean as I went to the White House, I mean it was, I had no idea. Then of course I mean I did find it very, very hard to leave the issue behind, because when you realized it was a universal societal problem, and all these women were having this same difficult experience, you know, you really didn't have a choice and you know, but to go on with it. So, that's what happened.

OLIVER: What was the response from MIT leadership?

HOPKINS: Well, the president was overwhelmed by email, the dean was overwhelmed by email, I think he found himself on the evening news, this doesn't usually happen, as he says, in the academic administration decisions. So it, you know, talk about courage I think you know, what they did, Dean Birgeneau and Chuck Vest at MIT, to support the women at that time was extraordinary. And really courageous undertaking and risking you know, the institution's reputation in a way. So, they were amazed and Chuck Vest, I remember him being called by one of the great foundations and asked if he would please come down and tell them how to distribute money so they could fix this problem. And he said, we just announced there was a problem, we don't know how to fix the problem. And so he set about trying to fix it. But he was a great administrator and he put his provost, Bob Brown on the case, and Bob Brown is another great administrator, so together they really made lots of change and there was so many people became involved in it at MIT, it really did change MIT.

OLIVER: So they fixed the inequalities, they I think also set out to hire more women onto the faculty, right?

HOPKINS: Yeah, they did. They did those things and they set up a council on faculty diversity to look into it for the women and for the minority faculty as well to collect data on an ongoing basis, which they did, put daycare on campus for the junior women, and review, obviously pointed to the central administration to work with the provost and the chancellor at the time, Phil Clay, to review salaries and all of these things. So the inequities I think were addressed and hiring, but the amazing thing they did also was to bring women into the administration, the two things that really changed it were bringing women to high level positions in administration. And to put daycare on campus. And to see a baby on the campus of MIT, I'll never forget it. You know, you see young faculty member pushing a baby carriage, I just stopped and stared.

OLIVER: Well that's a sign of real change. So, I mean you received a little bit of criticism for I think your very balanced view of how the administration responded, right? You said in a, and this is a quote from the San Francisco Chronicle, through in the book, that the difference this time, you're talking about the response of MIT, is that the respected president of MIT, one of the most prestigious universities in the nation, not only did not ignore the report, he acknowledged existence of the discrimination and took steps to redress it. But not everybody saw it that way, is that accurate?

HOPKINS: I must, you know, there was some criticism from some you know, there were a couple of women at the time who were associated with on the, what is it, the-- I can't remember the name of it, a right wing I guess, organization, that was basically didn't think that it was correct, I don't know exactly why. I mean as I say, if you listen, if you've gotten all this email from women all over the country, the similarity of the experience across the country was so remarkable, and stories, and so I don't really know about that, but I think that most institutions then found that when they did the studies, they found the same thing. And then I think really compelling has been the research from the field of psychology. Like Kate's book, I mean when you read this stuff, you realize oh, yeah, we knew this all along, or we should have. This is the way the human brain works, it's fascinating. And I think that was very, very helpful to me was learning from people like Mahzarin Banaji, and Virginia Valian and others about the research in psychology that had shown how you can take identical work, you know, you can take a paper, Xerox it, and have it reviewed, put Jennifer on as the author, and John as the author of the same identical paper and you'll get different reviews depending whether people think it was done by a man or a woman. So this kind of thing, so you realize, yes, this really does happen and it now explains it and now it's pretty simple and we all do it, and it's just check the data and fix it. You know?

OLIVER: So, what does that tell you, what you just said. Because that's really fascinating, and then also, connected to that, it seems to me that critical in your success was forming a group and then getting the data. I mean it's almost like a science project, right? You had to show the experimental results so to speak, of the square footage, the dollar amounts, in order to exact change, when actually as you said yourself, when you were looking for more space for your fish, it wasn't hard to see that you had less space than your neighbor or you know, who was of the same rank and seniority. What does that say about the human mind and what does that mean for young people who are taking on similar problems? What's your advice to them in that context?

HOPKINS: What a great, interesting question. Well I think, you know, yes we'd like to believe that we are totally rational beings but these psychologists, you know, like Daniel Kahneman, Kahneman and Tversky, Liz Spelke, Mahzarin Banaji -- they know we're not. And you know, that you, I think this is, I think it's one of the most remarkable discoveries that's been made about the human brain, actually. And Kahneman won a Nobel Prize, it was in economics, I think there should be another prize myself, in biology probably medicine, for this discovery of unconscious bias and how it operates. Because it underlies so many problems, you know, if you think you're being rational and you're not, that's a problem. So you've just got to go and collect the data and I think you finally have to change the culture to the extent that you have people who accept this is the way humans are. This is the way we're constructed unfortunately biologically. We're not perfect, we may not even be as smart as AI, who knows, I mean but you know, it's a problem. No, we're not perfect. And our judgment's not perfect. I find it, as a biologist, absolutely fascinating actually. And I think Kate's book, I mean as I say, what I think is remarkable about she did was to show how the people who were running things in that era, what they thought about women and difficulty of letting women into a system. What are we going to do with these people? Can they really do this work? And you know, all these things. They reflect the culture of those times. And if we had stopped to think about it, we would have said, is this really going to work? We would have known better why it might be problematic, harder than we thought to do this. You know, I had no idea, as my husband told me, he said, you women, you were all pioneers, they just forgot to tell you.

OLIVER: So you mentioned a moment ago, when the report came out that you had this sort of tremendous response and you haven't really been able to let it go since then, that was how you phrased it. So tell us, what has happened since the 1999 report and where are we today?

HOPKINS: Well this is where I wish I were younger to give you the answer. I mean to me, as an older person, having watched all this change, as I say, the idea that a woman could ever be the president of Harvard, I mean who knew? Okay? So it's unbelievable, we've had now two women presidents of Harvard, two women presidents of MIT, not imaginable to a person of my generation. I remember with one of the women, Millie Dresselhaus, we looked at each other and said, can you believe this? It's awesome. But that's how unimaginable it was. So, you forget that very quickly and you think oh, but what's the big deal, it is a big deal. I think the change there is tremendous. It's interesting about Kate's book, two things I'd say, what has been the reaction of men to the book? There's been amazing, the most remarkable responses from men who said they really thought they'd understood the issue and they really hadn't and they read this book and it's like a revelation. And that's wonderful, I mean because I used to get some hate mail, now I get love letters so I'm very happy about that. That's good. The thing that is interesting is a number of young women who read the book and young of course anything less than me, and I'm very old, but they say, well nothing's changed. And I just don't know what they mean by this. But I know that, I know somewhat what they mean, so for example, one of the things is you know, after the universities took all this on, we had the biotech industry and the women came up against the venture capital world, and so as I say, in the last few years, Susan Hockfield and Sangeeta Bhatia and I worked together on that problem. Because it was just stunning to discover that you could have these two things running parallel, the universities were changing but here was this industry that grew up all alongside it and it didn't change at all. Barely, and so you had to go and work on that project. So I see what the young women mean, it's certainly not all fixed, I think it's, for men too, I think it's still too hard for people to do, you know, two careers and young children, very difficult. And still being adjusted to suit people. And I also think even, I think go back to cancer, I was thinking about, I'd still like to see cancer cured in my lifetime. And sometimes I wonder are we doing everything we could, are we doing it as well as we could? And are we, left too much to biotech industry and not enough to the you know, healthcare and you know, public health industry. You know, this kind of question.

OLIVER: Right. So why do you think the biotech and private sector is lagging or was lagging behind academia in these necessary changes?

HOPKINS: Well, oh boy, I mean I was told that I couldn't join a company because businessmen won't work with women. And I said to the person, oh, I understand that. Don't feel bad about it. I mean it was just something you knew it intuitively, so it was a culture of, just didn't change because I think because really honestly, civil rights, affirmative action, and the fact that there are so many students that have to be, you have to have concern for all the students in the university, they didn't have to deal with any of that, they're just dealing with, you know, just completely different situation. They're not, nobody, they're not beholden to anybody, they do pretty much what they want and so, that, those people, that culture of Silicon Valley and venture capital culture did, because in the field of computer science, there weren't as many women, but biology there's tons of women so you can't claim it's the pipeline, because it's not and so, it's starting to change, but boy, it's got a way to go. And that's a problem. I mean, we'll go backwards if that doesn't get fixed I think.

OLIVER: So I wonder if you'd allow me to put you on the spot. You've indicated there's still room for improvement, even in academia in terms of gender equality and you've also, of course, mentioned other areas of equality where there's much work to do. I wonder if you saw the recent discussion around this topic at a gathering of Nobel Laureates in Germany.

HOPKINS: I was startled, somebody pointed that out, that thing out to me and I started to watch it and like whoa, I think it's, and I think these Nobel Prize winners are getting pretty old too. They need to go check the data.

OLIVER: So it's, is it fair to say you're not kept up at night by worrying about men in this context?

HOPKINS: Well sure I am. If they are being, yeah I am. Seriously, I mean I'm worried I should be, I'm worried about the race thing actually very much. I've been working on that lately and I feel you know, MIT, I was at a meeting recently with Phil Sharp and some members of the MIT Corporation actually, and you know, we were talking about this. I mean this is something so important to the future of science, and to America, and to the world, and you know, getting more blacks and every black man into science is just critically important. So yes, I do worry about it, absolutely. I mean I'm not, I don't favor women over men, I just favor equality for everybody.

OLIVER: I did want to pivot to that question that you just touched on, which is; from what you experienced and learned, how does that inform your thinking about gender, not just gender discrimination, but discrimination on the base of race, ethnicity, and other areas?

HOPKINS: Well I am going to tell you a funny story, I thought now, and it took me 20 years to figure it out about women, I thought now I've really got this. It must be the same for all forms of discrimination, you know? And so, when we went with the president of MIT and the provost, Bob Brown, to try to address the problem at MIT, and we were going to deal with women and minorities, he formed a committee and I was in it, we had the faculty, the we're half black, half Hispanic, and women, and so forth, and they were sitting, and I'm confident that I now understand discrimination, by the end of the first meeting I had found out from my colleagues who were black, that I didn't have a clue of what it was like to be black and deal with these problems. It's this, there are many issues, I mean first of all, discrimination is much worse but also, the fact that yes, that you can't really escape from it somehow, that it so permeates the culture and the living arrangements and just being on the campus and you know, person who was black, really not the same thing if you end up being mistaken for the technician all the time, instead of the professor. The other problem not allow, I mean not allowed here or there because how could that possibly be an MIT professor? Well, you know, it's pretty shocking and it applies to housing, at that era, now this was when I was on the council some time ago, so I have been working over the years, trying to still, if any opportunities arise, you know, something it's really difficult, and not to mention the pipeline really is smaller. And so, we put those two things together, it's a really hard problem but MIT is working, they've worked so hard on it, too, and it's still hard. So I think you have to, it's constant work over very long periods of time. And with people dedicated to realizing how hard it is, what the problems are, and not letting, you know, not giving up and just have to stay with it.

OLIVER: Yeah, and if you'll permit me, I think also people like yourself with courage and vision and the willingness to step forward and do the hard work.

HOPKINS: Well you have to have the support and you have to have the support from the top. So, you know, we were lucky at MIT to have great administration.

OLIVER: So in closing, Dr. Hopkins, I wonder what advice you might give to someone who's listening, who's just starting out, thinking about a cancer career, maybe a career in biomedicine, what would you say to them?

HOPKINS: Lucky you. But I do, I was sort of thinking, you know, you'd asked me about a funny thing I was reading, two things this week, one of them is the Tracy Kidder book about Paul Farmer, Mountains Beyond Mountains. And here is you know, the public health person caring for the poorest of the poor and here in my other hand is by, I guess it's Eric Schmidt, as it comes from Google, about artificial intelligence and how it's going to change the world. And I'm thinking, you know, you've still got to do both. How do you decide, if you're young, what do you do? What do you personally do to cure cancer? You go with AI, so exciting you can't even imagine, do you go with Tracy, with public health, because you can get better and better cures, cost millions of dollars, 10 percent or 20 percent of the people, but the people are still dying of cancer. So I, it's fascinating. But boy the technology's available for you if you're young, what's going to happen with the technology? What's already happening? Unbelievable, so boy, oh to be young again.

OLIVER: Thank you very much, we'll leave it there. Really appreciate you coming on the podcast and sharing your many experiences and your perspective and wisdom.

HOPKINS: Thank you very much, it was a pleasure.

[UPBEAT MUSIC]

That's all we have time for on today's episode of Inside Cancer Careers! Thank you for joining us and thank you to our guests.

We want to hear from you – your stories, your ideas and your feedback are always welcome. And you are invited to take your turn to make a recommendation we can share with our listeners. You can reach us at [email protected].

Inside Cancer Careers is a collaboration between NCI's Office of Communications and Public Liaison and the Center for Cancer Training.

It is produced by Angela Jones and Astrid Masfar and Edited by Janette Goeser.

A special thanks to Lakshmi Grama and Sabrina Islam-Rahman.

Join us every first and third Thursday of the month when new episodes can be found wherever you listen – subscribe so you won't miss an episode. I'm your host Oliver Bogler from the National Cancer Institute and I look forward to sharing your stories here on Inside Cancer Careers.

If you have questions about cancer or comments about this podcast, email us at [email protected] or call us at 800-422-6237. And please be sure to mention Inside Cancer Careers in your query.

We are a production of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Thanks for listening.