[00:00:00] Adam Walker: From Susan G. Komen, this is Real Pink, a podcast exploring real stories, struggles, and triumphs related to breast cancer. We’re taking the conversation from the doctor’s office to your living room
[00:00:17] This is Real Talk, a podcast conversation where we’re digging deep into breast cancer and the realities patients and survivors face every day. We’re talking openly and honestly about just how difficult breast cancer can be, from being diagnosed to selecting the right treatment plan, to living day to day with metastatic breast cancer and life after treatment ends.
[00:00:38] There are a lot of conversations right now about funding for cancer research and possible cuts to research projects that will improve our understanding and treatment of breast cancer. I’m pleased to be joined today by two researchers who are sharing their perspective on the inextricable link between grant funding and sustained research.
[00:00:57] Dr. Benjamin Schrank is an assistant professor in the Department of Radiation Oncology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and Dr. Donald McDonnell is the GlaxoWellcome Distinguished Professor of Molecular Cancer Biology at Duke University School of Medicine. Dr. McDonnell is a well-established researcher whose work focuses on developing new drugs to treat metastatic breast cancer.
[00:01:22] Dr. Schrank is early in his research career and focused on harnessing the body’s immune system to improve response to treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Both recently received research grants from Susan G. Komen to support their innovative work that will help improve breast cancer care and patient outcomes.
[00:01:39] Dr. Schrank, Dr. McDonnell, thank you so much for joining us on the show today. I’d love for you to introduce yourselves and then talk a little bit more about your research and what it means for us.
[00:01:52] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Thank you very much.
[00:01:53] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Yeah. Thanks so much for having us. Yeah. Just by way of introduction my name’s Ben Schrank.
[00:01:58] I’m an assistant professor and physician scientist here at MD Anderson. I care for patients with cancer including patients whose breast cancers have spread, unfortunately, to the brain, and scientifically, my lab is trying to develop new immunotherapies that can help the immune system recognize and eliminate these tumors that have become resistant to standard treatments.
[00:02:17] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Hi, thanks, Ben, and I’m Donald McDonnell. I’m a professor of pharmacology and cancer biology at Duke University Medical School. I’m not a young investigator, have been around for, a- as a PI for about 40 years and my research is really directed towards the development of endocrine therapies for metastatic breast cancer.
[00:02:37] Recently we were fortunate to have a drug that came from our lab, elacestrant, approved by the FDA. We’ve a second one, lasofoxifene, in phase three. I think that those success stories provide the context for today’s discussion about how research is supported and how important it is to have both federal and philanthropic and also foundational support for these projects.
[00:03:02] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: I mean, that’s really inspiring. I mean, if I can just sort of jump in i- in our lab, we are trying to start really at the concept stage where we have an idea of how to make the immune system recognize breast cancer cells. But it’s pretty high risk, high reward. And it’s inspiring for a junior investigator like myself to be on a phone call with you because that’s what our long-term goal is to take a concept and actually translate it and get it into the clinic where we can see some actual benefit.
[00:03:37] And that’s actually what the Komen Award is really intended to do, is to provide funding that we can test one of our exploratory ideas. Yeah … so, yeah.
[00:03:46] Dr. Donald McDonnell: So I think it’s interesting. I gave a… I was asked last week at the Endocrine Society to give a plenary talk on the concept of how fundamental research re- within the context of my own research, how important if you want, fundamental research was.
[00:04:02] And I think y- you raise two questions in your, when you say. First is what is the value of funding fundamental research? And then the second thing is things take time. And the example that I pointed out, as I mentioned a minute ago, Ben, was we had elacestrant approved. And just to remind people what elacestrant is, it is a, an oral pill that when ingested goes to the tumors, binds to the estrogen receptor, a driver of cancer cell growth and spread, and it degrades it, just eliminates it in the cell.
[00:04:38] It’s a brand-new concept, brand-new type of medicine. But the idea for that, and this the very first experiments we did to test this hypothesis or this general idea were done in 1994 And in fact I enjoy showing people the reviews of that manuscript, where not only it was… Normally it’s reviewer number three kills it.
[00:05:00] This was reviewer number one, reviewer number two, and reviewer number three said that, “This is not possible. This won’t happen. This won’t work.” And I didn’t so much take that as a challenge, but what it just told me was, is that, well may be a good idea, but you’ve got a long ways to go before you convince people that this is a viable targetable approach, and that this could lead to drugs.
[00:05:22] And so I think that one of the messages that I want to relay today is that drugs just, as you point out, they just don’t appear out of the air. People think about, oh, there’s a drug in clinical trials, but they forget that before the clinical trials, there is probably at least 10 years work on that drug, and at least 10 years work on the entire concept before that.
[00:05:41] And so I’m benefiting now at this point in my career that I’ve been funded by Komen by the Dep- Department of Defense, by the NCI and the NIH for over 40 years. And I’m happy to report back to them that this, that the, these drugs that are emerging now are the products a- and return of their investment
[00:06:03] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Yeah.
[00:06:04] I mean, I on behalf of a physician who sees patients for whom systemic therapies aren’t doing unfortunately enough I just say thank you for that. That’s the inspiration for, I think, what many of us are trying to achieve. If I could talk a little bit about our target, we’re also trying to develop a targeted therapy, and we’re also facing some headwinds because we’re trying to adapt a drug that’s had some toxicity in phase III clinical trials.
[00:06:30] So our lab’s interest is trying to help macrophages and dendritic cells see tumor cells and eat them. These are myeloid cells that can consume tumor cells in a process called phagocytosis. And there are some very well-characterized drugs that target a phagocytosis checkpoint or a “don’t eat me” single, signal called CD47.
[00:06:51] And so there are antibodies that have been created against CD47 that have been tested with this idea that if you block the “don’t eat me” signal, then macrophages and dendritic cells can eat the cancer cells. And the challenge is that there’s a lot of on-target toxicity, which means that there are healthy cells in our body that produce CD47 that get eaten up when those drugs are used.
[00:07:14] And so patients can have a lot of really challenging c- toxicities related to those therapies. And so what Komen is able to support is the concept of making the CD47 antibody more specific. So we’ve generated a bispecific antibody that targets CD47 as well as HER2, and then we’ve loaded it with a conjugate that’s really exciting.
[00:07:36] It’s a conjugate that, that can actually activate the dendritic cell and the macrophage from inside. And the ultimate goal is to increase processes that happen inside dendritic cells and macrophages called antigen presentation. So basically, the macrophage and the dendritic cell eat the tumor cell, and they show the tumor cell proteins on its surface.
[00:07:57] And that’s able to activate T cells and trigger a more systemic or body-wide immune response. And so that’s the whole theory, that these kind of drugs can act very much like immunotherapies and drive immune responses against breast cancer, which from my perspective as a radiation oncologist is really desperately needed
[00:08:19] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Oh, no I think we actually have a large fu- funded project looking at how endocrine therapies remodel the tumor microenvironment, and we’ve just finished a clinical study on that which will be hopefully submitted for publication soon.
[00:08:31] But I think it’s, just taking it one step back, it’s interesting because I think that what your work and work of similar investigators now are doing is really trying to understand why is it that breast cancer, if you want we haven’t been very successful, at least in ER-positive breast cancers using immunotherapies, and this whole idea that tumors are covered in a cloak that basically just hides them from the immune system i- is a good analogy that I’ve heard a few times.
[00:09:01] And what we through our efforts and clearly for you through what your efforts are trying to do, is trying to take this cloak off and to allow the human immune system to actually attack these tumors and recognize them as non-self. I said I’ve been a pharmacologist, I’ve worked in industry and in academics for many years and even from early parts of my career, I always believed that unless we had therapies that engage the immune system, either intentionally or unintentionally that it’s going to be really difficult to change the conversation from, “Mrs.
[00:09:32] Jones, we want to treat your cancer,” to, “Mrs. Jones, we want to cure your cancer.” and so I, I think the sort of work you’re doing fundamental research, I mean, I think the people probably need to realize that it’s the, it’s probably and I probably am speaking for you, Ral, it’s not going to happen that your research is going to translate in two or three or th- four years.
[00:09:50] It may take 10 years before it becomes a standard of care.
[00:09:54] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Absolutely, because I think what we’re trying to understand in addition to creating a therapeutic is just fundamental macrophage and dendritic cell biology. It’s like for us to be able to design the best drug, we need to understand the target of the drug, which in this case is actually the immune cell inasmuch as it is the cancer cell.
[00:10:11] And so by studying processes that are intrinsic to the immune cell we’re able to design a better drug. And part of that comes from understanding, as you say, like, why are tumor cells shrouded? Why are they hidden from the immune cells? You kind of have to understand that innate biology before you can develop better ways to target it.
[00:10:34] Dr. Donald McDonnell: That’s the theme that I’m hoping we’re going to bring across, is that that these things don’t come out of the air. There’s fundamental research. And I’m talking about fundamental research. I’m talking about everything from basic understanding of physiological processes all the way to understanding why cells be- why some s- why some patients’ tumors grow, why others don’t, why are some responsive to therapy A and others are responsive to therapy B.
[00:11:00] And to be honest with you although we’ve made just incredible progress I still believe we’re relatively early in our infancy of understanding the mechanisms that we could target in a cancer cell, yeah. So it brings me to my other question. I can I can go back now and I can look back.
[00:11:18] I’m I would say I’m closer to the end of my career than the beginning of my career. And I can look at funding, which we’re going to talk about in a little bit throughout my career. A- and there’s a couple of things that my gray hair and Medicaid card allows me pontificate about.
[00:11:35] A- and one thing is that I’ve noticed is that it’s it… through my career it’s been very cyclical funding. And it is a little bit w- what the things that catch funders’ eyes are sometimes a little bit whimsical and trendy, but y- it’s kind of like the stock market.
[00:11:50] On average, everything goes up over time. And so I would looking, talking to young investigators right now, I mean, I gotta empathize with them because it is a particularly hard time right now to secure funding. But I’m also happy to realize that people like yourself can take advantage, not take advantage, but can rely on foundations like the Komen to actually support you in the early parts of your career to get the fundamental story, get the story building to make it catchy to, so that you can get much larger grants.
[00:12:25] I mean, I don’t think that any of us believe that the Komen funding alone is going to be enough to fund your big enterprise, but what it’s probably going to do is basically give you the the leg up so that you can expand your program a- and look for multi-year federal support. Because I actually personally believe it’s virtually impossible to support a large lab nowadays without federal support.
[00:12:48] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Yeah, no, I completely agree. And to make it even more tangible for listeners who may not understand what funding actually means, funding is personnel. Fund- funding is someone in the lab who’s actually working with the breast cancer cells to try to understand how the macrophages are recognizing and eating them.
[00:13:05] Funding is paying for core facilities to run sophisticated sequencing experiments to understand how the T cells are detecting the tumor. Funding is allowing us to study the on-target toxicities of the drugs that we’re trying to bring into the clinic, because at the end of the day, we want a drug that’s effective but also safe.
[00:13:27] I want to emphasize how all of the steps are areas where there’s risk involved, and sometimes foundations like Komen play such a critical role in funding things that are risky and that federal funding may not want to take a gamble on. And so that’s why, especially for a junior investigator with who’s trying to establish a track record and bring a concept forward-
[00:13:57] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Yeah.
[00:13:58] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: It’s essential what they do.
[00:14:00] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Yeah. Well, no, you’re right. I mean, I- it’s interesting. I remember. So I started my academic career as an assistant professor at Dana College of Medicine in the Department of Cell Biology run by the late Bert O’Malley. And I remember going back in and having this idea as to how to start developing these new estrogen receptor modulators and what would be required to bring these to the clinic.
[00:14:22] And again, I re- I want to remind you, this is back in the late ’80s, early ’90s, when I started this. And it wasn’t it wasn’t, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was a hair-brained idea, but it was risky for a young investigator. And at the time, Komen wasn’t the primary funder, but the American Cancer Society was.
[00:14:39] And my very first starter grant came from the American Cancer Society. And I remember the three aims in that grant, and when I look back over them, they were pretty, at the time, they were pretty risky. And some- I was just so happy that whoever the reviewers were, they said, “Let’s give him a chance.”
[00:14:58] And I’m hoping that’s the same way and the same experience that you had with Komen.
[00:15:01] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Yeah, no it truly was. And I think that they were looking for ideas that were big and bold and they gave me the support to, to think big and boldly. Yeah. And so that, that’s what we’re really, that’s what we’re hoping to achieve.
[00:15:17] I mean, I think I- know enough to know that a lot of drugs don’t make it past the preclinical phase.
[00:15:25] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Yeah.
[00:15:26] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: And so that is, that’s, that, that’s the reality and that’s- Yeah … The stakes are high. I mean, if you’re- They are, yeah … going to try to bring something to patients y- it needs to pass a certain threshold of efficacy and safety.
[00:15:42] And-
[00:15:42] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Well, it’s in- interesting. It’s not just that though, Ben. It’s it’s it’s… W- we al- we also have to address, as you said very specific needs, and these needs keeps changing. As as our ability to treat cancers improves, the needs change and so where- where research that was done 20 years ago is important, but it doesn’t fund…
[00:16:03] It doesn’t really help us now I mean, in the sense of moving the needle now. But if you don’t mind, I’ll just, I think a very good example I love talking about LS TRANT because it’s, obviously it’s my professional, my, and my group’s professional legacy because it is the endpoint of multiple years of research.
[00:16:23] But I think that it’s just interesting just to, to point out a few things along the way that are important. One is, as I mentioned, you’ve been… This started nearly 40 years ago, and the idea was if you could remove the estrogen not just inhibit it as Craig Jordan did with tamoxifen. He was the one who pioneered the use of tamoxifen, of course.
[00:16:42] But if you could actually remove it that maybe this would be a better intervention in the first line, but al- you know, starting with the second line. And so let me just we then went through a whole period of looking at fundamentally how we would do that. And I always reme- remember we published a paper, which I thought was, that was it we’re home.
[00:17:04] We published a paper in 1999 in Science basically showing that by manipulating the shape of this protein with different drugs, you could shift it into the trash can within the can- cancer cell. I thought, “That’s it.” And we developed a drug. It was interesting. It was called Ataxil. Very first oral medication of this class.
[00:17:24] We got, we were able to convince a company called DuPont Pharmaceuticals to put it into patients in Leuven in Belgium in collaboration with Patrick Neven. It worked, and that’s the good news. The bad news is that what happened was is that BMS took over DuPont and said, “Yeah, there’s not any need for any more endocrine therapy.”
[00:17:43] This is back in 2001 or 2002, and the drug died. The sad part about it was, or the good part, we persevered. That’s the good. The sad part about it was, is the drugs we have today I’m not sure are any better than they were in 2000. The timing was just wrong. And so what has happened now, as you probably know in our field, in the breast cancer field, is that we now know that these drugs work very effective, very effectively in patients who have mutations, activating mutations in the estrogen receptor.
[00:18:14] And to be honest with you, when we started developing these drugs, we didn’t really anticipate. In fact, we didn’t know these mutations existed, and so there was a little bit of luck as well, okay? In that these new set of drugs came along just as the time that people like Renath Jesulson and Sarath Chattopadhyay had just basically found the clinical significance of these mutations.
[00:18:34] But one of the things about having good people around you is that it helps, you know the old adage, luck favors the prepared mind. And we were ready to bring these things together A- and then it wasn’t finished because it turns out that we actually physically did not own the molecule. We kne- we knew how to use it and we had we had the, we own- owned all the intellectual property about using it in breast cancer, but we had to convince the innovators then that it was worth bringing it into breast cancer.
[00:19:00] And to be honest with you, that was nearly as hard as getting the funding for the project. But it did and the rest of the story is a great one because it’s now in patients. And the final part about that is, is that all boats rise on an incoming tide because what happened was when people saw the success of these drugs, others jumped in.
[00:19:17] And we now have a drug from Lilly was just approved called Immunolensnant, and it’s actually another member of this drug class that gets rid of the receptor. We now have another drug called Vapadesrant, which is something similar. I won’t go into the subtleties of the difference. But the bottom line is now we’re coming to the point where we’re now going to have an embarrassment of riches.
[00:19:37] And now the next piece in our fundamental research is How do we pair these d- different drugs with patients? Are all these drugs the same? Will some patients respond better to one than the other? So again, it never stops. It just keeps going.
[00:19:49] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Yeah. I mean, I think that, it just shows the power of a good idea.
[00:19:53] When I hear this y- you have unanticipated indications for how your good idea could be applied in the future, and that’s… It all started with an amazing idea that you were able- Yeah … to continue to carry forward, and that is- Yeah … like, just so, so inspiring. I mean, the biology speaks for itself.
[00:20:14] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Yeah.
[00:20:14] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: At the end of the day the indications may sharpen, but the- Yeah … biology is real, and- Yeah … and so that just helps, Yeah … Helps immensely. So it’s…
[00:20:24] Dr. Donald McDonnell: I’m looking at you, and you’re starting off your career right now. Yeah. And fantastic that you got a Komen Scholar Award.
[00:20:29] That’s just absolutely fantastic. So I mean, what have w- to, for me personally I I find… Let me back up one step. I was- Yeah … actually, I was I was asked to represent myself, not Duke, at in Congress last to m- meet with members of Congress, senators, and their staffers in a really intense day last Tues- day, two days, last Tuesday and Wednesday of last week.
[00:20:55] And I went up there thinking that there are all these conversations about cutting research and things like that that there was a whole wide support for this, and we were going to get these massive cuts. And actually, I gotta say that I’m rather bullish after coming back which was actually surprising because, I mean, I met with congressmen, and I met with senators, and uniformly, there was no appetite for cutting research.
[00:21:20] Every one of them that I spoke with, okay and I had long meetings lasting 30 minutes with each of them, they were very engaged. A- and they wanted to… They, basically what they wanted to know was where I thought the next big innovations were going to come from, and and how do we ma- and one of the messages that I got, which I thought felt very heartened by, was how do we make sure that we in America stay a- at our peak that we are right now the, probably one of the best, if not the best biomedical enterprise on the planet Earth. And I don’t mind competition. In fact we all want competition, but I don’t want us to lose ground. And in talking to these legislators, it was clear neither d- do I. So that was something that I didn’t really expect.
[00:22:03] I think that one of the things though is that is that we probably are seeing some reprioritization in terms of focus, and I hope that will go over, it will all level itself out. We’ll have a new playing field. And then I’m, what I’m really hoping is that it provides the opportunity for young investigators like you starting off to get long-term federal funding, because that is absolutely, I am going to say it is, in my opinion, nearly impossible to s- to stay focused on a big problem without federal funding.
[00:22:36] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Yeah, no I completely h- hear you, and I’m so, so grateful that- Yeah … we have investigators like yourself who are making that pitch on behalf of all the- junior folks like myself, who are anxious and worried and trying to motivate the teams that we’re building. I mean, I think the reality is that building a lab from the ground up is not easy.
[00:22:59] Like, you have to be able to find folks who are willing to gamble on your ideas, especially as a junior investigator. Like you are bringing together people who may not have the most experience, and so I’m doing a lot of hands-on teaching. I’m in the lab myself doing experiments, a lot of one-on-one work.
[00:23:19] That’s a challenge. And so I guess I would just say that federal funding is critical to provide stability to a lab because at the end of the day people want to do science in a place where they feel like their careers are going to be supported, and that they’re not going to be here for a year and then have to find another position the next year.
[00:23:46] They want the longitudinal experience which is what I was thank- I was fortunate to have over the years of my doctoral, and post-doctoral training, is working in labs that were supported, well-funded, where we could focus on the science and not so much on where’s the next nickel or dime going to come from.
[00:24:05] Just thank you for that. It makes a world of difference.
[00:24:08] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Yeah. I mean, it does. But it’s interesting we talk about this. I think that you’re in a phenomenal institution as well, but th- there are many great institutions across the country who are kind of suffering right now because y- they’re not having the type of support that they need.
[00:24:24] And what I think is, in those circumstances, it’s in addition to helping fund brand-new ideas organizations like Komen can go out there and they can basically capture the minds of the best and brightest and help with some money to support the development of their concepts, and I’ve seen this over and over again.
[00:24:44] I’m very fortunate. Again, gray hair and a Medicaid card gives me the ability to function as a reviewer for a lot of the Career Catalyst Awards, for instance, from Komen. And they’re just phenomenal. These applications are phenomenal. And some of them, I would give you, are a little bit risky but the bottom line is that the way to get rid of risk is preliminary data or a some pilot.
[00:25:04] And the support that Komen gives is phenomenal. But I do want to add something else as well. I don’t want people to go away and think that us gray-haired guys are all safe here, okay? I’m supported by Komen. I’m a Komen scholar and have been for the last five years, and they’ve helped our group to go down a tr- a therapeutic route that I’m not sure i- if you want, is ready for primetime.
[00:25:27] It, it needs some… It needs to take a step back. It needs us to understand how to target this particular new moiety and this new t- particular intervention. And so even at this stage in my career the value of Komen, to me, is incredible. And then one other thing I’ll say to you, Ben, is I know I’m lecturing to a young investigator here but one of the things is that I would urge you to, as, and if you’ve not already, is really take the opportunity of being a Komen scholar to interact with other Komen scholars as well.
[00:25:58] I mean, Komen is phenomenally supportive by organizing workshops, by organizing lecture series and then also their biannual meetings. And I gotta say that my interactions at those meetings, getting collaborators to come and on board to help me, has been invaluable. And I will say that i- in my opinion, and I’ve been involved with a lot of funding agencies, Komen is among the best at developing the esprit de corps and helping us all rise together.
[00:26:27] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: Well it’s such a team effort in science, and obviously it can happen within a, an individual team, like what I’m trying to build here. But we feed off of one each other’s, one another’s ideas and our successes, and we learn from one another’s failures. Yeah. And I think the worst part of science is when it becomes so siloed and we aren’t sharing the things that are working and the things that aren’t.
[00:26:47] No. And so there’s a lot of duplication unnecessarily. Yeah. Or there’s a lack of inspiration, where one idea can feed another. So that is w- wonderful, and that’s something I absolutely will be taking advantage of, is the platform, as you’re mentioning that Komen has built- Yeah
[00:27:02] for junior investigators to really learn
[00:27:05] Dr. Donald McDonnell: and be inspired. Yeah, and then the second thing that I would… Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to cut you off. No. But the second thing which I really want to do before we end, want to, I want to make sure that everyone here realizes that all of the projects, a- at least in my lab, and I’m including, all the projects in my involve either breast cancer survivors or thrivers, who you know, u- ultimately that’s why we do it.
[00:27:26] I I pr- I personally am not really interested in science for science sake. Others are. That’s not my thing. I’m very much interested in science for translation and for care. The my, my own personal founding story is that my father died of cancer, my mother-in-law, my father-in-law died of cancer, my sister-in-law died of cancer, my, two of my brother-in-laws have cancer, my sister-in-law has cancer, two of my sister-in-laws.
[00:27:50] So I can tell you, this is not something that I’m just doing because I’m looking to play with my chemistry set. I really do want to make a difference. And then what I want to do is I want to inspire the trainees in my lab to, to take up the challenge from me as I step back a- and for them to run.
[00:28:09] And I think that the continuity of funding that is provided by Komen and also by the, by federal agencies, by philanthr- philanthropic organizations can help us to realize this goal. And I’ll kind of end by saying that I am fir- I firmly believe that we have a phenomenal biomedical enterprise.
[00:28:27] I mean, I know that if you read the newspapers, there are a lot of people t- knocking expenditure and research and things like that. It is money well spent. I’m not an economist, and even I know it’s money well spent. And and I’m not pulling a number out on air. This is a true fact.
[00:28:43] 95% of the drugs that are approved in the planet Earth have come from research done in the United States. Some s- some argue that, oh, what we’re doing is subsidizing drugs across the world. We’re the ones who benefit first, us in America. And I think that your the listeners to this who are also taxpayers, I feel should be happy that I believe personally there’s, this money’s been well spent.
[00:29:10] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: I completely agree with everything that you said and I just to add from my perspective as someone who every week sees patients with breast cancer that has unfortunately spread to the brain, there is nothing more motivating than seeing their fight and their desire to live and wanting to do everything that you can to, to support that.
[00:29:30] Unfortunately, I can see when our therapies aren’t working because these- Yeah … patients end up in my clinic. And while it is a privilege to take care of them I think that, and I know that we can do better. And I will say that my experience taking care of patients with breast cancer has taught me a little bit about time.
[00:29:48] In the lab, years can fly by without us even thinking about it. But for a patient with breast cancer that spread to the brain, a year makes a tremendous amount of difference. And they, a- and at the end of the day, what we’re just trying to do is bring a new therapy that can im- Make people have more years ahead.
[00:30:10] And and that is what that, that’s what drives me and I know drives so many of the other Komen awardees, and I’m just so- Yeah … thankful for the opportunity.
[00:30:20] Dr. Donald McDonnell: Well, I find you very motivating too, as well, because I’m in these times when people talk about how rough science is, it’s great to hear s- stories from people who are starting out in their field, that they’re as enthusiastic, and even more so maybe, than I was in the beginning of my career.
[00:30:36] A- and I’m not ready quite to hand over everything to you yet. But as I do I, I want to be happy that the base, if you want, of new investigators coming in is protected. And clearly Komen is seeing that as a challenge and helping to meet that challenge.
[00:30:50] And it’s clearly… I mean, I know others like yourself, other Ko-
[00:30:54] young Komen
[00:31:00] investigators who I’ve talked to this year you’re not the only one being supported. And I think that this is all in an effort to make sure that there is a next generation, a- and that we stay… We don’t need to be top of the pile. I don’t need people to say we’re top of the… We need to be discovering drugs to help people.
[00:31:16] That’s the main thing. I don’t care what the rankings or things like that. Are we developing the drugs to save the people, to save people? And that is… And I’m going to end by just saying that I’m going to give you a challenge a- as I’ve challenged myself, and I will hand this challenge over to you.
[00:31:31] And again, it’s the challenge is to change the conversation in your office from, “Mrs. Jones, we know how to treat your cancer,” to, “Mrs. Jones, we know how to get rid of your cancer.”
[00:31:41] Adam Walker: You’re both passionate about your work and the need for uninterrupted funding for research that’s saving lives and improving patients’ outcomes.
[00:31:49] So with that in mind, what is your message for people listening today who may be able to donate or contribute to decisions about how public and private research dollars are spent?
[00:32:01] Dr. Benjamin Schrank: If you are in the position where you can make a contribution to efforts of junior investigators or senior investigators who are trying to bring the next therapy to our breast cancer patients, I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
[00:32:16] These are desperately needed because while we’ve made so much progress over the years, we still have such a long way to go. And the reality is that new ideas need support. They need time to grow, they need time to be nurtured, and they need funding to sup- to supply the personnel and the studies to actually to actually test them.
[00:32:41] And so I could just say that it means the world to the investigators as well as to the patients that we take care of.
[00:32:48] Dr. Donald McDonnell: That’s very well said. I mean, I think that I’d like to take also say that personally, I’m actually quite bullish even in this environment where people are consistently knocking science and complaining about funding.
[00:33:00] I mean, these things have been going on for years in health funding issues. They’re probably pretty acute right now, but I’m really bullish. Okay? And and I mentioned during the talk, I had the opportunity to go to the Hill last week and have really very detailed conversations with people who make decisions, and I walked away n- feeling a lot more comfortable with what’s going on than I did walking in.
[00:33:23] There is… I met with people on both sides of the aisle, and I was overwhelmed by the bipartisan support for people have for maintaining research and increasing research into the cancers that I’m interested in as w- in as well. So I think that I think that there may be some structural issues that people want to fix, but I think fundamentally I believe that the legislators and reinforced by input from survivors and researchers like me are going to continue to do the right thing and support this biomedical research enterprise.
[00:33:58] Adam Walker: Dr. Schrank, Dr. McDonnell, thank you so much for joining us on the show today, and thank you for the work that you’re doing and just helping us to better understand the, some of the intricacies and the importance of this work. Thanks for listening to Real Pink, a weekly podcast by Susan G. Komen.
[00:34:15] For more episodes, visit realpink.komen.org, and for more on breast cancer, visit komen.org. Make sure to check out @SusanGKomen on social media. I’m your host, Adam. You can find me on Twitter @AJWalker or on my blog, adamjwalker.com.