Issue link: https://tmcpulse.uberflip.com/i/519582
t m c » p u l s e | j u n e 2 0 1 5 13 I gravitated toward trying to under- stand why. I loved biology, and I also loved helping others, so I concluded that the right profession for me was a physician. The third major influence in my life was my martial arts instructor, Master Ik Jo Kang, a political refugee from Korea and self-made man who had the gift of inspiring others to do the impossible. Martial arts has endured for more than 3,000 years—based on its ability to transform individuals. The practice instills principles of courage, humility, respect, discipline and a hard work ethic to foster inner balance and a positive attitude. I was 16 when I started, training five hours per day. That experience generates fortitude, discipline and the ability to deal with crises in a stable and thoughtful way. That had a profound impact on who I am today. So, it was the influence of my father, my teachers, and my martial arts teacher—all of them gave me attributes that positioned me to contribute to my profession and serve others. Q | What led to your passion for cancer? Was it your research that led you there? Was it the loss of your father to cancer? A | First and foremost, I loved clini- cal medicine. I loved the relationship one develops with the patient and the ability to really help a patient. I then became increasingly interested in understanding the 'why' of disease. I wanted to complement my clinical experience with a scientific career. I wanted to go beyond caring for disease and strive to understand disease at a level that would lead to prevention or cure. My pursuit of fundamental sci- ence was born, prompting my pursuit of a dual physician/scientist career. I was very interested, as a physician and scientist, in bridging the divide, so I took time off from being a clinician and I worked full time in a laboratory and eventually returned to a dual career. I was very fortunate to have great mentors who helped me attain a level of competence in both arenas. Then I had the unfortunate expe- rience of losing my father at a time when my lab was making meaningful scientific discoveries, but none of those insights were able to impact his disease. I felt a profound level of disappoint- ment that I couldn't help him and other patients suffering from cancer. His passing had a significant impact on my career, as it solidified my interest in not simply doing science, but doing science that mattered for patients. From that point on, everything we did in the lab was driven by the question of whether a discovery would help patients. With our new knowledge, what can we do to take the next step in the translational process? That impacted my orienta- tion of science in general, but also the emphasis on cancer and its translation into applications that would reduce the pain and suffering from cancer. We would ask very practical questions such as, 'Are we systemat- ically converting insights into drugs or diagnostics that can help save lives or prevent diseases from happening in the first place?' I began studying the processes or the organizational constructs that are needed to system- atically enable translation of knowl- edge. I was surprised to learn of the system's inefficiencies. The ecosystem allows knowledge that occurs in our academic medical center to eventually reach the private sector, but at each step along the way—clinical research, trials, implementation on a population scale—I thought the handoffs would be more deliberate and organized than they were. I began asking what my team could do to move that forward. There seemed to be poor coordina- tion between the promise of science and the deliberate application from the private sector in the form of new drugs, diagnostics or devices. I began to consult for large Pharma in an effort to Then I had the unfortunate experience of losing my father at a time when my lab was making meaningful scientific discoveries but none of those insights were able to impact his disease. I felt a profound level of disappointment that I couldn't help him and other patients suffering from cancer. bring the insights in genetics, genom- ics, and use of engineered mouse mod- els as a means of reducing unnecessary failures in clinical trials. I learned a lot from that experience and I also learned large Pharma was risk-averse in adopting science-driven drug discovery. Guided by great men- tors with entrepreneurial experience, we sought to create companies that would fill this void of science-driven drug discovery to influence rational drug discovery and development on a larger scale. These companies were driven by the idea that strong preclini- cal science could help reduce the rate of failure for cancer drug development. Q | From physician scientist to entrepreneur, how much did that experience shape your decision to come to MD Anderson? A | As a physician, scientist and entrepreneur, I learned a tremendous amount about how drugs get made. The lessons that I learned from mentors in business and operations had a very significant impact on my trajectory. At Harvard, I founded the Belfer Institute for Applied Cancer Science, which, in 2003, was an attempt to bring the best attributes of science, academia and industry together. It was a concerted effort to deliver on discovery, drive opportunities forward and get higher visibility so the launch point of ideas to the private sector would be more productive. We sought to validate or de-validate concepts more robustly before starting a company or licensing a drug. I learned a lot from that experi- ence—good things came out of it, lessons were learned and it was clearly contributing toward moving the ball down the field for the benefit of patients. When I was given the oppor- tunity to come to MD Anderson, I reflected on my background and the dif- ferent attributes and experiences I had, and I asked the question of whether or not the institution, which was clearly the greatest institution in the world in cancer science and cancer care, would benefit from someone with my back- ground who would bring new ideas or new ways of approaching things that could better organize efforts to help patients more quickly. I was inspired by MD Anderson's critical mass, its sin- gular focus, its culture of collaboration, its patient-centric efforts, its research- driven patient care—all of these things were astonishing and inspiring at the same time. Also, what was happening was a true change in the field, where we were afforded new opportunities in cancer that were truly historic. The cancer genome, the advances in imaging phys- ics and nanotechnology, the ability to sequence genomes at clinically active time frames at an expense that's man- ageable, the ability to aggregate data and analyze data with artificial intelli- gence systems. These are all things that came online when I was considering the opportunity—the privilege—of coming to MD Anderson. At this particular point in time, leading MD Anderson was a very compelling opportunity. I was very fortunate to be given the privilege and the honor of leading the greatest institution in the world in cancer care. Upon arrival here, I met with hun- dreds of investigators, clinicians and beyond to understand the institution, what its capacity was, what its opportu- nities were, where its culture and orien- tation were, and I recognized there was an opportunity to bring the institution and its formidable talent, resources and reach to bear on the cancer problem. I embraced this responsibility and went at it with full force.