For years, researchers in the Division of Basic Sciences and the Division of Clinical Sciences at the National Cancer Institute often worked independently on the same problem without knowing about the work of their colleagues.
This spring, the two divisions merged to form the Center for Cancer Research. This cultural shift in the NCIs Intramural Program is being spearheaded by J. Carl Barrett, Ph.D., who serves as the new centers director. Barrett discussed the motivation behind the merger and his plans for the center with News correspondent Tracy Thompson.
|
Our mission is to conduct outstanding cutting-edge basic research on the causes and treatments of cancer and to translate that into clinical research and prevention research that will reduce the burden of cancer in humans. Rather than separate activities of basic and clinical research, we have now closely linked the basic research with the clinic. Another important aspect of our mission is to provide training to the future leaders in cancer research.
What was the reasoning behind the merger?
The merger takes advantage of the breadth of the CCR. We have a broad spectrum of scientists doing cutting-edge research in many areas. We have the ability to go from basic research to preclinical models to human trials very quickly and to develop new technologies that can be used in translational research.
Furthermore, we can leverage the expertise and the infrastructure in the Intramural Program with academic partners, other government laboratories, and pharmaceutical companies. We are in the process of developing the infrastructure to make that possible.
The overall goal is for the Intramural Program to have a highly interactive, interdisciplinary group of researchers who have access to technology and access to clinical investigations. While the foundation of the CCR will remain investigator-initiated independent research, we also want to create opportunities for interaction. When a researcher has a finding or a technology that has larger implications, the infrastructure we are building allows the scientist to engage a group of other researchers to see if the finding has the significance that is hoped for.
What challenges are you facing?
I discovered an immense commitment and desire in the divisions for the merger. Everyone believed the time was right to bring the basic and clinical researchers more closely together. I dont think there are any major stumbling blocks in either the development of the concept or in the implementation.
We need to create a place where scientists who almost speak different languages can communicate. We hope to create a venue where people can have discussions and gain from the different perspectives of their colleagues.
We are having a series of discussions about how to most efficiently organize the CCR, trying to open access to clinical resources and to new technologies, and how to challenge the intramural researchers to become increasingly involved in the development of new technologies and new approaches. Part of the problem is that many people just dont know of all the resources available.
What gains do you think will be seen with these changes?
I think we will see an increase in communication, an increase in interaction, and an increase in translational research. To go from the bench to the bedsideto use the familiar clichérequires that you have more capacity than would be available to most individual investigators. We need an institutional infrastructure to do that.
Just as important, in my mind, is the ability to go from the bedside back to the bench. There have always been challenges to the basic researcher, when his work shows the possibility of clinical application, to engage the clinical researcher. But there are also equal difficulties when the clinical investigator makes an important observation to then engage the basic scientist. Of course, the end result works best when both are engagedwhen the lessons learned in the lab can be applied in the clinic and the lessons learned in the clinic can be applied in the laboratory.
There were no roads built between basic and clinical research. Before now, people had to forge their own roads one by one. Now the system is much more receptive.
When a researcher makes an observation with the potential to be translated into something that will have an impact on disease, we want to make sure that the observation can be explored. We want to still supply the security for the investigators to follow their research, but also to have the institutional capacity to translate important findings rapidly.
In this new paradigm in the Intramural Program, how will the investigators in the CCR be reviewed?
The vast majority of our resources will be given to individual investigators and will go through the traditional intramural NIH review process. Our review process emphasizes the retrospective view of the research equally with review of proposed research.
There is constant debate about the proper amount of retrospective versus prospective in a review. By having a retrospective review, you can take more risk. You can try things that people may not accept at first. You dont always know if something will work until you try. But at the same time, you may support less than great ideas that would benefit from input from peers.
We want to provide some stability so that researchers can try things and take chances that might not be possible outside, and, at the same time, maintain the highest standards.
We also want the opportunities to create programs that will be reviewed as programs and will have multiple investigators involved. The [NCI] Board of Scientific Counselors will review these programs, but the individual investigator who wants to contribute to these programs will not be risking his or her individual research program by participating.
The rationale for the Intramural Program is that we can do something for the mission of the NCI. The researchers and the Intramural Program have to be viewed in the context of our value to the mission of the NCI. I challenge the CCR investigators to consider the mission of the institute. Thats a cultural shift.
Does this mean that the NCIs Intramural Program will be driven by specific research goals?
We want to have the infrastructure to do translational research, yet we want to still invest heavily in basic research. We want to invest heavily in individuals. If we took half our money and put it into infrastructure, we wouldnt be as good as if we invest in individuals. But if we put all of our money into individuals, we wouldnt be as good as if we put some of our money into the infrastructure to help the individuals. That is especially true today, when research is so technology driven and interdisciplinary. If each individual has to develop technology independently, it is, obviously, not very efficient.
We need to find the balanceto know how much to put into the infrastructure. Thats not a decision that I can make sitting in my office. That has to be a community decision.
I think what has changed is that there is more openness in the process. Previously, people felt they didnt understand how the resources were distributed. In any situation, if the system is closed there will be a feeling of unfairnesseven if things are fair. So we have to communicate and we have to show people that the system is fair and open.
How does the Center for Cancer Research fit into the National Cancer Institute?
The NCI has invested substantially in developing new tools and new technologies for exploration. We want the Intramural Program to be an important component of that enterprise.
We are trying to build partnerships and encourage interdisciplinary research. Were moving from a culture of the individual scientist working within his or her own laboratory to individual scientists working within the community of the Intramural Program and within the network of the cancer research communityacross the private sector, government, and academia. CCR will also serve as a model to facilitate translational research.
We hope that the Intramural Program can be a resource for generating ideas that will help guide the direction of the NCIto be an experimental laboratory for new ideas and technologies, and new ways of interdisciplinary research. We think that the Intramural Program is an important resource for the NCI.
We can provide conduits and capabilities for investigators in many areas of cancer researchthe academic centers as well as the pharmaceutical centers. We can bring these together in a rapid way. This is good for the individual researcher, its good for the cancer program, and, eventually, its good for the cancer patient.
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |