Chapter 12: A Move into Administration and Developing Translational Research at MD Anderson
Files
Loading...
Description
In this chapter, Dr. Hung discusses his first administrative experience as Director of the Breast Cancer Basic Research Program (1996 – 2008) and discusses translational research.
He notes that he worked with Dr. Gabriel Hortobagyi (Interview # 29), knowing little about clinical work on the time. He explains that in the early 1990s, the leadership at MD Anderson wanted to foster interactions between clinicians and basic researchers, a culture of collaboration began to develop and have an impact on patient care. Next Dr. Hung explains what he learned about himself as a leader who could have “a different level of impact” as an administrator. He observes that the timing for expansion of translational research was very good, as the field has amassed a critical amount of information. Dr. Hung then talks about the impact of a translational focus on research. He explains communication gaps between clinicians and basic researchers. He concludes with comments on MD Anderson’s translational focus and the evolution of translational perspectives nationally.
Identifier
HumgMC_03_20140421_C12
Publication Date
4-21-2014
City
Houston, Texas
Interview Session
Topics Covered
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Building the Institution; The Administrator; Contributions to MD Anderson; MD Anderson History; Growth and/or Change; Institutional Mission and Values; The Leader; Professional Practice; Leadership; The Professional at Work; Understanding Cancer, the History of Science, Cancer Research; The Researcher; On Research and Researchers; Understanding Cancer, the History of Science, Cancer Research
Transcript
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Okay, so welcome back to my office again. So, let’s chat. As I told you, I mentioned it …. Come on in …. I was … So our coffee is here.
Speaker 2
Yeah.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Okay, thank you so much.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Gasoline.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
So, gasoline. Speaker 2 They are both the same.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Alright. Great.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
So, which ones …. We are the same.
Speaker 2
They are both the same.T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Thank you so much. Appreciate that.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
So …. Let me see. Here is one.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Thank you.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
You want a ….
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Sure.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Sugar, no.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Oh yes, I always take a …. I’ll doctor it all up.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Oh, that’s very cool.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
I get it.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Too cool, too cool ... I usually don’t make it so cool, I just kind of … 80%.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
The worse is when you try to drink one of these full ones in the car. I always end up with it all over the place.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Alright, so … now, where would you like to start? You had mentioned some things about … you want to start with the administrative roles?
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Sure, sure. So …
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Okay.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
I assumed my first administrative role at MD Anderson, was in 1996. It was a breast cancer patient research program. I think that was my first time to get involved in a heavier organization and the institution in high echelon quality ___ 1:49. At that time, I worked very closely with Gabriel Hortobagyi who is the Chair of Breast Medical Oncology [oral history interview]. As you know, he just recently retired from that position. And so he served as a breast cancer research program director. He is a world renowned breast medical oncologist and I come from the basic research appointment side that, you know, worked with him closely to help to build up the basic research program in breast cancer program. So --- so, at that time, he and I worked very closely. So from then, that we start to develop --- we actually started to learn from very beginning that I don’t know much about clinical breast cancer, and he, you know, also had limited knowledge in basic science. But then he and I been working very, very, very closely and later on now, we all become very close friends, our family. And then we actually worked on many, many of those large type of center grants or support type of grants, ____ 2:54 PI grants because those require the clinicians and basic scientists to join together. So historically, we actually have our DOT Center for Excellence Breast Cancer Program. It’s --- it was created by MD Anderson, with Hortobagyi as PI. Then I helped him to call --- to invite Cormeo and two persons from San Antonio. It’s a multiple institution program. And we also --- at one period of time, we had to --- almost 10 --- more than 10 years support from the NIH Breast Program, and he served as the PI; I served as the Co-PI, and on top of that, we worked together --- I served as a PI for the NIH P01 grant which currently show active funding. So that was a lot --- it started from 1996 when we started to work together. Actually, we worked together before that. We have kind of a track record but 1996, that was the first time we officially gave recognition of the leadership growth. So since then, I --- first I learned organizational skills and second, I enjoy so much by working with Gabriel Hortobagyi and many, many physicians in Breast Medical Oncology and breast surgeons.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Why did you decide to start in 1996? You know, what was going on at the time that made you feel that now was the time to get into a more administrative role?
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Okay, so I believe I was promoted for professor in 1994. Yeah, 1994. By then, Gabriel and I had been working together very closely. We worked on that P01 project, moved --- moved into a clinical trial. We already had a track record of working together, moving from laboratory discovery to clinical trial. I still remember, that was the first human gene therapy trial in breast and ovarian cancer. I was working with Hortobaygi and Gabriel or Pat Winston, I think we mentioned earlier, and Hortobaygi was a PI. And, so --- and at that time, because the institution felt that it was probably really nice to have a … back to the early 1990, institution start --- this institution was very, very strong clinically but we also wanted to foster that interaction between scientists and clinicians. And, the culture is not specific time ___ 5:08, but in the early 1990s, because of NIH --- NCI come out with a first breast program. And with breast supported, the concept is forced in a way, kind of forced clinicians and scientists to work together. So at that time, the rule is still similar, that is, you needed a PI who is a clinician or a basic scientist. But then, you need a --- of you have a PI clinician then you need a basic scientist as a co-director or the other way around. In each project or in overall. So, the culture started to develop so you want to really --- really have some sort of an impact --- a bigger impact in patient care. We needed to bring scientists in. The concept had been known for a long tim, but how to do it? And the support grant certainly is one type …. I’m not saying the only one, but one type, a kind of one: I give you money, but I force you to talk to each other. And --- and hope also, not only so. The institution already had that culture ongoing …
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Right.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
So --- so at that time, the institution and faculty, we all feel that there’s a need for that. So we started to do that. So they appointed me --- and it was very natural because as a basic scientist who committed a lot to breast cancer research, I easily stand out because I already moved that --- worked with him and moved the project into the clinical trial. And so --- so that was my first administration role.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
So what did you learn about yourself as an administrator and a leader at that point.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
I enjoyed it because I --- before that, I was running my lab and I enjoyed running my lab, to training post-doc fellow, train the student. As I told you before, I consider myself not only a researcher but also educator because I did have a track record of educating, training a lot of student post-docs, and oncology fellows, too. But when you start to serve an administration role, then it’s like you have a --- you move up to a slightly different kind of impact because you’re not only looking at things from your lab, you’re looking for --- you’re looking at the entire institution, how can we promote the breast cancer program? So I just --- we have --- at time, I think ___ 7:22 fund, we had two million dollars supporting breast cancer research. So Gabriel and I both worked very closely and I went department by department to encourage the basic science department chairs. You know, it’s a free country and back to the early nineties and the mid 1990s --it’s different from now. Right now, the translation voice is huge. At that time, it was not. So we still had some basic scientists who wanted to stay in their own ivory tower, you know. And I --- I’m not saying it’s wrong, I’m just saying the culture…
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, exactly …
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
So…
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
It was --- it was a ….. (inaudible)
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
… at that time. And then at that time, we tried to say, hey, we have some sort of breast cancer research fund here. You can still stay in whatever you’re doing as a basic scientist, but --I used myself as example. I was a basic scientist but because I discovered HER-2/neu and because I studied the mechanism, I moved to a clinical trial. I feel it’s, I enjoyed it. so I shared my experience with some basic science department chairs and scientists, encouraging them to say if you like, maybe the --- our breast cancer research program pool has some money, we can give you some seed money to expand your research. Do not change your research. You do what you were doing. But what you were doing, whatever molecule, whatever gene you’re working on that happens to be related to breast cancer, then we --- we can extend your arm. Because it’s difficult and there’s no point to asking people to change their direction. We only encouraged people to think about breast cancer questions, so that if the gene you’re working on happened to be --- for example, I worked on HER-2/neu, so I’m obviously working in breast cancer. People work on a lot of different genes which are important in development. Biology is important in, you know, in basic science. They may well be very important in cancer, in breast cancer. So we started to do that. Then I started to expand my interaction with other types of leader and then --- then I started to learn, you know. Some people might be very easy, they said sure, we would like to do it, let’s talk about it, get some seed fund to do it. But some people may say, hey, no, no. We’re not interested, you know, because we are better basic scientists. So things like that, then I start to learn about a different level of impact. And then, I thought it was timing wise, it was good because in the mid-1990s, there were a lot --- enough basic science results. It was already on the table. It was time people should start to think about translation. And you can do that anytime. You can do that even earlier now but better earlier than none. There was very limited knowledge about it. But now, too much information is the flush of the data in, so we need a bioinformatics because so much data. But at that time, it’s about --- we had some data but is not much, again so basic scientists and clinicians started to talk about each other.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Very interesting.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
And so I --- I actually enjoy working in that capacity, starting to interact with more in --- in the institutional level instead of only my own lab, my own department. I started to interact with clinician and I started to learn a lot. Because I’m a basic scientist, so when you go to cross the field, everything is new to you. So you can talk to them for 10 minutes and learn a whole bunch of stuff. But if you talk to your own people, that’s different because you already know maybe 70%, 80%. You talk to them one hour, you may learn another 5%. But you talk different field, you know what I’m saying.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
I do.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
And you --- you learn a lot.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Exactly.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
And I started even more to enjoy, that is, when I talked to clinician, I start to learn how to grab the important clinical question and come back to the lab. I’m not saying that every problem clin --- clinically we can do it in lab, but some we can do. And it --- we would talk about that and then they would say, you know, clinically we have this issue then, you know, it’s a problem, right? So then maybe in the lab we can do this type of experiment or that type of experiment, then we may able to help. I mean, there is no guarantee, but there’s an expertise here. There’s a, you know, knowledge here then we could test it, some ___ 11:33. So since then my research is much, much more translational. And then, also since then when I’m writing grant, I never need to write why it’s important because the question I’m asking is already important. I don’t have to --- as a basic scientist, I don’t have to worry about spending a lot of time, just why it is important. Nobody questioned me on my grant on that. They may question me here or there but nobody says, what is important, because it is obviously important.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Right.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
So that’s certainly, an individual myself and also for me to learn how to work with other people, and how to promote to ask those people who are originally not thinking about breast cancer come to think about breast cancer. And also encourage the breast cancer doctors, you know, either surgeons or oncologists, to communicate and develop common language to --- to talk to scientists. And now, today…
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Can we … I want to just --- ca --- how --- what’s the issue there? You now, I mean, I --- since I’m not part of either field, how would you describe some of the communication gaps between basic scientists and clinicians, and then, what’s needed to overcome that?
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
: Okay, at that time, for most of basic scientists, you know, basic science is always interesting. Detailed molecule mechanisms. Which is important, but if you only pay attention to detailed molecule --- molecular mechanism, then you do not pay attention to why this mechanism is important. As a basic scientist, you know, it’s a free country. You can do whatever you want to do. But then, what is important? However, let’s say there’s a clinical question. Let’s say I’m interested in transcription regulation, you know, gene expression. And this gene expression, without asking clinical importance by itself can be very interesting, you know, a detailed mechanism. You know, just like, you know, it’s interesting. But if the gene you’re working on happened to be overexpressed in breast cancer, let’s say, then you study your mechanism, the mechanism may actually be the cause of the breast cancer, for example, maybe. And even if it was not the cause of the breast cancer, but not mechanism because it controls gene expression and you know that particular gene is always present in breast cancer, then the mechanism you study may be able to come out with some product to block that overexpression and not product mine by itself, then the cancer drop. So that can be totally independent from your original basic research, but it’s a potential application. I use this example to HER2/neu and that’s what happened to me.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Right.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
And then after I think the last two times we talked about a lot of interesting potential clinical marker guided trial. Those cancers, it’s just because I’ve benefited by having so many friends inside the institution, they were clinicians and they have a clinical question. Then by talking to them, I find out a question then come back to the lab.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
But you had that impulse very early. I mean, you talked about how you did your studies with snake venom very, very early. You always wanted …
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
I am interested ….
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, you wanted to. Whereas I can see that a basic scientist that --- you --- you can get caught up kind of in the intellectual intrigue of these mechanisms or even the aesthetics of them. I mean, they’re beautiful. I mean, I remember seeing biochemical pathways, you know, the maps, and thinking, wow, that’s like so intriguing and beautiful even, how they --- how they move together like a symphony or something…
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
[0.15:13;7 … you know. But you can stop there. That’s enough…
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Yeah. And --- and …
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
… you know.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
… and that’s fine, too.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
That’s fine, too.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
But going …
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
As long as that one, there’s a long-term impact in the future for that. That’s fine.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Right. But it --- it’s interesting because you’re asking, challenging a basic scientist to put that --- all of that good stuff in a larger context.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Yeah. And also, this other thing about it. Because MD Anderson is MD Anderson. A busy cancer center. MD Anderson is very nice, allowing, you know, basic scientists to think about just pure basic science. That’s fine. So that --- but if 100% of scientists in MD Anderson all think about basic science and not about cancer, then they’re not a cancer center. Then --- then why don’t we have a university?
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Right. Exactly.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
And --- and --- and there’s nothing wrong having a university, not ___ 15:57 but it’s different --- it’s just --- just like you are in the army. You’re in the army, right? If you are in the army, you’re in the army. You’re thinking about what you supposed to do the army, you’re not thinking about music. Stupid. And that doesn’t mean that thinking music is wrong. It’s --- in that place, you think of what? So some significant portion of scientists in MD Anderson should think about this. And we --- we should allow some people to think about their --- their own interests. That certainly is fine but proportion is important. Proportion.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, I’m remembering some of the conversations, you know, in the ‘70s and about how you need speculative research. You know, just …
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Yeah.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
… just --- just go on out there …
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
Be…
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
…find something.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
… because in early 1970s when President Nixon award money to cancer, at that time, that’s was cancer. And that cancer was very different from now. Because at that time, they said, hey, cancer is a problem. We don’t want cancer but we don’t want cancer. So now, we want to bring together all different disciplines – mathematics and physics and chemistry, biology, or whatever, to come to study cancer. And we allow you to imagine, think out of bounds, whatever, and doesn’t need to be cancer directly. That’s fine. Because at that time, we didn’t know that. But now, actually --- from --- early 1970’s through 1990, my friend, we have 20 years, that basically put a lot of money in and started from 1.6 billion at that time. I still remember that. Then --- and we have so much money now, we have accumulated so much knowledge, it’s time that we cannot just continue to do that. If we continue to do that, we’re not going to move ahead. So, we have to translate. Right. And so every ten years, every ten years you have different kind of, you know --- and that’s just fair. And so if we take the culture or the concept we had in the early 1970’s, and say we use that identical strategy to deal with cancer now, then we will probably end up wrong, because that time and now is different, the knowledge is very, very different. Yeah, very different.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, yeah. Well, and interestingly, I mean the --- the --- obviously what’s going on today couldn’t have happened without that --- that sort of imaginative …
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
To a certain degree.
T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:
… startup.
Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:
To a certain degree. It’s more like we train, we educate an individual from elementary school, high school and, you know, middle high, high school and college and graduate school. But --- because at different stages, you learn different things. You know, different goals, different milestones, right? So at the time when, early 1970’s, we said cancer is the problem. What cancer? We don’t know what is cancer. So let’s bring everybody, all the knowledge in. Think about it then. Ten years, 20 years ago, we started to say, hey, we know what causes cancer. By the end of 1980, we already knew cancer was caused by a gene, right? Then we know how we should target the gene and it --- it’s always --- always a different time, a different knowledge. And now, we have some data. We can complete sequencing and identify driver genes and that kind of stuff. Which we could not even imagine 40 years ago.
Recommended Citation
Hung, Mien-Chie PhD and Rosolowski, Tacey A. PhD, "Chapter 12: A Move into Administration and Developing Translational Research at MD Anderson" (2014). Interview Chapters. 1164.
https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/1164
Conditions Governing Access
Open
