Chapter 14: The Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology

Chapter 14: The Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology

Files

Loading...

Media is loading
 

Description

In this chapter, Dr. Hung describes the history and development of the Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology, a Department he has headed since 2000.

He sketches the history of the department’s leadership and reporting structure. When Dr. Hung became Chair, he reported to Dr. Margaret Kripke [Oral History Interview]. He describes the very bold goals he set for the new department to quickly raise standards and the profile. He then explains how he was able to convince faculty to rise to this challenge. He affirms that his is a “model department,” demonstrating collaboration between basic scientists and clinicians.

Next Dr. Hung briefly talks about a major lesson he learned about leadership after taking on the Chair of the Department: “never confront” and argue or become angry with faculty.

Next Dr. Hung briefly talks about MD Anderson’s Mentorship Committee Program for junior faculty.

Finally, Dr. Hung shares his aspirations for the bright future of the Department under the new leadership of Dr. Ronald DePinho and his Moon Shots program. He says, “My dream is to go to CVS for cancer drugs,” and explains that basic research is already helping the right patient to choose the right drug.

Identifier

HumgMC_03_20140421_C14

Publication Date

4-21-2014

City

Houston, Texas

Topics Covered

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center - Building the Institution; The Administrator; MD Anderson History; Growth and/or Change; Institutional Mission and Values; The Leader; Professional Practice; Leadership; The Professional at Work; Character, Values, Beliefs, Talents; MD Anderson Snapshot; MD Anderson Culture; The Leader; Leadership; The Mentor; Mentoring; MD Anderson in the Future; Understanding Cancer, the History of Science, Cancer Research; The History of Health Care, Patient Care; Business of Research

Transcript

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah. Do you want to go back to some of your other admin roles…..

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Sure.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

… because since 2000, you’ve been …

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Department Chair.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

40:14.4] Yeah, Department Chair. And it was a new department?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Oh, let me give you the big long story.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah, please.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

I was recruited by Garth Nicholson who is my Department Chair, who used to be in this office. Before Tomasovic [oral history interview], there was Garth Nicholson. Garth Nicholson recruited Tomasovic and recruited me. And of course, I am much more junior. And at that time, we were called the Department of Tumor Biology, but Garth left, and there’s a long story in there behind that you can forget that I told you. You may already know it.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

40:45.1] No, I don’t but that’s okay.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

You laugh. I respect him. He’s --- but he had long disgruntled issue and he left. So after he left, this department was in limbo. So, Steve Tomasovic was head interim Chair. And then, we were kind of informed that the department should be dissolved.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Why was that?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah, because there’s no Chair, and they didn’t think that, you know --once you talk of details. But the faculty actually discussed that we wanted to stay as a department. So we talked to our administrator at that time --our Executive Vice President-- and they all came to talk to us. So they, after discussion, they decided following. Originally, this department was called the Department of Tumor Biology. But in Smithville --the Smith Building-- Josh Fidler [oral history interview] has another department called The Department of Cell Biology. At this time, I was working very closely on cancer, so at that time, the institution decided to rearrange. So, Josh Fidler was the Department of Cell Biology, and he became the Department of Cancer Biology. And the Department of Tumor Biology disappeared. But because we in this department focused more on molecular cell biology, we become the Section of Molecular Cell Biology. And for this section, I served as Section Chief then reported to Josh Fidler. So there was one period of time after the rearrangement, this department actually became a section and I served as the Section Chief, kind of autonomous, but I reported to Josh Fidler in Department of Cancer Biology. So if you see my CV, there’s one short period of time where names change a lot, because Tumor Biology came under Cancer Biology, and Cancer Biology become a new department. And then, we were section, and there was section here, but they were on the other side so I went over there once a week to report him. And after two years, it was more or less retention. I was recruit outside and also Josh --- I get along very well with Josh. Josh Fidler is a point to this way. And we are very molecule cell biology, orie --- oriented, and the Cancer Biology over in Smith is much more metastasis biology-oriented. So then, they join institution, change this section into a Molecular Cell Oncology Department. So I became Department Chair. And then, so I spin off. Originally this department and Cell Biology Department but then we were not dissolved, we become section under --- the Cell Biology become Cancer Biology. And then two years later, there was spinout again, become Molecular Cell Oncology and I served as Chair.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

So what --- what were the implications of becoming a department. You know, what did that mean in terms of growth, admission, all that?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yes. There was some difficulty, because at the time when I became Department Chair, I was reporting to Executive Vice President Margaret Kripke [oral history interview]. So we discussed this, okay, you, Mien-Chie, you are good molecular cell biologist so we want --- we want you to head this department but maybe you should have some sort of vision. So at that time, I actually committed to her. This is real, I committed so… At that time, our basic research is not as strong. So I say, oh, and department is very small, it’s probably less than 10 faculty. And I have….

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

And this was just so I’m making sure I got the date. So, 2000 was when the department was renamed as a department? Okay, so we’re talking 14 years ago.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. So I committed to the upper levels: Okay, if I build out this department, I want to make sure our basic science builds up and we are doing translation. So there are two commitments. I want to make sure our basic science, our publications can be in the Nature, Science, Cell series kind of paper. Say, on average, I would like to see three per year. That commitment, just maybe based on my colleagues, ___ 44:52 say I’m not going to do that, I’m not going to commit to that. I mean, it’s stupid that, why do it, why commit that? I say I’m _____ going to say something, I’m going to set a goal. ____ say you don’t set a goal that you cannot reach, but we reached it. We are actually now much better than that. But keep in mind, 14 years ago, our department was very small. But now, it’s a piece of cake, but because you set a high goal. That’s one goal, I set it. And at that time, that wasn’t easy. But now, MD Anderson, after 15 years is much, much better than before, okay?

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Let me ask you. When you set that goal, because that’s a pretty incredible goal. It really is.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah, I --- I know that goal is very difficult …

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

45:29.5] But how did you motivate people? I mean, so --- so people didn’t feel like, Oh my God, I can’t possibly do this. I’m just going to keep doing what I’m doing. They rose to the challenge. So how did you get them to do that?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Okay, so I --- first I had to set up myself as a role model. Then I as a Department Chair, I talked to faculty. You can talk to my faculty like me. I spend a lot of time because I consider their successes as part of my success. The whole department’s success is not my own. But of course, importantly, I had to serve as role model. I cannot just keep on asking them to do, do this. I don’t have to do that, I cannot do that, I had to be a role model. But --- and as a role model, I encouraged them, write more grants, do good science, and if you have some good science to publish, let me take a look, I’m more experienced: hey, this good, go ahead and publish it. Or, hey, this good, but why not add this and that? Then you can publish in better journal. And I do this to help them. And so, people start to learn by experience. After that, gradually the whole department came up. So that was one of my goals, that which --- actually very successful now. In terms of basic science, it’s not fair for me to say that it probably come from my interest. But if you talk to other scientists, basic science departments at this moment in the last 7, 8 years, the based --- based on the productivity and funding and publication, I probably --- we’re probably number one at MD Anderson. I think this --- but it’s not fair for me to say that, okay, because ___ (inaudible) 46:53. And the other thing I set as a goal here – this --- that was from my experience on the breast cancer basic research program. So I learned. I said, “I’m the Department Chair now. I am going to encourage, I’m not going to force. I’m going to recruit faculty. I’m going to encourage my faculty to commit to certain decisions and let them commit to decision related to their own research.” The molecule they’re working on. ___ in prostate cancer, I encouraged him ____. No, I’m encouraging. I think here a longer time. I know the clinicians, I link them together. I play matchmaker. It --- I don’t have to be involved by matchmaking. Right before I came, I’m just calling --- making another phone call, try to help one of my faculty to get research data from prostate cancer program.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

How interesting, yeah.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Because it’s not for me. It’s for Phil, and this person is good. Then you have money and then this guy is good in prostate cancer, why don’t you guys talk to each other? And then … just like what I did for the breast cancer program. So then after that, almost now --- every in my faculty member --- we have faculty working on liver cancer, we have faculty in breast cancer, no doubt about it, and then prostate cancer, lung cancer, and kidney cancer, pancreatic cancer, and so on.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Wow.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

So --- and --- and they are not necessarily working on that cancer per se. They are all like me, molecular cell biologist. But when it come to ___ and because of the culture of the department. So my department --- I actually feel if all MD Anderson’s basic science departments were like my department, it would be very nice. I mean, you still do basic science, you still publish it in the high quality journals. But, you also commit certain decisions because of your --- your expertise, your interests. It’s --- it’s just --- just makes sense, just --- I’m not forcing that. I’m not saying, you have to do that. I’m not saying, you should not do basic science. No, that’s not what I mean. But because the culture environment, you --- you want to learn Chinese, go to Beijing. You learn German, you go to Berlin, right? I mean this is cancer center. There are a lot of good things here. Why not take your expertise to ___. If I wanted to Alzheimer’s disease and yeah, I can do it here but what does that do me any good?

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Right, right. You don’t have a critical mass of people also sharing that.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. Yeah. So --- so now the department, every faculty, has a ____ 49:11. And I feel good about that. And, if this department move to a regular campus like MIT or Harvard, it probably would not be right. But this is a cancer center and this would be a --- a very good way for a basic science department to be in a cancer center. That you do use your expertise with a molecular cell biology ___ 49:33. But we commit to a certain disease.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

How long did it take you to really feel as though that was gathering momentum and that the department was --- was on track?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

At the very beginning from 2000 when I --- I had become Department Chair, I also on learning curve, right? Learning curve, I made mistakes. I made a lot of mistakes. Then what I feel good about is that when I made mistake, I learned and I didn’t make the same mistake.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Can you tell me some of those mistakes? I mean, I’m not, you know, just --- just --- just for the sake of wisdom for other folks.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Sure. For example, one thing. I learned never to face-to-face confront. I have a bad temper, they all know it, but I don’t do that anymore. Because everything can be communicated. Once you communicate well, there’s no point to it. But once you face-to-face confront, then you break things. There --- there’s a Chinese saying, saying a mirror, once broken, is very difficult to piece together. But if you don’t break it, you just have to heal it a little bit, but you still have a mirror. So I learned that. So I also edu --- all educated all my senior faculty to have leadership. I also give opportunities for my senior faculty to be in certain leadership roles so they have to learn. Everybody learns. I tell them if you’re wrong in a meeting or something, give an opinion, the last thing you want to do is you have a face-to-face confront. No, never ever, don’t do that. Communicate. And you really cannot control yourself, walk out. Walk out. And --- and that happened to me.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Especially men in public situations.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. If you really cannot control yourself because everybody has different --- you realize that, walk out. So you don’t have it. And then --- and now, when I do that, you know, lots of things happened a couple times and then I learned it. And now I feel much better. And then I started use this experience to share with my senior faculty. And ___ 51:34 I saw it just a few days ago, at another symposium. I don’t tell everybody that somebody publicly said something that’s very inappropriate. I have not talked to him yet. I am going to talk to him, and say hey, my friend, _____ 51:47. And so, leadership first. Leadership, you’re in that position and so therefore, you have that opportunity and things happen, and so you learn. You know, because at the same time, you take --- you take some courses and that will help your job. So the leadership position for scientists, many scientists don’t really care about leadership but --- I’m not saying all of them, but many of them. But those are important because you can have impact, not only your laboratory. You’re having impact, you know, at a different level. So I do enjoy that, I do enjoy that.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah, and I can hear from your conversations that, you know, you even integrate the educational --- your educational interest into leadership because you’re passing on your wisdom as you learn it to your faculty.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

If I learn something, I tell people in my lab right away. Even if they are student postdoc fellows, I say this is not your level yet, but in the future, you will come to this level. You know, what I learned this and that. And then, I pass this message to you for the future, you know, when that happens to you. And then, some of them are probably more relevant for junior faculty or senior faculty. I then, whenever possible, I share my experience with them. I know some of the senior faculty appreciate that. They appreciate it because people are not going to tell them that. If you are a professor, you’re big professor, why do I have to tell you how to do things? But I --- but I don’t tell them you’re wrong or something, I just tell them, I’m sharing my experience with you. I’m not saying you’re wrong, you’re right, whatever. But I’m sharing my experience with you.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

So, we --- we were talking before about kind of the momentum in the growth of the department, when you felt there --- you could really see the effect of you vision and your decisions to --- that commitment to that amazing standard. …

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. And then I --- now the faculty --- we --- we’re not a large department, but we’ve about 15 faculty, doing very well, overall speaking. As a matter of fact, you know, in our department evaluation, and this is probably off --- off the record…

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Do you want me to turn the recorder off for a moment?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Doesn’t matter, I’m just let you know. Helen --- Helen [Pimwica-Worms], now she, she reaches, you know, Vice Provost. She just told me, your department is a model department. But just look at it. We are in the very ___ and they are supposed like a basic fundamentals, but we are a model department. And this are not the first time for department, just quote what she said, because she’s relatively new. She just came last year and that --- the previous, you know, when we had to ___ 54:22 my department is ____ department, too. Because it’s just like a --- If any basic science department can be like department at MD Anderson basic science _____ 54:29, okay, there’s no problem.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

And Helen’s last name? I’m sorry, I …

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Ray DuBois

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Oh, oh, Ray DuBois, yeah.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Before --- before Helen, was Ray over me. Before Ray, it was Margaret Kripke. And my department is all one. And then, at a time when our department was supposed to be dissolved.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Right, I know.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Supposed to be bad.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Incredible.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Supposed to be bad and now become at the top.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Well, hard work here.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

And then, yeah, and of course I am lucky that I recruited the people who are --- who are good citizens and who can be educated. And of course, probably also related to my leadership so that I convinced them and I served as a role model. I work very hard, and so I am not asking something --- I am not asking faculty something that they cannot do, because what I ask them is something I already achieved. So --- and then I can share experience with them, it’s good for their career. They --- they should not complain about it.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Well, and you also have the benefit of achieving that so you can tell them the how. How do you do it.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. And now, even when I help my junior faculty --- my own lab set up --- I have been here longer time --- set up takes some certain --- certain kind of special skill. I have my own priorities. But if my junior faculty, a certain person came in and they need that, I tell my people their project is higher priority than my project. Not every project, but at the very beginning, a couple of important projects. The reason is --- of course my --- my project is important. But one more paper or one less paper is not going to affect me a lot. But for junior faculty who just came to my department, in one --- first year, second year, third year, if they have a paper come out, people are watching. So I help them. They --- some of them know, some don’t know it. But people in my lab know, when they come, I say, this project is higher priority than our project, the junior faculty. And they just come. And they need help, I want to help them to finish that so they can wrap up on the study and publish it. So in this way, the whole department can come up. So because I wear a department hat --- hat, I’m not wearing my own lab hat. Because for me, one more paper of course is better but for them, one more paper is different. If I have 400 papers, they have 20 papers, you --- you know what I’m saying? And also, they were new here.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Right, absolutely.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

They were new here.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

So it’s --- it’s really an investment in not only faculty members but the future of the department and the institution. It’s huge.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. So --- so --- so …

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

And it helps with the culture, too. I mean, there are certain departments in which junior faculty do not get that kind of support.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. Even --off the record-- we even have a department chair. [The recorder is paused]

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Thank you. Can we go back on record?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Sure, sure.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Sure, okay. Okay, we’re back on record after a --- a brief pause and Dr. Hung was talking about the mentorship …

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

.. program.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

So --- so now the institution has lots of mentorship programs for junior faculty, which I think is good. But at the time when it started, I was surprised, why do we need that? So I thought it was the Department Chair’s job.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Okay.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

So, if you have good department chair, you don’t need that. The department chair would mentor them. Then if you --- I cannot do it, I can get somebody to help. But not every department chair is doing that. And so there are some junior faculty in the wrong division and therefore not every student comes under the general rule. So every junior faculty who need a mentor --- a committee with two or three senior faculty in addition to the department chair. So I follow that. You see, I --- I am a --- the --- one of the faculty and issued this rule. I’ll do it. But frankly speaking, my department probably don’t think they need to do it because all my junior faculty are being well taken care of. But since that institution rule, so I do it in addition to my original commitment.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Right.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

But I also formed a committee. So I fulfill the requirement for institution but, you know, it’s a good anyway. I was shocked at the time when I heard that.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Pretty funny. Very funny.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

[01:17:3 Well, different --- different cultures need different --- departments, for sure.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Yeah. Very funny.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Absolutely. What --- what is your plan, you know, your future vision for the department at this point?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Now you know we have new leadership, you know, just changed two years ago, and there was some change and we’re now having the Moon Shot project, right? I kind of like the concept of Moon Shot because it’s Moon Shot, not because we are going to shoot the moon. It’s because it would take the present candidates, the spirit, saying, within one decade we are going to be on the moon. But in one decade we’re going to have a significant impact on the patient survival, right? So that’s good. So this is a basic science department, and in last decade or so, we have been quite successful, although could be better. Now, to do translation, we work on basic scientist stuff and as I told you, every faculty has committed disease. So what I would like to see as a basic science department, Molecular Cell Oncology inside MD Anderson, is our molecular cellular level of cancer research --- cancer science or cancer cell signaling. We can be in the top -- in the nation. And we can --- not only the --- our basic science can be on the top, we can serve as resources to work with different clinical departments that --- to interact, to collaborate with them to help our faculty in my department, and also help a specific disease to unravel important discoveries in cancer research, and ideally could develop to using the Moon Shot concept to develop something to --- to make some impossible thing possible. So this disease cannot be cured only because of our contribution --- not because we only --- because our contribution can help to make it --- this uncurable disease become curable, to make it --- use a serial marker, as a example, to ---to be able to predict which patient is going to have a recurrent cancer and then if they recur, what’s the ___ (0:03:33.2) and those kind of … And the fun part now is because we know so much about what causes cancer, we have a lot of know --- knowledge at hand, compared to 20, 30 years ago. So if you apply that knowledge to clinical applications, there’s just too many thing that we can do. Too many things. And if you have enough money, enough time, there are a lot ____ (0:04:00). And we don’t even have to create a new drug. I think we discuss that ….

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah, we talked about that, yeah.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

And --- because we can just help identify the right patient for the right drug. Of course, sometime we still need to develop new drug. But, I’m just saying the knowledge we have now, without create new drug, we probably can do some sort of a very quick research that can benefit a lot of patients. And --- and until that saturated, then we need to create new drug, we create new drug. And in the future, my --- my dream is all this molecular cell, all this stuff that --- all this cancer diagnosis, you don’t have to go to hospital, you go to CVS. Or --- it’s --- it’s most likely that’s going to happen. Is that 10 year, 20 years or 30 years? And it’s not impossible. That’s why I love this Moon Shot concept. Moon Shot, we’re not saying we’re going to shoot the moon. We say that concept because of 1963, right? When he said we’re going to shoot the moon, many people say, yeah, give me a break. But 19 --- what, -67, we did it. A decade. Seven, no, ‘69, we were on the moon. So we said, within one decade, if we focus our research --including even basic scientists like us have that concept, start to think about that. We don’t have to be treating patients, but from our study, we can help the right patient to be treated with the right drug. That’s going to have a significant impact on cancer survi --- patients. And then now, we --- we have 15 --- more than 15 million cancer survivors now. In the future, cancer will be a ___ disease.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

So what --- what do you think needs to happen to reach that --- that goal? That vision that you have?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

That’s a good question. I sometime joke that cancer is different from 30 years ago, when you didn’t know what causes cancer. And so, you try to understand it. But now, we have so much knowledge that we know what cause cancer, we know how to develop cancer drugs. If you put in enough money, get the right person to do it, then those thing can be shortened up a significant amount of time. So if I drew a curve, depend on --- if you put more money in, then – how to say that? If you see the cancer death rate and compare to the money you put it in, the more money put in you, the cancer death rate can be shorter. I think the curve should be like this. You put a lot of money here, then cancer death rates going decease. It going to depend on how much money you’re going to put in it. Of course, as a nation, as a society, you have some other thing to consider so how to balance that? Unfortunately, currently the NIH NCI funding are very limited, so it’s going to slow down a little bit. But now in the United States, we should be global. Because keep in mind, this is different from 30 years ago. When President Nixon announced that we don’t know what causes cancer, we didn’t know anything about cancer. We only knew --cancer, just don’t talk about it. We didn’t know what causes cancer. But now we know, and we can design drugs. Because of this person’s cancer, because of this molecule. This person got cancer because of what reason? Then once you know the reason, you can design a drug, right. So, if you have enough money, you can really proportionally increase the survival rate. So I don’t know whether I answered your question because I cannot come out with quantitation number. But it’s all related to funding.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Right.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Look at NASA’s project. Last week, I was in NASA…

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Oh, really?

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

I took my family there. Because NASA, those are big projects. At the time when they wamted to shoot the moon, of course, you needed a big project. But right now --- but at that time, because the knowledge was there. Now, we are just like that. If you have enough funding, cancer management ____ 08:05. And I love the MD Anderson logos, say --- MD Anderson…… cancer, red color, cancer out. It’s possible. I’m not saying next year, but step by step, cancer by cancer, certain type of cancer by certain type of cancer. It’s going to happen. It’s going to happen. I always like to use the number, 15 mill --- more than 15 million cancer survivor now

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

It’s amazing.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

It’s amazing.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Thirty years ago, terminal cancer, everybody talk wants to talk about it. _______(0:08:36.1) anyway. It’s amazing. I think that number is going to increase again. So it’s going to ____ disease. So then --- and that --- that should a human --- if that we reach that day, human beings should feel proud, you know, because the terminal disease, now it becomes, you know, manageable. Of course, by that time, you have some other disease come out so that how ….

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

(Laughter)

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

We have some disease which --- which we have not discovered yet or which has not happened yet.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Right.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Like a --- almost one decade when SARS came out …

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Ah…

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

… bottom of scale. And because of the infectious disease. Luckily, cancer is not infectious.

T.A. Rosolowski, PhD:

Yeah.

Mien-Chie Hung, PhD:

Luckily --- luckily. But is, you know, critical disease.

Conditions Governing Access

Open

Chapter 14: The Department of Molecular and Cellular Oncology

Share

COinS