Chapter 15: A Legacy of Strong Faculty and Advances in Blood Cancers; Awards; as a Disease and MD Anderson Presidents
Files
Loading...
Description
Dr. Freireich begins this chapter by listing some of the key faculty he has brought to MD Anderson. He then reviews advances in blood cancers that have been made during his time at the institution. He next compares the three presidents of MD Anderson and speculates that incoming president Dr. DePinho has "the same genes" as R. Lee Clark, and may prove a visionary leader.
Identifier
FreireichEJ_2011_C15
Publication Date
10-11-2011
Publisher
The Making Cancer History® Voices Oral History Collection, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
City
Houston, Texas
Interview Session
Emil J Freireich, MD, Oral History Interview October 11, 2011
Topics Covered
The Interview Subject's Story - View on Career and Accomplishments; Contributions; Career and Accomplishments; MD Anderson History; Critical Perspectives on MD Anderson; Portraits; This is MD Anderson; Understanding Cancer, the History of Science, Cancer Research; Personal Background; Character, Values, Beliefs, Talents
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Disciplines
History of Science, Technology, and Medicine | Oncology | Oral History
Transcript
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Interesting. Can I ask you to reflect a little bit on your years here? I was wondering, of all the work that you’ve done here, what do you feel most proud of or what do you feel has been of the most significance?
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Well, I’ve already told you some of it. The first thing I’m most proud of is the training programs and the students that we’ve generated who have made an enormous impact on cancer and its treatment. These are students who are not like you go to a classroom. These are people who are motivated. Ken McCredie came from Australia. He was already a professor, and he came here to do scut work because he wanted to cure leukemia. Michael Keating [Oral History Interview], who is still here, was the same. Ken McCredie came from New Zealand. Michael Keating came fromAustralia. Hagop Kantarjian came here as a medical student in an elective. He’s now head of the leukemia department. He’s the most brilliant leukemia researcher in the country, in my opinion. Bob Benjamin, who runs our sarcoma program, came from the Baltimore NIH and came to MD Anderson. He became a giant. Larry Einhorn, who cured testicular cancer in Indiana—well, I went through this before, when we talked about it. That’s the thing I’m most proud about is MD Anderson created an environment where people who wanted to cure cancer could come and do it. They didn’t learn from us geniuses who had cured cancer, but they were in an environment where they could do it. Many universities have training programs. The medical school has a training program. You go over there, you can’t do it. There aren’t enough patients, there aren’t enough doctors, and there aren’t enough resources.
When you get to a place like MD Anderson, there’s a critical mass. And they realized that with the Atom Bomb Project, with the malaria, there’s a critical mass. You’ve got to have enough people so that people can focus on their function. It’s like your body—you’ve got to have liver and eyes and hair and hands and feet and muscles. In order to attack cancer, you’ve got to have a critical mass. You have to have enough patients so that the heterogeneity of the patients can be understood.
We used to think acute myeloid leukemia was one disease. We now have thirty different categories of AML that are clearly documentable by molecular studies, so we have to understand the complexity of the problem, and that means people have to specialize. A hematologist in practice taking care of ALL, AML, CML—I mean—he’s lucky if he can just do the best thing. If you want to make progress—you know—a guy like Keating, he works on CLL. He knows more about CLL than anybody in the world. We have people like Merrick Ross who know more about melanoma than anybody in the world. We have people like Christopher Wood who knows more about renal cell cancer than anybody in the world. We have a sufficiently large faculty so that people can become the world’s most informed person about the basic science and the clinical science in that illness, and we realize that cancer—the one thing we know is it’s complicated, baby. It’s not like curing polio. It’s not a germ and a disease. This is really complicated. It gets down to the basic genome—to the 25,000 genes and to the epigenes that change the genes to the protein-altering—there’s probably a million different proteins that make us function.
So we need the critical mass. You’ve got to be big. You’ve got to have enough patients. You’ve got to have time to focus on one illness. When our fellows come here to train, they don’t learn all of oncology. We have leukemia fellows who work on one kind of leukemia, and by the time they’re here a year, they’re the world’s authority on that kind of leukemia.
So what’s important about MD Anderson—and you already know that I’m very biased, and I believe that we all benefitted from the vision—you know—it’s like Brown and Goldstein. Dr. Clark realized that if we’re going to cure cancer, which is very complicated, we’re going to need all the resources, all the specialties, all the patients, all the commitment to research, and he created a concept that—well, it was the bulb and the plant thing. You couldn’t stop it. The idea was just fifty years ahead of its time. Those of us who came here were lucky to have an opportunity to work at it.
MD Anderson is a truly unique place because of Dr. Clark. He set it up so that young people could work here without concern about their future. He had a retirement program. He set it up so that your salary depended not on how much money you brought in but on what your value to the team was, just like a football team. If you’re the quarterback and you’re the most important guy, you get the highest salary. So he set the salaries based on your contribution to the mission of the institution. And he was a Texan, and there’s something about Texans. He believed that you could use any tools that you needed to get the job done, in this state and in this city. He had a vision of the economic success of the city, of the importance of the cancer problem, of the role of science and research, of the importance of outstanding physicians, in order to have the patients to study, outstanding laboratory—I told you already, the first guy he hired after he brought his friends in was a lab guy from Galveston. He realized that it will take science to conquer cancer, and he didn’t want to just globalize what we know—you know—that was a Mendelsohn thing—he wanted to cure cancer. If we cured cancer in ten people in Texas, everybody in the world would have it in a year. Globalizing will take care of itself.
I think globalization is like food kitchens. It’s good to help the poor and the starving, but it’s more important to create an economy where everybody is working and pays for their own food. I don’t like running food kitchens. I like working on agricultural science to make new kinds of corn. But it takes all kinds of people to run a machine.
MD Anderson is still a unique place. When Dr. Clark was fired and replaced by Dr. LeMaistre, the Clark direction was unimpeded. LeMaistre certainly didn’t interfere with the development that Clark had started. In Mendelsohn’s case, he already had experience at Memorial, running a division of medicine. He already had experience in doing translational science because he worked with scientists in California, and patients. So Mendelsohn actually enlarged the Clark concept to a very substantial degree. But, in order to do that, he—you know—global oncology, Fidler, and all that. He had to do all the things that were necessary to build buildings and get the money and make it possible. So, to a large extent, I believe Mendelsohn was a—I think all of our presidents were very successful, but they all benefitted from the Clark image—from the Clark concept—of what this place should be. I think Dr. DePinho has the same genes. We’ll see.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
As Dr. Clark?
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Yeah, and LeMaistre and Mendelsohn. I think he’s of a breed that he doesn’t—you know—if you want to destroy the Clark image, you have to do something destructive—you have to say, “Well, we’re not going to accept patients fromFlorida,” or, “We don’t take melanoma.” You make some silly rule that would interfere with its function. But in the absence of actively interfering, it’s going to continue until the problem is gone. And I think I told you once, when I got the General Motors prize we had a press conference in New York. There were four of us—basic science, clinical, and translational. The first question the reporter said was, “When are we going to cure cancer?” And I gave, spontaneously, the best answer I’ve ever given, and it’s the same one I would give today, and it is, “We’re never going to cure cancer. Cancer is a part of the development of a very complex organism, like a human being. There’s gonna be errors. There’s always going to be cancer. What we’re learning to do is control it.” We can keep you from making it worse.
When people smoke, if you smoke twenty packs a day for twenty years, the incidence of lung cancer is only increased a hundredfold. The rest of the people don’t get lung cancer. It’s not that easy. Tobacco is only one part of the problem. There’s something else going on that we don’t understand yet—a genetic basis—something in the genes that makes the carcinogen make you get lung cancer. So if we eliminate tobacco, we’ll control eighty percent of lung cancer. We’re not going to eliminate it. There will still be lung cancer. We get lung cancer in nonsmokers—non-ever smokers. Cancer of the liver is caused by hepatitis virus. We can immunize everybody in the world so there’s no hepatitis virus, but we’ll still have liver cancer.
I say to students, when I give a lecture, cancer is the most important problem in biology. What is biology? Biology is the study of living things. What’s a living thing? How do you define living? What is living and what is dead?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Oh, you’re asking me?
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Yeah.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Well, it eats, it grows, it replicates its cells.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
That’s it. Life is defined as the ability to make a copy of yourself, so all living things have to make copies. Human beings begin as one cell, and by the time you stop growing, you have seventy trillion cells. Some of these cells have a lifetime of hours. We’re constantly replacing all of our cells. Your hair is growing. Your cornea is growing. If you’ve got that much activity, there’s going to be a mistake somewhere—cancer. So we’ll always have cancer, but what we can understand is how to control it—a model of diabetes, of CML. Why should people suffer? We’re always going to have cancer, but we’re not going to suffer from it. That’s the main thing. And probably we won’t die from it, if we get really good.
I do another lecture—did you know Al Knudson? He was our first—no, the second dean of our graduate school. Dr. Clark created the graduate school. He hired Al Knudson. Al Knudson was a brilliant basic scientist. He worked out the molecular biology of retinoblastoma and showing that it was a genetic disease. He’s the won all the prizes. I think he won a Nobel Prize. I don’t know. But Al Knudson, when he was dean of the grad school, he knew I was a little funny, so we got involved in discussions, and we’re good friends still. He gave a lecture to the students in which he said all species have a finite lifespan. Isn’t that true? Elephants live and giraffes and bacteria and humans have a finite lifespan. Why is that? That’s a basic biological question. Why do we stop living? So I said, all human beings, when created—fertilized—would live infinitely—infinitely—unless it’s diseased or traumatized. So we used to debate that. Is the human lifespan infinite? His argument was based on running out of mitochondria and running out of that. My argument was that, as far as we can tell from the history of our species, the human lifespan has increased continuously and progressively.
Just about five years ago, in my talk that I give my students, there was a paper from Sweden.Swedenwas the first totally socialized medical plan in the world, so they have vital statistics on every born person, and this guy showed that the maximum attainable lifespan has been increasing exponentially in the history of man. So the world’s greatest philosopher, in my view, was Jesus Christ. And Christ said, intuitively, from his brain, that life is eternal. Once created, a fertilized ovum is going to live forever unless it’s killed or gets sick. And I believe that’s true. And everything we know indicates that true. As you know, the most rapidly growing segment of the American population is centenarians. The rate of increase in the proportion of the population that’s over 100 is faster than the portion of the population that is under 10.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I didn’t know that.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
That is a fact—demographics. And as you know, most of the western countries are declining in population, and that’s so that the bubble in age distribution is changing to this kind of a thing—a little point on the top. So, all the science indicates that we’re going to live forever. Are we going to cure all disease? No, we’ll always have disease, but we can control it. If you can have CML without any problem—one pill for ten years—if you can have diabetes and live for fifty years with a shot of insulin, we’ll control all human disease. We’re going to live forever. And I am confident that that is the case, not on the basis of any faith but on the basis of the science. The facts are that the lifespan of human beings has increased progressively over recorded time and will continue if someone doesn’t stop it, like the FDA.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
You mentioned earlier your award from General Motors. I was wondering if you would—because I’ve got—here is a portion of your CV here, and you have almost two pages of awards. I was wondering if you would comment on the ones that meant the most to you.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Well, the one that meant the most to me was the Lasker Award. The reason it did is because—and I just love this picture. Have you seen it?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Uh-hunh (negative).
Emil J Freireich, MD:
I gave it to ASCO, and they have it in their archives. The reason this picture is adorable is this is Mary Lasker. Did you read the guy who wrote the Pulitzer Prize book, The Emperor of all Maladies?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
No, I haven’t read that yet.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Oh, good reading.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, I’ve heard it’s good.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Well, he explains how these people made cancer research—
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
And this photo was taken at the evening when your prize was awarded?
Emil J Freireich, MD:
The awards ceremony. Here they are. Those are the awards. We each got a—what’s her name?—the Angel ofSamothrace, or whatever her name is.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Oh, the Victory of Samothrace.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Yes. She’s on the bow of the ship that the Greeks used to go to battle with, and these are bronze statues with marble bases. I have mine at home. I’m thinking of giving it to MD Anderson, if they’re nice to me, because my kids won’t need it.
Well, this is Sidney Farber who described the first complete remissions in childhood leukemia. Dr. Farber is my idol. I have two idols—Dr. Farber and a gastroenterologist called Joseph Kirsner, and I’ll tell you about him later. But Farber was a pathologist, so he cared about people. He looked at organs. But he was watching literature, and when the basic science discovery of folic acid was published, he realized it was a growth factor for hematopoietic cells, and he got the idea that— Another one of my good friends, John Laszlo’s father, had shown that if you feed tumors to tumor-bearing animals, the tumors grow faster, so that the nutrients within a tumor are the essential nutrients for that cancer to grow. So Dr. Farber said, wow, if folic acid makes the blood grow, if I can get— Well, it turns out if you feed ground-up tumors to tumor-bearing animals, their tumors grow so fast that they necrose, outgrow their blood supply, and regress. So it’s a form of treatment. Dr. Farber got the idea from Laszlo that if he gave folic acid to these children, their tumors would grow so fast that they’d lose their blood supply and they’d get better. So he gave them folic acid and they got worse. Now, that’s never been replicated, and nobody knows if it really does make it worse, but he made that observation on a small number of children, and he called [Yellapragada] Subbarao, who owned folic acid and he said—by the way, what I’m telling you is a repeat of what he told me to my face, like we’re talking. He went to the Eli Lilly guy who discovered the folic acid. His name was [Yellapragada] Subbarao, and he said, “I need a more potent folic acid, because this one is making it worse, but not worse enough. If it goes faster, it will get better.” So Subbarao made analogs of folic acid, and it turned out to be an antimetabolite. That is, by putting a carbon ring on the central part of the folic acid, it would attach to the enzyme which activates it and wouldn’t separate. So it became an anti-folic acid, and that was the first treatment of leukemia.
The concept of the antimetabolite that he discovered empirically as a pathologist is the basis for everything we know about the molecular biology of our DNA and all that, because it was the antimetabolites which allowed the chemists to do the basic science research to work out the building of the DNA and the RNA and all that stuff. That’s from a pathologist looking at tissues from dying children with leukemia. It taught me something about science.
And this is Mary Lasker. Now, Mary Lasker was married to a guy who was a multimillionaire. He was a film man, and she collected art and did all the things multimillionaire wives do. She got interested in disease, and Dr. Farber discovered her and said, “Look, here’s a project for you.” And Mary Lasker became the people who created the National Cancer Institute. They’re the ones who created the lobbying force that went to Congress that created the National Cancer Act, built the NIH in Bethesda.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Do you know what it was that got her interested in cancer, specifically, or in disease control? Was there a personal thing? I was just curious.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
I don’t know that. But she took it on as a cause. It’s like global oncology. She decided it was something she wanted to do, and she had a lot of money. When we did the first interferon studies—when we discovered interferon for hairy cell leukemia, which was the greatest breakthrough in leukemia research ever, we couldn’t get the interferon. It was too expensive. Mary Lasker sold paintings and bought interferon for us.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
That’s amazing.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
And Dr. Clark is the one who talked her into it. When we had something that we needed to do, we went to Dr. Clark who said there are no obstacles. He had no obstacles on his horizon. If you wanted to fly a spaceship to Mars, he’d go at it—an amazing guy.
So Mary Lasker and Farber created the Lasker Prizes, and they go for all basic scientists, just like the Nobel Prizes. Dr. Farber got the idea that maybe we should give a prize for clinicians who treat leukemia and cancer. So they had this event in—what year? I can’t remember. But anyhow, they honored the people who made the strides that made cancer a treatable disease, and they’re all in this picture. Here’s one that I wrote an article about—M.C. Li. He was a Chinese escapee from the Communist Revolution. He was trained atOxford, and his father was a Christian. He couldn’t go back toChina, so he stayed in this country, and he was a very imaginative guy. He’s the guy who used methotrexate to cure choriocarcinoma. That started the whole thing—M.C. Li. He was a good friend of mine. He died of hypertension at a young age. He got fired at the Cancer Institute. He was a very good man.
This is Dr. Denis Burkitt who was an evangelist in Africa doing global oncology. He noticed that the African children were dying with this big lump on their jaw, and they died of a leukemic-like disease. He described a disease called Burkitt’s lymphoma, which occurs not only in Africa but in the western world, and the reason it was important is it was the first disease that was clearly caused by a viral infection, and the Burkitt’s Virus started that whole area of research. It got us to the DNA changing in mice—Denis Burkitt.
Here is my hero, Gordon Zubrod. He’s the guy who came out of the malaria program, first director of the NCI, brought Frei and Freireich into the picture. He brought Emil Frei, my dearest, personal friend and buddy, dying of Parkinson’s disease, tragically, and the young whippersnapper Freireich to NCI to start the thing.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
That’s great.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Wait a minute. Where’s Jim Holland?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Here it is—1972.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Oh, no Jim Holland. Jim Holland is not there, but Don Pinkel is there. Don Pinkel worked with Holland on childhood leukemia. He got the credit, but Holland deserves it. Here’s Joe Burchenal, who worked with Hitchings and Elion to get the first 6-MP—the first antipurine, which is, after we had antifolates, the antipurines worked out the whole molecular structure of DNA and RNA and all that and cured leukemia—very important.
I don’t want to get to the minor players. Here’s a guy who doesn’t belong here. This is Roy Hertz. He fired M.C. Li. He’s a jerk, but he participated because he authored the first paper on choriocarcinoma. But he’s worthless. That was Burkitt. That’s Burchenal. This is Paul Carbone. You already saw him. Breast Cancer—very good stuff. Oh, and these are the two guys—Djerassi and Klein—who were both very low-class physician scientists—very unaccomplished, but they had the advantage that they worked for Sidney Farber, and Sidney Farber invented a thing called total care. In other words, he decided curing leukemia was one thing. Children were dying of hemorrhage. Djerassi started working on frozen platelets. I’m the one who solved it. Unfortunately, he got frustrated. Klein worked on infections and pain. So these two guys were Farber’s boys, kind of like Frei and Freireich. And then here’s Vince DeVita, who worked with Tom Frei to develop the MOPP, and this is Ngu, who worked on Burkitt’s lymphoma in Africa.
So in this picture are the people who created the concept that cancer could be cured and treated as a systemic disease, and they’re all here. They did it in one shot, and the year after that, the Lasker Prize went back to some biochemist for working on some enzyme or something. This is the only time that there was a clinical thing, and it’s all due to Sidney Farber.
When I got fired from the Cancer Institute—you know—I’ve been fired from every job I’ve ever had. I’ll be fired from this one too. Sidney Farber offered me a job. Did I tell you about my first paper? Sidney Farber—the first discovery I made at the Cancer Institute was the children with very high blast counts died of cerebral hemorrhage, and I made that in collaboration with a pathologist, Lewis Thomas, a dear, personal friend of mine. We wrote a paper, and Dr. Zubrod was afraid to publish it without some muckity-muck, so he invited Dr. Farber to come to NIH, and I got to present my paper. I was very nervous. It was 1956. I was, I don’t know, thirty. There’s the great Dr. Farber, and I present my paper, and when I sat down, there was Dr. Farber and Dr. Zubrod. I said, “Dr. Farber, do you have any comments?” He said, “It’s such a wonderful thing to see all these young people trying so hard. It’s wonderful. You have to keep it up. But as far as hemorrhage with the white count, that’s all false. I already studied that problem, and I knew that the high white count had nothing to do with—”
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD
Nothing like—you get an “A” for effort.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
End of my career. So the paper couldn’t be published, and I went home and cried. My wife tried to encourage me, and I spoke to my friend Lew Thomas and he said, “Look, Freireich, this was research. We know it’s true. I don’t care what Farber said.” So Dr. Thomas—who was in a different department—and I went to Dr. Zubrod, with Frei’s approval. He didn’t come with us. We said, “Here’s the data. This is true. I don’t care what Dr. Farber said.” And the giant of the man that he was, he was willing to stake his whole career on research done by two Young Squirts. We were thirty years old, and he let us publish it, and of course it turned out to be true. Everybody in the world now recognizes that if you have high blast counts you’ve got to get rid of it, and we do pheresis. So that was the biggest moment of my career. What was good about it was the appreciation of what’s important, getting on with it. Those are the pictures from NIH of the guys who did great things. That’s the Distinguished Alumnus Award. I’m proud of that one, but the second most important one was the General Motors Prize.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
And why is that?
Emil J Freireich, MD:
I don’t have a picture of the General Motors Prize. General Motors gave us a gold medal. Do I have a picture of it anywhere? This gold medal is 100% twenty-carat gold, and it’s a casting of the three people for whom they gave the awards—Kettering, who was the clinical award; Sloan, who was the basic science award; and I forgot who the other one is. They gave three medals. Well, the winners of the Kettering award in that year were Frei and Freireich. We shared it, which I was proud to do. What year was it?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Yeah, I’m looking.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
You’ve got a bad one. The one I have has an asterisk on the ones that are important.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Oh, here it is—1983.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
In ’83, okay, so we’d been here—Frei was already at Harvard, and I was at—you know—it was a long time after we did all that stuff. That was all done in ’64, so it’s twenty years later. But the big thing was we got to meet—we got to go to the White House—to the Oval Office—and shake the hand of one of my idols—Ronald Reagan. And Ronald Reagan took a picture.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Wow, there it is.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Each one of us—our wives were in the background, but they were in the White House, and we each got to go up and shake his hand, one at a time. This is Smith—the chairman of the board of General Motors—that created the prize. So when I got home, I got a picture from the White House of me shaking the president’s hand, and it’s signed Ronald Reagan. I have it at my house. If MD Anderson treats me well, I’m going to give it to MD Anderson. The guy who did the video of this—you know—People Make a Difference. I don’t know if you saw that video.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
No.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
It’s available online. He came to our house, and he took pictures of all—well, he photographed all the things—the Lasker Prize, the General Motors Prize, the Outstanding Alumnus Award from NIH and so on. So they are recorded somewhere. So anyhow, that’s the answer to that question. The reason the GM Prize was so important to me was that it was a cash prize, and I’ve forgotten how much it was. I think it was $50,000. In 1983, I was still very poor, so when we got the General Motors Prize, it was the first moment in my entire life that we paid off our debts. We were out of debt. Up until that year, everything we did was on time—cars, house, health insurance—but when we got the GM Prize, we paid off all our debts, and ever since then we’ve been debt free. We don’t pay mortgages on our house; we don’t pay loans on our car. If we buy a car, we buy it. We manage like all people should, if they have a chance to do it. You’ve got to win the GM Prize to do it, though, because you never make enough money to fulfill your needs. You’ve got to get an infusion.
For most of our young people today, the way they get it is from their parents. I mean, we have four children. One of them is totally dependent. She makes no money. She’s a young thing. She’s only fifty-three—no money. We have another dependent adult who earns maybe half of his cost of living. We have one angel son who makes a living, has no debts. And we have one daughter who is close. So that’s how people get free of debt. What the GM prize is, is a parent. If the parents are smart and let their kids start off their careers debt free and live debt free, it frees them to do things. They can take chances. They can invest in the market. They can start a business. They can do all kinds of things. But if you start out in debt, you can’t do anything. If you want to start a business, no one is going to give you any money if you already owe money.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
It’s a huge burden.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Yeah. So we need a system where everybody is debt free at some point in their life. That’s what the government should do, and then leave people alone. You can tell I’m a right-wing conservative.
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
I can. Can I ask you a few more questions?
Emil J Freireich, MD:
Anything. Yeah. I’m enjoying this. You want to buy me lunch?
Tacey Ann Rosolowski, PhD:
Maybe.
Emil J Freireich, MD:
I’m going to have lunch in about a half an hour.
Recommended Citation
Freireich, Emil J. MD and Rosolowski, Tacey A. PhD, "Chapter 15: A Legacy of Strong Faculty and Advances in Blood Cancers; Awards; as a Disease and MD Anderson Presidents" (2011). Interview Chapters. 35.
https://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewchapters/35
Conditions Governing Access
Open
