One of the AACR 2025’s opening plenary talks was presented by the brilliant Kevan M. Shokat, MD. His presentation has reminded me of his pioneering work on cell signaling networks and protein kinases, which fueled his transformational work in developing KRAS-targeted drugs. As I sit listening, I ponder the vast opportunities for new discoveries that could materialize this week from this “network” of cancer researchers I’m sitting amongst in this expansive hall.
With more than 20,000 attendees descending on the McCormick Place Convention Center this year, the collective knowledge across a panoply of cancers always strikes me as remarkably profound. I’m witnessing scientists assembled and connected by a common goal: to find cures for intractable cancers for the benefit of patients most in need.
Historically, cancer researchers were siloed and compartmentalized, distinct by their respective disciplines. Fortunately, today we see more unification in the cancer community, driven ostensibly by the shared multiple pathways that connect many of the cancers being discussed this week at AACR.
The second plenary talk by Paul Mischel, MD, gave an illuminating talk focused on extra-chromosomal DNA (ecDNA) and the implications for the amplification of oncogenes and drug resistance. He explained that ecDNA interferes with the immune response, so if we can find ways to block ecDNA, we may be able to stem the tide of cancer proliferation.
Johanna Joyce, PhD, then took the rostrum and spoke eloquently on the tumor microenvironment, underscoring the immense complexity of targeting key cell types and understanding clonal evolution, drug resistance, and the inherent issues cancer researchers face with brain tumor biology.
The final speaker, Catherine Wu, MD, discussed, with great clarity, the work her team is doing in ovarian cancer and cancer vaccines. She made the point that despite our efforts to deal with advanced diseases, we should be making moves to focus on cancer prevention. Wu hopes that in the near future every patient will receive cancer genomic profiling as a standard diagnostic workup, and she looks forward to a time when we can ensure patients have access to cancer vaccines as part of their routine clinical care.
All of this foundational research, of course, is contingent on funding. With recent catastrophic cuts by the current administration in the United States, the cancer research community has been left in a perilous situation. There are growing concerns about political interference, funding disruptions, and instability in the cancer research ecosystem, which ultimately threatens to undermine scientific progress. Actions to take in the stand against this existential threat were discussed during a panel session comprised of passionate past and present leaders from the NIH and AACR and patient advocates.
The discussion opened with the statement that, according to a Research America poll, the United States is a divided nation. The population may be separated by what they watch on Netflix or by what brands they like, but there are things Americans are unified in their opinions—namely, whether the federal government should support basic scientific research in the interests of advancing the frontiers of knowledge. Additionally, there is a majority consensus that the U.S. public is happy to supply more money via taxes to help fund innovation in scientific research.
Patricia LoRusso, DO, FAACR, who was serving her penultimate day as AACR president, gave an impassioned talk on the bleak implications of what these cuts will mean. She made the point that, “When researchers start altering proposals, not because the science is weak, but because the politics are difficult, something much deeper is lost.” Her passion was palpable as she continued to espouse evocative statements, and the audience was compelled to give a standing ovation.
Subsequent speakers followed in the same emphatic vein. Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, addressed the audience not simply as a previous NIH director, but more importantly as a cancer survivor herself, underscoring that the continuity of clinical trials is essential to sustaining progress against cancer. Larry Saltzman, MD, is a retired physician and former executive research director for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, who had earlier been honored as a recipient of the 2025 Distinguished Public Service Award at the AACR Annual Meeting for his exceptional advocacy for NIH funding said, “I’m proof of what happens when Congress prioritizes decades of researchers, frontline providers, and a part of raising our voice to help those understand that investment in basic research is incredible.”
As I cast my eye around the auditorium, I was left with a feeling of regret that more attendees hadn’t been there to bear witness to such a great discussion. It was duly noted by Kristen Dahlgren, a former NBC journalist and cancer survivor, who made the point that we need to do a better job of articulating and disseminating the gravity of the situation—she felt that effective communication is clearly faltering. Dahlgren said, “There is a way to unite this country and unite people behind what you’re doing.”
Dahlgren knows better than most how communicating a story in the right way, to the right audience, is critical in building the requisite interest, engagement, and ultimately movement to effect change. To that end, she is working on a documentary highlighting the funding crisis we’re facing, so let’s hope this can create the groundswell for meaningful change. Whatever doubts lingered throughout this discussion, these seemed to dissipate through their collective indomitable spirit, and as LoRusso said, “Urgency is not a hypothetical variable.” Patients simply cannot wait, nor should they have to.
The post Hope and Headwinds at AACR in Chicago appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.
With more than 20,000 attendees descending on the McCormick Place Convention Center this year, the collective knowledge across a panoply of cancers always strikes me as remarkably profound. I’m witnessing scientists assembled and connected by a common goal: to find cures for intractable cancers for the benefit of patients most in need.
Historically, cancer researchers were siloed and compartmentalized, distinct by their respective disciplines. Fortunately, today we see more unification in the cancer community, driven ostensibly by the shared multiple pathways that connect many of the cancers being discussed this week at AACR.
The second plenary talk by Paul Mischel, MD, gave an illuminating talk focused on extra-chromosomal DNA (ecDNA) and the implications for the amplification of oncogenes and drug resistance. He explained that ecDNA interferes with the immune response, so if we can find ways to block ecDNA, we may be able to stem the tide of cancer proliferation.
Johanna Joyce, PhD, then took the rostrum and spoke eloquently on the tumor microenvironment, underscoring the immense complexity of targeting key cell types and understanding clonal evolution, drug resistance, and the inherent issues cancer researchers face with brain tumor biology.
The final speaker, Catherine Wu, MD, discussed, with great clarity, the work her team is doing in ovarian cancer and cancer vaccines. She made the point that despite our efforts to deal with advanced diseases, we should be making moves to focus on cancer prevention. Wu hopes that in the near future every patient will receive cancer genomic profiling as a standard diagnostic workup, and she looks forward to a time when we can ensure patients have access to cancer vaccines as part of their routine clinical care.
All of this foundational research, of course, is contingent on funding. With recent catastrophic cuts by the current administration in the United States, the cancer research community has been left in a perilous situation. There are growing concerns about political interference, funding disruptions, and instability in the cancer research ecosystem, which ultimately threatens to undermine scientific progress. Actions to take in the stand against this existential threat were discussed during a panel session comprised of passionate past and present leaders from the NIH and AACR and patient advocates.
The discussion opened with the statement that, according to a Research America poll, the United States is a divided nation. The population may be separated by what they watch on Netflix or by what brands they like, but there are things Americans are unified in their opinions—namely, whether the federal government should support basic scientific research in the interests of advancing the frontiers of knowledge. Additionally, there is a majority consensus that the U.S. public is happy to supply more money via taxes to help fund innovation in scientific research.
Patricia LoRusso, DO, FAACR, who was serving her penultimate day as AACR president, gave an impassioned talk on the bleak implications of what these cuts will mean. She made the point that, “When researchers start altering proposals, not because the science is weak, but because the politics are difficult, something much deeper is lost.” Her passion was palpable as she continued to espouse evocative statements, and the audience was compelled to give a standing ovation.
Subsequent speakers followed in the same emphatic vein. Monica M. Bertagnolli, MD, addressed the audience not simply as a previous NIH director, but more importantly as a cancer survivor herself, underscoring that the continuity of clinical trials is essential to sustaining progress against cancer. Larry Saltzman, MD, is a retired physician and former executive research director for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, who had earlier been honored as a recipient of the 2025 Distinguished Public Service Award at the AACR Annual Meeting for his exceptional advocacy for NIH funding said, “I’m proof of what happens when Congress prioritizes decades of researchers, frontline providers, and a part of raising our voice to help those understand that investment in basic research is incredible.”
As I cast my eye around the auditorium, I was left with a feeling of regret that more attendees hadn’t been there to bear witness to such a great discussion. It was duly noted by Kristen Dahlgren, a former NBC journalist and cancer survivor, who made the point that we need to do a better job of articulating and disseminating the gravity of the situation—she felt that effective communication is clearly faltering. Dahlgren said, “There is a way to unite this country and unite people behind what you’re doing.”
Dahlgren knows better than most how communicating a story in the right way, to the right audience, is critical in building the requisite interest, engagement, and ultimately movement to effect change. To that end, she is working on a documentary highlighting the funding crisis we’re facing, so let’s hope this can create the groundswell for meaningful change. Whatever doubts lingered throughout this discussion, these seemed to dissipate through their collective indomitable spirit, and as LoRusso said, “Urgency is not a hypothetical variable.” Patients simply cannot wait, nor should they have to.
The post Hope and Headwinds at AACR in Chicago appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.