Spanish bioquemist. PhD in Chemistry, he moved to the United States in 1974 and worked for Bethesda Institute, where he carried out many research investigations that led him to discover the molecular basis of cancer and to isolate an oncogene in a human tumour (1981). He won Juan Carlos I award of Investigation because of his work. In 1988 he started running the Department of Oncology of the Squibb Institute, Princeton. In the late 90s he returned to Spain and has been director of the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) Carlos III, Madrid, since 1998.

What aspects of your research do you consider to be more difficult to transmit to society?

It’s not easy to answer this question. Perhaps the complexity of tumour cell in particular and of cells in general. By extrapolation, it even amazes me the high level of ignorance of society in relation to these topics, which are all in all the basis of what we are.

As the director, what does the CNIO programme consist of?

At this moment there are eight CNIO research programmes: three basic research programmes, two of translational research, two of applied research and one technology support programme. Therefore, we try to approach cancer study from the larger number of angles possible within the obvious limitations of a middle-sized research centre like CNIO.

Mouse genome manipulation enables to generate experimental tumours more and more similar to humans’. Is it likely that it has a major impact on the development of new therapies after a while?

I hope so. Otherwise I would not work on this. So that this premise can be fulfilled, however, models need to be increasingly sophisticated and it is necessary that the pharmaceutical industry "believes in it" and invests more resources in this area. If predictions are correct, both time and sources could be saved in clinical development of future drugs not in a very distant future.

What are the research lines you have started lately based on?

It is difficult to say because the vast majority of the readers wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. Anyway, in a simplified way I can tell you that we have identified two proteins in a mouse model system whose elimination or selective inhibition block the formation of lung tumours. These tumours are not so aggressive though as the tumours of cancer patients. It is important that people understand that scientific method requires a reductionist process that makes it possible to work in sufficiently simplified systems which allow us to test our hypotheses experimentally. Once tested, you should go the opposite direction to establish whether these hypotheses are met in increasingly complex systems until get close to the real world, i.e. the cancer patient in our case.

What specialized field does you group exactly belong to?

It works on developing new therapies, to be precise. My work team is focused on identifying molecular targets (proteins) that are essential for the development of two specific types of cancer – lung adenocarcinoma and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, both inducted by the oncogenic K-Ras – with the ultimate goal to design new therapeutic strategies based on inhibition of these targets.

Have you noticed any significant differences between male / female mice? If so, could you apply them to men / women?

Apart from the typical tumours of the reproductive organs of each gender (breast, ovary, prostate, etc.), there are not big differences. In other words, whoever smokes has a high probability of developing lung cancer either male or female. It happens exactly the same with mice experimental models; if you activate an oncogenic K-Ras (the most commonly mutated oncogenic among smokers), lung cancer is inducted in both male and female mice.

Does your research have any direct application for the patient?

No. We must wait until the selective inhibitors against the targets we have identified may someday be useful in the clinic.

Does patient’s attitude affect during the healing process?

This question is somewhat difficult to answer because it can be interpreted in many ways. Having a positive attitude is always favourable, not only against cancer but before any other adversity. Nevertheless, it’s also important for people to know that molecular processes implied in a tumour development move on regardless of whether your attitude is positive or not. A positive attitude when there is a storm does not prevent to get wet but there is no doubt that, once the storm is gone, someone who has faced up with a positive attitude and giving no importance will be in a better situation than someone complaining about having been wet.

Which is the status of cancer prevention and its early detection?

These two terms are often mixed up but they are completely different in fact. Prevention is only applicable to those tumours of which we know the cause. Unfortunately, they are not many of these and society does not take the ones we know as seriously as they deserve. The best known example is naturally smoking. You only need to have a look in the archives to read opinions that still defend the use of tobacco in the name of freedom and, although it must be respected, it is still freedom to be self-inflicted injured. Despite with a lower incidence number, there are other types of avoidable tumours – for instance, the carcinoma of the cervix in the cases with risk of human papillomavirus infection, since there is already a protective vaccination against it. Other examples of preventable cancers would be melanoma and liver cancer but only in cases where there is chronic or at least continuous tissue damage. That is, a continuous and excessive exposure to the sun without the proper protection in the case of melanoma and a hepatic infection or a chronic cirrhosis in the case of liver carcinoma.

With regard to early detection it is a more complex issue, as technical considerations should be taken into account, such as the fact that not all tumours can be detected in their early stages, as well as economic considerations, that is, the public health system could not assume the cost of periodical revisions for the entire population. That’s why it is necessary to focus on tumours with a more feasible early detection like breast, skin, cervix, prostate, etc. It’s also important to make society aware of the need to collaborate at least in these cases. Unfortunately, in most cases tumours with the worst prognosis like pancreatic, lung, glioblastoma, etc. neither warn nor can be detected in their early stages.

Why is there such a big gap between science and business?

I don’t think that’s true when speaking in terms of my area of specialization. Pharmaceutical industry spends billions on research annually. However, if you refer to science in its purest form, i.e., in expanding our knowledge about the world surrounding us or about ourselves, I’d say that companies are not responsible for this but governments. In fact, each country invests in scientific knowledge on the basis of two main criteria: economic potential and above all its culture. In other words, the importance that each country as a whole, government and society gives to science.

What is the situation of research in Spain? How do you think the work of many Spanish scientists would be without the aid from the EU?

It looks sick. Fortunately, I see it still has chances to recover. But to do so, the needed attention must be paid and medicines, given. In the 90s we missed out the advance made in the 80s because we did not protect R&D from the downturn. Now we are about to repeat the same mistake, since human beings have sadly a poor memory so they often make the same mistakes over again. Hopefully, it won’t happen the same this time because we will never get back on our feet unless we forget about this policy. Economical downturns are cyclical and we may lose investments if we don’t protect them.

Regarding the second question, I can answer on behalf of the whole CNIO. CNIO is the research centre in Spain that gets more resources from the European Union competitively. I would dare to say that CNIO wouldn’t be viable without these resources

Did you know about Biopol’H? How can a consortium like Biopol’H help with carrying out the scientific work / research / health?

I don’t know Biopol’H in deep detail but indeed I’ve heard of this consortium. This idea has already had good results in other countries around us and can be a very effective tool to improve the use of resources and to encourage interaction not only among scientists but also among scientific institutions.