News >

Future AACR President Discusses Her Leadership Goals and Research Experience

Laura Panjwani
Published: Friday, Apr 03, 2015

Dr. Nancy E. Davidson

Nancy E. Davidson, MD

Nancy E. Davidson, MD, has been elected as the AACR president-elect for 2015-2016, and will be assuming the role of president in April 2016. As the director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Center, a medical oncologist, and a physician-scientist with a focus on clinical and translational breast cancer research, Davidson is involved in nearly every step of cancer research from the lab to the clinic.

In an interview with OncLive, Davidson discusses her leadership plans for the AACR, as well as precision medicine in oncology®, challenges with research funding, and the role of epigenetics in breast cancer.

What do you hope to accomplish as AACR president?

The AACR has been in existence since 1907. It is probably one of the oldest of the cancer-related professional societies in the world. This is an organization with long-standing goals, and I think the purpose of a volunteer president like myself is to continue to push for those goals.

What the AACR emphasizes, and what I will also, is to create new knowledge about cancer and to advance human health. We want to make sure that we are doing everything possible to give our members the advantages they need to accomplish their professional goals. Our members can’t accomplish those goals if there are no resources. There is a lot of emphasis right now on trying to maintain, and hopefully advance, our research funding in this country. That will be a big mission for us.

We are also putting effort into thinking about our workforce, and making sure that people are still coming to work in this field. Cancer, despite our best efforts, is not going away anytime soon. We need to make sure that we have the next generation of individuals who are passionate about cancer research and are productive.

Lastly, I am a physician-scientist by training, so I do want to make sure we think of the entire spectrum of cancer research. This includes the most basic discoveries, all the way through to how we take insights about cancer and disperse them into the community.

What do you see as the primary barrier to the continued advancement of cancer research today?

The biggest challenge in cancer research that is different from a decade ago is the resource problem. Now is a time when our momentum has never been higher. There are so many opportunities to apply what we are learning about normal and malignant cells and panomics, which are genomics, proteomics and transcriptomics. Scientifically, we have this giant opportunity and momentum; unfortunately, it is paired with a time of great economic stress. That is different from a decade ago.

The National Institutes of Health doubled the budget for research between 1998 and 2003. This was an opportunity for a lot of people to come into the field, for new projects to start up, and for new ideas to emerge. However, it came to a screeching halt after that build-up. This is a huge problem. There is a real mismatch between scientific opportunity and resources.

How do we go about changing that?

We, as a country, need to come to grips with the fact that biomedical research needs to be a huge part of our investment going forward. It should be through federal means and with support from corporate America. We need to link all of those potential allies and think about how we can effectively provide resources going forward.

Outside of funding challenges, what recent changes have been most significant in terms of understanding the treatment of cancer and what is on the horizon?

In the last decade, we have developed a deeper understanding that cancer is not a handful of diseases, but instead a large number of diseases. With something like lung cancer or breast cancer, there are so many different molecular subtypes that come under the umbrella of breast or lung cancer but are very different biologically. They have different implications in terms of the natural history of the disease, and they certainly have different implications in terms of treatment. This has caused the whole initiative toward precision medicine, which President Obama accelerated earlier this year. I think that was inspired in part by the experience in cancer research, where we have been able to decipher so many different subtypes.

Has any of your research focused on precision medicine?

Early on in my training, I was fortunate to land a summer job in a breast cancer lab around the time we were beginning to understand some of the science behind the estrogen receptor and estrogen response mechanisms in breast cancer. That is kind of the poster child for precision medicine. These are pathways that we can identify and understand, and that we have been able to effectively target for several decades now. My interest remains in that area. I’ve had a lot of interest in estrogen response and hormone resistance in breast cancer.




View Conference Coverage
Online CME Activities
TitleExpiration DateCME Credits
34th Annual Miami Breast Cancer Conference® Clinical Case Vignette Series™May 25, 20182.0
Community Practice Connections™: CDK4/6 Inhibitors With the Experts: The Role of Emerging Agents for the Management of Metastatic Breast CancerMay 30, 20182.0
Publication Bottom Border
Border Publication
x