Podcasts about nibr

I denne ukas podkast skal vi se nærmere på relasjonen mellom EU og kommunesektoren. For ja visst påvirker EUs politikk hva som står på dagsorden i kommunestyrer og fylkesting, men har også norske kommuner bruk for EU? Christina Kullmann Five, spesialrådgiver i KS på EU/EØS, kommer for å opplyse oss om hva som skjer i EU akkurat nå, og hva som står på spill når Trump truer med handelskrig, og Kina en stadig sterkere posisjon i økonomien. Hun er opptatt av hvordan kommuner og fylkeskommuner kan være med å påvirke, og at de får mye igjen av å engasjere seg og øke sin kunnskap.Forsker Ole Andreas Danielsen ved By- og regionforskningsinstituttet NIBR har forsket på norske kommuners forhold til EU, og mener at kommuner er en viktig kanal for å påvirke EU. Det er særlig tre grunner til det, forklarer han i podkasten. Hans konklusjon er at sentrale myndigheter bør lytte mer til kommunene i den praktiske utformingen og utførelsen av EU-politikk. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I dagens episode har vi besøk av forskerne Aadne Aasland og Marthe Handå Myhre. De forsker på Russland og Ukraina ved NIBR ved Oslo-Met, og har gjennomført en undersøkelse hvor de blant annet ser på hva nordmenn syns om norsk russlandspolitikk og hva vi tenker om russere.  Aasland leder Ukrainett, et nettverk med cirka 100 norske ukrainaforskere. Du kan melde deg på nyhetsbrevet deres her. Alle tallene fra undersøkelsen vil om kort tid publiseres på RE:Barents-prosjektets hjemmeside  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On 12 June Russia celebrated its national day, “Russia day”. This day is marked with concerts and celebrations in all the regions in the Russian Federation. This year, alongside celebrations from Moscow, Novgorod, Buryatia and other Russian regions, the news on Russia's state-owned TV-channel Rossiya 1 showed images from the Kherson region, a Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia in September 2022. In the clip, teenagers were making cookies glazed in the three colors of the Russian flag. According to the voiceover these cookies were to be given to participants in the “special operation in Ukraine” – a euphemism for Russia's war against Ukraine. In this way, Russian propaganda attempts to normalize a view of the “new regions” as part of Russia thus potentially expanding the boundaries of the Russian nation. In this episode of the NUPI podcast The World Stage, we take a closer look at everyday nationalism. This approach focuses on how people consume, reproduce and challenge the nation through ordinary daily practices. We also talk about everyday nationalist practices that take place in Russia and Ukraine amidst Russia's war against Ukraine. Finally, we talk about the propaganda regarding the war which is conveyed daily to ordinary Russians through state television. Here, you will hear from J. Paul Goode, McMillian Chair in Russian Studies and Associate Professor at Carleton University, Marthe Handå Myhre, senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute for Urban and regional research (NIBR) and Natalia Moen-Larsen, senior researcher at NUPI. The podcast is produced as part of Russia Research Network (RUSSNETT) project. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Det har kommet over 70 000 ukrainere til Norge i kjølvannet av Russlands fullskala krig mot nabolandet sitt. På kort tid har ukrainere blitt en av Norges største innvandrergrupper og bor i kommuner over hele landet. Vilde Hernes er forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. I denne samtalen med programleder Jeff Lugowe snakker forskeren om hvordan ukrainske flyktninger har opplevd mottak, bosetting og integrering i Norge, samt erfaringene til ansatte i mottaksapparatet. Samtalen baserer seg på en ny studie om de samme temaene som Hernes har vært prosjektleder og hovedforfatter av. Studien ble gjennomført på oppdrag fra Integrerings- og mangfoldsdirektoratet (IMDi). Hernes og kolleger ved NIBR holder på med flere forskningsprosjekter knyttet til Ukraina og ukrainske flyktninger. Har du fått med deg at Viten og snakkis er på YouTube?

Mikä on tärkeää? -podcastin tässä jaksossa keskustellaan verkkokauppa Temun aggressiivisesta markkinalle tulossa ja sen tuloksista (ajasta 1:31 alkaen), tekoälyn vaikutuksesta hakukoneisiin ja hakumarkkinaan (21:04) sekä vanhojen (retro)mainosten uudelleenkierrättämisestä, jiingleistä ja äänibrändäyksestä (26:40). Tällä kertaa juontaja Santtu Kottilan ohella panelisteina digimarkkinointitoimisto Grapevinen Jussi Saunamäki sekä tietoliikenneyhtiö Telia Finlandin Laura Kultaranta. Linkit podcastissa nostettuihin artikkeleihin: 1)https://kauppa.fi/uutishuone/2024/03/21/analyysi-temun-vyorytys-nakyy-myos-suomessa-verkkojatit-shein-ja-temu-kasvavat-hurjaa-vauhtia/ ja https://www.is.fi/digitoday/tietoturva/art-2000010215674.html ja https://www.hs.fi/talous/art-2000010325114.html 2)https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-02-19-gartner-predicts-search-engine-volume-will-drop-25-percent-by-2026-due-to-ai-chatbots-and-other-virtual-agents ja https://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/gartner-predicts-25-dip-in-search-volumes-by-2026-177921.html 3)https://www.markkinointiuutiset.fi/artikkelit/olvi-palautti-ala-ota-sita-vakavasti--mainoslauluklassikon ***** Mikä on tärkeää? -podcast on MarkkinointiRadion ohjelma, jossa kammataan läpi ajankohtaisia ja jokaiselle markkinoijalle tärkeitä uutisia. Mukana on neljän panelistin joukko, joista kaksi on kerrallaan ohjelman juontaja Santtu Kottilan vieraana. Jokainen panelisti tuo Kottilan lisäksi mukanaan ajankohtaisen ja merkittävän uutisen tai ilmiön, minkä tärkeyden ja merkityksen raati käsittelee. Joka viikko käydään siis läpi kolme tärkeää ja ajankohtaista aihetta. Lisätetoja Mikä on tärkeää? -podcastista saat esimerkiksi täältä: www.mkollektiivi.fi/mika-on-tarkeaa Podcast toteutetaan yhteistyössä markkinointitoimisto Julkee x Lempeen, tietoliikenneyhtiö Telia Finlandin, digimarkkinointitoimisto Grapevinen sekä strategisen bränditoimisto Wörksin kanssa.

Jørn Holm-Hansen er forsker ved By -og regionforskningsinstituttet NIBR ved OsloMet. Hans spesialfelt er politikk og forvaltning i øst- og sentraleuropeiske land, særlig Russland, Ukraina og Polen. I episoden forsøker vi å forstå hvorfor så mange polske bønder og lastebilsjåfører blokkerer grensen til Ukraina, og om det finnes noen løsning på blokkaden.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Digitaliseringsdirektoratet (Digdir) anslår at rundt 850 000 personer er sårbare i møte med offentlige digitale tjenester og risikerer å havne i et digitalt utenforskap. Hvordan kan utenforskapet forebygges? I denne episoden av KAI-podden møter vi forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR, Tone Liodden og forsker ved SINTEF, Kari Sand.

Podkast-redaksjonen har tatt turen til Kirkenes i forbindelse med Barents spektakel, en møteplass for kultur- og samfunnsinteresserte på begge sider av den norsk-russiske grensa. I denne episoden snakker vi med to som har lang erfaring med å samarbeide med russiske partner på ulike nivå. Jørn Holm-Hansen er forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR ved OsloMet og deltager i forskningsprosjektet RE:BARENTS. Marit Jacobsen er nestleder i Barentssekretariatet, et interkommunalt selskap som har støttet norsk-russiske samarbeidsprosjekter i 30 år. Samarbeid med russiske organisasjoner er lagt på is som en følge av Russland sin angrepskrig mot Ukraina. Betyr dette at folk-til-folk samarbeid også bør fryses? Dette spørsmålet stilles over hele landet, men behovet for gode svar kjennes spesielt sterkt her i Kirkenes. Vi beklager litt varierende lydkvalitet. Dette er første gang på lenge vi tester ut mobilt podkaststudio.

Podkast-redaksjonen har tatt turen til Kirkenes i forbindelse med Barents spektakel, en møteplass for kultur- og samfunnsinteresserte på begge sider av den norsk-russiske grensa. I denne episoden snakker vi med to som har lang erfaring med å samarbeide med russiske partner på ulike nivå. Jørn Holm-Hansen er forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR ved OsloMet og deltager i forskningsprosjektet RE:BARENTS. Marit Jacobsen er nestleder i Barentssekretariatet, et interkommunalt selskap som har støttet norsk-russiske samarbeidsprosjekter i 30 år. Samarbeid med russiske organisasjoner er lagt på is som en følge av Russland sin angrepskrig mot Ukraina. Betyr dette at folk-til-folk samarbeid også bør fryses? Dette spørsmålet stilles over hele landet, men behovet for gode svar kjennes spesielt sterkt her i Kirkenes. Vi beklager litt varierende lydkvalitet. Dette er første gang på lenge vi tester ut mobilt podkaststudio.

På søndag trengte demonstranter seg inn Kongressbygningen, presidentpalasset, og Høyesterettsbygget i Brasils hovedstad Brasilia. Yuri Kasahara er statsviter og forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. I denne spesialpodden forklarer norsk-brasilianeren hvordan dette kunne skje og hvilke konsekvenser stormingen kan få for den politiske utviklingen i landet. Vil du høre mer om brasiliansk politikk og høstens valgkamp som endte med seier for Lula da Silva? Kasahara var gjest i podkasten kort tid før presidentvalget. Episoden kan du høre her.

På søndag trengte demonstranter seg inn Kongressbygningen, presidentpalasset, og Høyesterettsbygget i Brasils hovedstad Brasilia. Yuri Kasahara er statsviter og forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. I denne spesialpodden forklarer norsk-brasilianeren hvordan dette kunne skje og hvilke konsekvenser stormingen kan få for den politiske utviklingen i landet. Vil du høre mer om brasiliansk politikk og høstens valgkamp som endte med seier for Lula da Silva? Kasahara var gjest i podkasten kort tid før presidentvalget. Episoden kan du høre her.

Og hvorfor gjorde de det? Marthe Handå Myhre og Jørn Holm-Hansen er begge Russland- og Ukraina-kjennere og forskere ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. I denne episoden deler de hovedfunnene fra en omfattende medieanalyse av norske stemmer som uttrykkte støtte eller forståelse for Russlands annektering av Krim. Hvordan begrunnet de sin støtte for annekteringen? Hvilken rolle spiller underliggende politiske motivasjoner og standpunkter og hvordan sammenfaller argumentene deres med russiske talepunkter? Artikkelen ‘Crimea will forever be Russian': dissenting Norwegian media discourses on Russia's annexation of Crimea ble publisert i European Politics and Society. Den stammer fra forskningsprosjektet PRORUSS: Russian Policies of Influence in the Populist-Pragmatic Nexus. Marthe og Jørn gjestet også podkasten i sommer 2022 og snakket om ukrainsk identitet i utvikling.

Og hvorfor gjorde de det? Marthe Handå Myhre og Jørn Holm-Hansen er begge Russland- og Ukraina-kjennere og forskere ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. I denne episoden deler de hovedfunnene fra en omfattende medieanalyse av norske stemmer som uttrykkte støtte eller forståelse for Russlands annektering av Krim. Hvordan begrunnet de sin støtte for annekteringen? Hvilken rolle spiller underliggende politiske motivasjoner og standpunkter og hvordan sammenfaller argumentene deres med russiske talepunkter? Artikkelen ‘Crimea will forever be Russian': dissenting Norwegian media discourses on Russia's annexation of Crimea ble publisert i European Politics and Society. Den stammer fra forskningsprosjektet PRORUSS: Russian Policies of Influence in the Populist-Pragmatic Nexus. Marthe og Jørn gjestet også podkasten i sommer 2022 og snakket om ukrainsk identitet i utvikling.

Gustavo Petro vant presidentvalget i sommer med knapp margin og ble med dette landets første venstreorienterte president i landets moderne historie. Valgseieren hans ble lagt merke til verden rundt og mange følger spent med på hvilken politikk den nyvalgte president får gjennomført i Sør-Amerikas nest største land. Henrik Wiig, forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR, kjenner Colombia godt og har flere forsknings- og studieopphold i landet i bagasjen. I denne episoden av podden gir forskeren oss innblikk i: ✔️ valgseieren til Petro og hvilke velgergrupper vippet valget ✔️ landrettigheter og territorier hvor staten mangler kontroll ✔️ statusen for kampen mot dyrking narkotika og utsikter til utvikling av nye økonomiske kilder, som fornybar energi ✔️ tiltak mot avskoging i Amazonas Henrik har sammen med kolleger ved NIBR fått tilslag på en stor NORAD-evaluering av Klima og Skogsatsningen i Colombia, Peru, Brazil og Guyana. Programverten for denne episoden er Jeff Lugowe.

Gustavo Petro vant presidentvalget i sommer med knapp margin og ble med dette landets første venstreorienterte president i landets moderne historie. Valgseieren hans ble lagt merke til verden rundt og mange følger spent med på hvilken politikk den nyvalgte president får gjennomført i Sør-Amerikas nest største land. Henrik Wiig, forsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR, kjenner Colombia godt og har flere forsknings- og studieopphold i landet i bagasjen. I denne episoden av podden gir forskeren oss innblikk i: ✔️ valgseieren til Petro og hvilke velgergrupper vippet valget ✔️ landrettigheter og territorier hvor staten mangler kontroll ✔️ statusen for kampen mot dyrking narkotika og utsikter til utvikling av nye økonomiske kilder, som fornybar energi ✔️ tiltak mot avskoging i Amazonas Henrik har sammen med kolleger ved NIBR fått tilslag på en stor NORAD-evaluering av Klima og Skogsatsningen i Colombia, Peru, Brazil og Guyana. Programverten for denne episoden er Jeff Lugowe.

In part two of this two-part ASCO Education podcast episode, host Dr. Jeremy Cetnar (Oregon Health & Science University) continues the conversation with Drs. Lauren Abrey and Jason Faris, whose careers have criss-crossed academia and industry. They share words of advice for trainees today. If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org. TRANSCRIPT Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Hello, and welcome to Part 2 of the ASCO Educational Podcast episode focused on career choices and transitions. My name is Jeremy Cetnar. I'm a Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor of medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. In Part 1, Dr. Lauren Abrey and Dr. Jason Faris about their motivations for pursuing medicine, and how they arrived at the different positions they've had. Today, we'll further explore career fulfillment, maximizing impact on patient care, and differences between working in academia and industry. Dr. Faris, what have you learned from the different roles you have had, and what aspects of your current work do you find most rewarding? Dr. Jason Faris: So, there's a lot to discuss here. In my academic and patient care roles, I felt extremely privileged to forge strong bonds with patients and their families, to offer support, counseling and hope in the context of making really difficult, challenging decisions... to rejoice in the individual victories, whether that was clean scans and normal tumor markers after adjuvant therapy for Stage III colon cancer, using the neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced pancreatic cancer and watching them go to resection, helping to maintain quality of life by addressing key symptoms that a cancer patient unfortunately must endure, and providing emotional support when things do not go as hoped. Whereas the latter times in GI cancer patients are unfortunately all too common. And the moments or clinic visits where the cancer has recurred, or the treatments aren't working really do take their emotional toll on clinicians. I'll just say I took many of those losses personally. And as a general rule in medicine, I tend to wear my heart on my sleeve, which can be a mixed blessing. But that shared sense of purpose and the many times where you were able to offer something meaningful to patients and families provided real fulfillment and joy. I think at the time of the two transitions I've had, this was fundamentally the most difficult part for me, which was relinquishing these direct patient care interactions. So, another highly rewarding part of my role in academia was working with colleagues to open clinical trials or conduct clinical research. I had opportunities to be mentored by or collaborate with multiple people Ted Hong, Dave Ryan, Chin Wu, Jeff Clark, David Ting, and others at Mass General, as well as Lionel Lewis, Konstantin Dragnev, and Steve Leach at Dartmouth. Treating patients on clinical trials was always a stressful enterprise but highly rewarding, and I had the chance to be part of some really amazing groundbreaking trials at MGH, in some cases witnessing breathtaking responses in patients who were out of treatment options, in some cases for many months. Another highly rewarding aspect of my role in academia or my roles in academia involved all of the many opportunities to engage in teaching and mentoring, whether that's with medical students, residents, or fellows, where the enthusiasm for helping patients and learning was always infectious. Finally, I'd be remiss not to mention the wonderful nurse practitioners that I've worked with like Patty Tammaro at Mass General, with whom I cared for many GI cancer patients for years, and Elizabeth McGrath at Dartmouth, whose wisdom and dedication to patient care was really inspiring. On the industry side, on the NIBR side, I've had the opportunity to work on novel therapeutics that are making a bench to bedside transition from a drug candidate to a first in human Phase 1 trial, which to me is a thrilling, complex, and highly fulfilling endeavor that contributes critical knowledge to advance the field. And in the best of cases, identifies therapies that has the potential, that have the potential to alter the prognosis for thousands of future patients. As a clinician or clinical investigators, those times where your patients are responding to their treatment, whether it's on or off a clinical trial are wonderful and so incredibly rewarding. And I would argue that there's a similar phenomenon in running trials in industry, where there's nothing quite as magical as having a cadre of patients who had run out of treatment options, enrolled to a clinical trial designed based on compelling science, go on to experience sustained and significant responses. I absolutely love the commitment to patients and to follow the science, the collaborations among our teams, and interactions with our academic colleagues which I really treasure. I'm part of a team whose responsibility is to ensure the development of a clinical protocol to safely evaluate the potential of that therapeutic, carefully monitor for adverse events, evaluate the emerging pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data, and most fulfilling of all, begin to observe responses in patients whose cancers had progressed on standard of care therapies. So I think the chance to have an opportunity to explore new therapeutics that might impact the eventual treatment of thousands of people with cancer is what keeps me engaged and fulfilled. It's been a wonderful opportunity and applies the clinical skills and patient focus from my prior roles and combines this with the resources and expert teams to run and analyze clinical trials. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: If I can opine a little bit and ask you guys some philosophical questions. I think what I'm hearing today and what I've heard from other folks who have made that transition is that in industry versus academics, you work in a team, and you're evaluated as a team. And that's very different than in academics. You're very much rewarded for, whether it's patient volume or number of papers or leadership. That seems to me like a very big difference in terms of academic versus industry. And I'm wondering if you guys can comment on that a little bit more. Then you guys also mentioned, at least you just mentioned this, Dr. Faris, is that some will also say that when you go into industry, you're able to just impact a much bigger population of folks rather than typically in an academic setting where you are working one on one with patients. And yes, you have your IETs and whatnot, but there's just a bigger vision. Would you say that those are two accurate differences that are fairly significant, Dr. Abrey? Dr. Lauren Abrey: Yes. You are certainly part of a team. But I think if we're honest, you're part of a team when you're in the hospital. So I ran the team of research nurses. I ran the fellowship program. I needed people to manage the patients who were in-patient and to help me look after the clinical trial conduct paperwork, etc. and so I think that does translate into the setup that you find when you move to industry. It may be a little bit that your personal success, and industry can get very sometimes focused on metrics, like what have you contributed? What has the team been successful? So you do need to think about how to set yourself up for success. If you're leading the team, how do you set the team up for success? To me, that doesn't feel terribly different than academic medicine, but I could see where it could be a change depending on what your role was in the academic world. So I think that's reasonable. The other part of what you said, I struggle with that sometimes. I feel like we tell ourselves, that we're impacting more patients. And I think that's true. If we get a drug approved, and potentially that drug is used, not only in the US, but across western countries, in Europe, potentially in China, you get a sense of that. But it's like how do you feel that? You feel the story of an individual patient. Sensing the scale can be hard. News media know this well. They often tell the story of a particular person in the Ukraine right now to try to help us understand the scale of the war, because otherwise, it's a little impossible to digest. So for me, that doesn't always resonate. I think it resonates when I go out and talk to the different physicians practicing in different parts of the world. And I think that has been an incredibly eye-opening experience for me being in the global organization, is seeing the impact well beyond the US, because I think most companies are very indexed on the US. And we understand US practice well, but I think understanding the impact we can have across the world is also really inspiring, humbling, challenging, and something I think we all have to contend with because it's not the same everywhere. So yes, no, and in between, that's where philosophical lives, so thank you. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Yeah. Well, that's a fascinating perspective, the international perspective. Very interesting. Dr. Faris, how about you? Dr. Jason Faris: I completely agree with Lauren. I think on the team question, I definitely feel like we worked on teams in academia as well, whether we're talking about the multidisciplinary groups that are needed to take care of GI cancer patients, which always involves multiple specialties. I think at MGH, in particular, we would tend to go see the patient as a group, which is a bit unusual, to try to get everyone's schedules aligned, to be able to go into the room together. But it really presented an opportunity for the patient and the families to ask questions of us as a group and hear any disagreement that's in the room between the providers right there. There's absolutely a ton of teamwork that goes into taking care of patients. But what you were alluding to, I think, is also right, which is your promotion, your opportunities for advancement are sometimes couched on or developed from accomplishments on the individual side. And I would say more so than is true in industry. I think that's correct as well. I mean, certainly there are multidisciplinary grants that I was a part of, of course, publications that had multiple authors to which I was a contributing author. Sometimes I was first or last author, sometimes I was in the middle, but contributing to the paper. So there was teamwork there, but no question that there's an element of individual accomplishment. How many first- and last-author publications do you have? What's the grant situation look like in terms of ability to supplement the RVUs that you need to generate your clinical…? There's no question that there's an element of that that's not a present to the same degree in an industry role. And I just wanted to speak to the impact side, because I also agree with what Lauren said here. I think the idea and the hope is that in industry, we have an opportunity to potentially affect the lives of many, many, many patients, thousands of patients potentially, with a given cancer type if a new therapy is a homerun and takes off and is approved. That's a huge draw and I think something that motivates all of us is to be a part of something like that. But of course, not every drug, far from it, unfortunately, is going to end up as an approved drug that impacts thousands of patients. So I think it requires some recognition of that fact and patience and continuing to work on multiple projects, and always under the prism of doing the right thing for the patients while those trials are open. And I think that's the key, as well as working on scientifically exciting projects, really proud to say in NIBR that we follow the science. If there's an indication to be explored, based on the science, it may not be the most common indication in cancer, but if the science leads us to that place, that's what we work on. I think that decision making gets tougher, obviously, as you move through the system into a later stage, more commercially informed decision. But I think and certainly on the early phase trials side, that's something that's really exciting. I think on the academic side, taking direct care of patients, you have incredible impact on individual patients, and there's a lot of individual patients. I think you have tremendous opportunity for impact there as well, and your impact can be measured by those that you mentor and teach as well, the committees that you serve on influencing other trials that may be open at your institution. So I would in no way suggest that the impact is less in academia. I don't think that's true at all. I think it's just a different approach. And it is true that if you're lucky enough to work on a program in industry that ends up being an approved drug, you can help thousands of future patients or your team has helped thousands of future patients. That's also true when you're on the academic setting, serving as a PI, contributing safety data and efficacy data, really giving the best information back to the sponsor that you can or maybe you're running your own investigator-initiated study that can change a standard of care down the road. So that's the homerun. That's kind of the Grand Slam of situations that might develop as a medical oncologist on either side of the divide. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Thank you. I'd like to shift gears just a little bit and ask you, for people who are deciding for a transition in their career, what are some characteristics or skills or other attributes that you think would make one successful in industry? What are some things that are really, really important to be successful? And that might be different than in an academic situation or not? I'm not sure. And maybe that's another question is, you know, what are some of the things that make people successful in a career in industry? Dr. Abrey? Dr. Lauren Abrey: So I think there are so many things that you can do in industry that depending on what your strength is, I think you have the opportunity to play to that. So again, I think if you are very entrenched in the science, and that is really what makes you want to get out of bed in the morning, being in the early research group, whether it's Novartis, Roche, other companies or small biotech, you can really dig in and spend time thinking and contributing in incredible ways. And if you're the person who is much more interested, perhaps in finding out, what's influencing the patterns of care and why people are using certain drugs or certain treatment paradigms, you could absolutely work on the absolute other end and work in medical affairs and be the person who's out there, who's the critical partner to whether folks at MGH, OHSU, major cancer centers around the world, to figure out how do we bring those two together. And I think the group in the middle typically, like the drug development group that's getting the approval, so running the large Phase 3 studies, that requires people who are in it a little bit for the long haul. Those tend to be large studies. They run over several years, you're constantly looking at the incoming data, and yet you're blind to the results. So you have to be pretty diligent while you're in that space and willing to just buckle down and work hard. But I think there are things for everyone. And I think it's a little bit similar to what I discovered when you went into medicine. Not everybody's going to be a cardiothoracic surgeon. Only a few of us end up in this weird oncology space. But I think it does give you the chance to reinvent yourself and explore a few things. So I wouldn't say you have to have something. I think probably what you should do is talk to a lot of people. I think people make a lot of assumptions about what a change to a career in industry is or means. And you probably don't know what you don't know. So call people like me or Jason or someone who's done it and talk to people, because I think that's probably the best way you can make an informed choice. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: What do you think, Dr. Faris? Dr. Jason Faris: Can I offer some advice? So are we in this kind of advice section? Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Absolutely. Please do. Dr. Jason Faris: Yeah. So I would say my advice to oncology trainees would be to keep an open mind and stay flexible. I've got a Wayne Gretzky quote that I'd like to bring into this here, which is 'You miss 100% of the shots that you never take'. And I feel like I've probably taken that flexibility to a bit of an extreme with my career path and transitions. But ultimately, it's really enabled me to experience diverse career opportunities that I might otherwise not have had the chance to really experience. I think sometimes there can be assumptions or negative stereotypes about moves from academia to industry. But my own personal experience, now twice, at NIBR has been overwhelmingly positive. I've learned a tremendous amount from both environments, which I think provides me with a different perspective on design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials and allows me to bring a patient-centric view into clearer focus in my industry role. I think it's also really critical to recognize that there are significant stressors and positives to each of these career paths. And they're not necessarily one way. I know multiple colleagues who have made a transition from academia to industry. Other colleagues like me who did return to clinical practice in a clinical investigator role or returning from industry to an academic lab, I've seen that happen multiple times, and multiple colleagues, of course, that have transitioned to other industry roles. So regardless of which path someone ultimately pursues, the real critical thing to me is to remember what brought us to medical school in the first place, which is a commitment and focus to patients above all else. I believe this can be achieved in many career options, direct patient care, teaching and mentoring, clinical investigator roles in the academic setting, or in industry by collaborating with academic colleagues and patient groups, focusing on programs that have high potential to advance treatment options for diseases with high unmet medical need. I happen to think GI cancers are the poster child for that, but you know, I'm a bit biased, and designing trials that are as patient-centric as possible. So that's the kind of advice that I would offer to people is not to think of these as mutually exclusive or there's only one way forward or if I make this decision, it's irreversible. I don't think any of those things are true. And I feel like I'm living proof. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Dr. Abrey, back to you. Any advice? Dr. Lauren Abrey: I can only agree with Jason, and I know a number of people who've gone in both directions, including some who have been in pharma for quite a long time, and then make a decision to go back to patient care. Sometimes, I'm going to say, like as a final career chapter, but it has been a bit like that, including in countries where it's quite difficult to return to practice, that they need to go back and redo some training. So I think, move forward, do things that make you want to get out of bed in the morning, and that probably will change over the course of your career. But I think don't be afraid to try something because the worst thing that could happen—that's always a good question to ask yourself, right? What is the worst thing that could happen? If it doesn't work out, you can probably make another choice. I also think you should, you know, I already said talk to lots of people. But pay attention to that network that you have and nurture it, cultivate it, because some of those people in your network might become mentors at some point, might become advocates or sponsors at some point. And always, always, always take the opportunity to mentor somebody else, including if you're young, do some reverse mentoring. I have gotten some of my best mentoring from somebody that I agreed to mentor, but he really ended up reverse mentoring me. And he's actually now leading a very small biotech and you could argue has leapfrogged part of my career. And that's a fantastic dialogue that I get to have. So, great fun. We only go around this once. So have some fun while you're doing good things, too. Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Ain't that the truth? And I'll tell you, this is a small world. It does feel like the more people you talk to, all of a sudden, we all are connected. And so I just want to thank you, Dr. Abrey, Dr. Faris, for your time today, for your perspective, your interesting stories. And to all the listeners, we appreciate you tuning into this episode of the ASCO Education podcast. Dr. Jason Faris: Thank you very much.   Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.  

Oleksandra Deineko er sosiolog og førsteamenuensis ved V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. I februar ble livet hennes snudd på hodet da Russland gikk til angrep på Ukraina og i mars kom hun som flyktning til Norge. Deineko jobber i dag som gjesteforsker ved NIBR, By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet, samtidig som hun tilbyr studentene sine i Kharkiv fjernundervisning. I denne samtalen på engelsk med programleder Jeff Lugowe, tar Deineko på seg sosiolog-hatten og deler sin analyse av de viktigste samsfunnsområder som har blitt forvandlet av krigen. Analysen hennes bygger til dels på en stor undersøkelse hun har vært med på å gjennomføre sammen med kolleger fra NIBR, hvor ukrainske borgere har blitt spurt om livene sine siden krigens start. Det var en fryd å ha Deineko i studioet og OsloMet er heldig som har fått henne som kollega. Samtidig håper vi at hun veldig snart kan dra hjem til sin egen hjemby. Les mer: NIBR inviterer til seminarrekke om ulike aspekter ved krigen i Ukraina og det ukrainske samfunnet. De planlegger tre nye seminarer etter sommerferien. Deineko har sammen med kollegaene Marthe Hånda Myhre og Aadne Aasland gjennomført en unik undersøkelse i samarbeid med det ukrainske meningsmålingsinstituttet Operatyvna SotsiologijaDeineko har blitt intervjuet i både Dagbladet og Khrono om erfaringene sine med å flykte fra Kharkiv til Oslo.

Oleksandra Deineko er sosiolog og førsteamenuensis ved V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. I februar ble livet hennes snudd på hodet da Russland gikk til angrep på Ukraina og i mars kom hun som flyktning til Norge. Deineko jobber i dag som gjesteforsker ved NIBR, By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet, samtidig som hun tilbyr studentene sine i Kharkiv fjernundervisning. I denne samtalen på engelsk med programleder Jeff Lugowe, tar Deineko på seg sosiolog-hatten og deler sin analyse av de viktigste samsfunnsområder som har blitt forvandlet av krigen. Analysen hennes bygger til dels på en stor undersøkelse hun har vært med på å gjennomføre sammen med kolleger fra NIBR, hvor ukrainske borgere har blitt spurt om livene sine siden krigens start. Det var en fryd å ha Deineko i studioet og OsloMet er heldig som har fått henne som kollega. Samtidig håper vi at hun veldig snart kan dra hjem til sin egen hjemby. Les mer: NIBR inviterer til seminarrekke om ulike aspekter ved krigen i Ukraina og det ukrainske samfunnet. De planlegger tre nye seminarer etter sommerferien. Deineko har sammen med kollegaene Marthe Hånda Myhre og Aadne Aasland gjennomført en unik undersøkelse i samarbeid med det ukrainske meningsmålingsinstituttet Operatyvna SotsiologijaDeineko har blitt intervjuet i både Dagbladet og Khrono om erfaringene sine med å flykte fra Kharkiv til Oslo.

In part one, of this two-part ASCO Education podcast episode, host Dr. Jeremy Cetnar (Oregon Health & Science University) interviews two very accomplished physicians and researchers, Dr. Lauren Abrey and Dr. Jason Faris. We'll hear about their motivations for pursuing medicine and how they arrived at the different positions they've held in academia and industry.  If you liked this episode, please subscribe. Learn more at https://education.asco.org, or email us at education@asco.org.   TRANSCRIPT   Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Hello, and welcome to the ASCO Education podcast episode on career paths and oncology. My name is Jeremy Cetnar. I'm a Medical Oncologist and Associate Professor of Medicine at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. I'm delighted to introduce today's two guests, whose careers in oncology have crisscrossed academia and industry. Dr. Lauren Abrey and Dr. Jason Faris, I'm excited to chat with you about the inspiration and motivations that drive you, people you've leaned on, how you've made your career decisions, challenges you've faced, and more.  So let's start by asking each of you, could you share a little bit about your early life and background, what attracted you to medicine, and who are some of your early mentors and role models? Let's start with you, Dr. Faris.  Dr. Jason Faris: Yeah, I'd be happy to. Thank you. So, I grew up in a small town in South Jersey in Greater Philadelphia. My mom was a registered nurse in pediatrics in the maternal infant unit for many years at Cooper Hospital. I was always interested in science and medicine and my mom's dedication to her patients. Her altruism and compassion served as a real inspiration for me, for my eventual decision to go to medical school. But I took a long time to get there. I had a bit of a circuitous route to arrive to my career in medicine though it started off conventionally enough. I was initially geared towards a premedical track in college, majoring in biology, but an exciting summer research project, working on the biochemical mechanisms underlying osmoregulation in a marine crustacean with mentoring from my first true mentor, Dr. Don Lovett, led me to apply to and attend graduate school in molecular biology at Princeton.  This was followed by a position at Merck as a molecular biologist in the genetic and cellular toxicology group. I went to veterinary school at the University of Pennsylvania where I met my future wife. And then finally, back to the original plan of attending medical school, but I have to say with a much better sense of why I wanted to attend medical school in the first place, now in my late 20s, which was a bit unconventional at the time. I really did my fair share of exploration of Allied Health careers. That's for sure. I attended Johns Hopkins for medical school, where I quickly discovered a passion for internal medicine. And that was far and away my favorite clerkship and sub-internship. That's the background to how I got to medical school.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Dr. Abrey?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: Interesting. I love your story. We share... I grew up in a small town, not so far away, but I was in upstate New York. And I think there were two influences that kind of got me to my ultimate passion for brain tumors. And this sounds a little quirky to start with. But I had a pretty serious head injury as a tween. So I guess I was about 12. I had a skull fracture, epidural hematoma. And while I would never have said I woke up at that moment and thought I have to be a doctor, I think I became fascinated about things to do with the brain.  In parallel, something that I think tinged a lot of my childhood was a number of family members who had cancer. So both of my grandmothers had breast cancer, while I was well aware of the fact that they were sick and battling this. And two of my aunts also had cancer. And I would say it's an interesting split in my family. So about half of them are survivors and about half ultimately died of their disease.  So both of these things really motivated me or focused me on the need to do something important, but also to do something that really motivated me to get out of bed in the morning. I think I was much more to the point. I went straight to college, straight to medical school. I remember calling my parents and telling them I was applying to medical school and having them say, “Wait. You? Really?” So it wasn't necessarily the family expectation that I would do this, but I was very driven and motivated to make some of these choices and then discover my particular interests as I progressed through medical school. So I went to Georgetown for medical school and then have trained at a number of places in the US. I think that's a little bit how I took my first step on this career journey, let's say.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: So take us through what the decisions were like in your head at the end of fellowship in terms of first jobs. Dr. Faris?  Dr. Jason Faris: In terms of my choice to pursue a career in medical oncology, this goes back to medical school during an internal medicine clerkship. I had an assistant chief of service, ACS, at the time, Phil Nivatpumin. He'd go on to become a medical oncologist. He really inspired me with his optimism and bedside manner, including with multiple oncology patients on that clerkship. His enthusiasm for science and medicine, his teaching skills, and an absolutely legendary fund of knowledge. For Phil, he was just an incredible ambassador for both internal medicine and for oncology.  After medical school, I went to internship and residency at Mass General Hospital. And in one of my first rotations, I was on the oncology service, which was not so creatively called Team Three. I think they can up the ante there, but oncology services on Team Three. I was caring for many extremely ill patients battling disease progression from their metastatic cancers, or sadly, in many cases complications of their treatments. During that rotation, I was intrigued by clinical trials offering novel treatment options based on cutting edge science, but also struck by the number of patients who just didn't have any clinical trial options. I became aware of the limitations of the conventional treatments that were offered.  I was really inspired by the patience and dedication of the nurses and doctors caring for them. And I vividly recall a roughly 50-year-old woman I helped care for with AML, watching as the 7+3 chemotherapy caused lots of side effects for her and being amazed by her strength and grace, her resilience as she faced her illness, her potential mortality, and the intense chemotherapy she was undergoing. And I knew during those moments with that leukemia patient while caring for other patients on that oncology service that this was the field I would pursue. Oncology was really the perfect blend of humanism, problem solving, longitudinal follow-up and rapidly accelerating scientific progress leading to new avenues for clinical trial treatments.  Like Lauren, I was motivated and inspired by cancer diagnoses in my own family. My maternal grandmother died of pancreatic cancer during my junior year of college. My dad was diagnosed with colon cancer during my first year of fellowship. So those are all really strong motivators, I would say. And after completing my fellowship at the combined Dana-Farber MGH program, my first position out of fellowship was in the gastrointestinal cancer group at MGH. I actually had been training in genitourinary oncology after my main clinically focused year of fellowship, but I did a chief resident year in the middle of fellowship, and that was the tradition at MGH. And as I was about to return to fellowship for my senior year of fellowship, the head of the GI Group and head of the Cancer Center at the time, Dave Ryan, offered to serve as a clinical research mentor for me in GI cancers. As a senior fellow, I wrote an investigator-initiated trial of cabozantinib for patients with neuroendocrine tumors under his mentorship that went on to demonstrate encouraging results, led to a Phase III study in that cancer population, and I ultimately accepted a position at the MGH Cancer Center in the GI cancer group about 11 years ago. And that was the start of my post-training career.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: And how about you, Dr. Abrey?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: So for people who don't know, I'm actually a neurologist. I finished my training in neurology and then pursued a fellowship in neuro oncology. I would say it was really patients and observations of things that were happening with patients during my residency. I did my residency at the University of Southern California at Los Angeles. I was at the LA County Hospital, which for people who don't know, is one of the largest hospitals in the country. I had the chance to see several patients who had paraneoplastic syndromes, and got the support from different faculty members to write those cases up, and really resulting in my first independent publications. That was what kind of got me bitten by the bug to understand this link between neurology and oncology.  I very intentionally went to Memorial Sloan Kettering to have the opportunity to work with Jerry Posner. And I think I no sooner got there than I got totally bitten by the brain tumor bug, which seems a little counterintuitive. But the paraneoplastic work was kind of deep laboratory work. And I realized that I really enjoyed seeing the patients having the partnership with neurosurgeons and digging into what is still a pretty intense unmet medical need.  So it was an interesting pivot because I really thought I was going to Sloane to focus on paraneoplasia. I still think I learned so much with that interest that I think we can reflect on when we consider how immunology has finally entered into the treatment landscape today for different tumor types and understanding is there a background in paraneoplastic disorders that could help us. But I have to say it was really the brain tumor work that got me focused and the chance to work with people like Lisa DeAngelis, Phil Gutin, and others that was kind of fundamental to my choices. I stayed there for two years of fellowship and then continued as faculty for about another 15 years at Sloan Kettering. So that's really the start of my academic career and the pivot to industry came much later.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: So both of you have impressive career CVs, have been trained at very prestigious institutions. So at some point in time, take me through, what was that transition like between, 'Hmm, what I'm doing is enjoyable, but maybe there's something else out there that I want to explore.' And what I mean by that is mostly industry at this point. So that's an important question that I think a lot of junior faculty face, a lot of mid-career faculty, maybe even later-stage faculty. But I think that's a tension point for a lot of people because I think there's a lot of fear. I think there's a lot of anxiety about moving outside of the academic realm. So, tell us a little bit about what was the pull in terms of going to industry and what were some of the thought processes that were going on. Dr. Faris?    Dr. Jason Faris: I've experienced two transitions, actually, between academia and industry. I like to do things in pairs, I guess. But the first was, after multiple years at the MGH as a resident fellow and as a clinical investigator at the MGH Cancer Center. As a new attending and clinical investigator, I was attempting to balance my work priorities, providing patients with GI cancers, which is a rewarding but complex and I'd say emotionally intense experience, given the phenomenally aggressive and devastating cancers these patients grapple with such as pancreatic cancer, alongside the other responsibilities of my clinical investigator position.  Those other responsibilities included writing grants and papers and protocols, evaluating patients who were interested in open clinical trials, and serving as the principal investigator for multiple studies. I was serving on committees, mentoring and teaching. Patient care was always my top priority as it should and really must be. And I feel incredibly lucky to have had truly amazing colleagues at MGH across several disciplines, from medical oncology, nurse practitioners, practice nurses, radiation oncologists, and surgeons. It was and continues to be a dynamic place full of extremely talented and dedicated clinicians. I think we really all benefited from the coordinated teamwork in both patient care and research in a really tight-knit GI Group.  But nonetheless, for me as someone who delighted in spending large amounts of time with my patients in the clinic rooms, and I think my colleagues would agree frequently agonizing over decisions impacting their care, achieving sufficient balance to really focus on writing and overseeing clinical trials was becoming increasingly challenging for me. And it was in that context, after spending roughly a decade and the combination of residency fellowship training and as an attending in the GI cancer group all at MGH that I made a truly difficult decision to move from my beloved outpatient clinical and clinical investigator role to industry to focus more exclusively on clinical research.  And after interviewing for several industry-based roles, I accepted a position in the early-phase group at the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research or NIBR as we kind of pronounced those words in Cambridge. I absolutely loved my time at NIBR. It's an incredible place with a strong history of and commitment to innovation as well as passionate, talented colleagues, many of whom I've worked with in the past. When I first started at Novartis, I was amazed at the array of experts on the teams I was helping to lead as a clinical program leader. Our teams are the definition of multidisciplinary. They're composed of what we call line function experts in multiple disciplines. This includes preclinical safety experts who design and analyze data from studies that precede the filing of an IND, research scientists, chemists, preclinical, and clinical pharmacologists, statisticians, program managers, drug and regulatory affair colleagues, who focus on the interactions with health authorities, including the FDA, operational colleagues called clinical trial leaders, and many others.  In my role as a senior clinical program leader, I also have the opportunity to collaborate frequently with research colleagues on preclinical programs, designing and writing first in human trials, followed by conducting the actual studies and in close collaboration with our academic colleagues, analyzing the clinical and translational results.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Dr. Abrey, how about you? Was there a moment or what were the moments that led to you deciding to make this transition?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: I guess I have the other sort of story. I got pushed, I would say, in the sense that like many of us, I'm married, and my husband was the one who took a job with Novartis and said, “This would be an adventure. Let's go live in Switzerland.” So similar to Jason, he took a position at NIBR, and I think for many of the same reasons, he really wanted to delve deeply into early mechanism of action and allow himself to dedicate really a chunk of his career to developing key drugs. But moving to Switzerland changes your options suddenly. I think I had spent most of my career at Sloan Kettering doing clinical trials. That was really my comfort zone, my sweet spot. And when we moved over here, I explored briefly, could I set up an academic career here?  And very kindly, I was invited by a number of Swiss colleagues to look for opportunities to do that. But I realized what I loved was talking to patients, and that that was going to be difficult with the language barrier. And I equally loved running clinical trials. So I had a great opportunity to join Roche shortly after their merge or full acquisition of Genentech. This allowed me to continue the work I had been doing on Avastin for brain tumors.  But I think the other thing that allowed me to do, that was something I was really looking for was to broaden my scope and to no longer be niched as just a brain tumor expert. And if you're in academia and you're a neurologist, obviously, you're going to be fairly constrained in that space. But moving into a role in industry really allows you to look much more broadly and work across multiple tumor types. And I spent the next seven years at Roche running not just the Avastin teams that were developing drugs for a number of indications, but really overseeing the clinical development group based in the European sites. And they had about 14 different drugs in different stages of development as well as partnerships with their early research group that was European based.  So it was a fascinating time for me, and I feel kind of like I got thrown into the pond. I knew a lot about clinical trials. I had no idea about so many other aspects of what I needed to consider. And I think Jason started to allude to some of this with the different line function expertise and things I think we take for granted or maybe we simply have blind spots around them when we are sitting in our academic organizations. So it's been a really delightful plunge into the pool. I've continued to swim mostly. Occasionally, a little bit of drowning, but a lot of fun.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: What would you say are the major differences between an academic career and industry?  Dr. Lauren Abrey: I think, as you said, the things that are similar is that the purpose or the mission for both is in many ways the same. We would like to develop better treatments for patients with cancer. And so there's a huge focus on clinical trials. There needs to be a huge focus on patients, and that can get diluted in industry. I think the things that you don't appreciate sometimes when you're sitting on the academic side is just really the overarching business structure and the complexity of some of the very large organizations. So you suddenly are in this huge space with people focused on regulatory approvals focused on pricing, focused on manufacturing, focused on the clinical trial execution, and why you are doing it in different spots.  And so I think some of the different factors that you have to consider are things that again, we either take for granted or are super focused when you're in one organization. And I think the tradeoffs and how decisions are made, particularly in large pharma, can be frustrating. I think we are all used to applying for grants or getting the funding we need to do whatever our project or trial is. And then you just start very laser focused on getting to the end. If you're in a large organization and they have a portfolio where they're developing 14, 15, 20 different things, you might suddenly find that the project you think is most important gets de-prioritized against something that the company thinks is more critical to move forward. And that could be because there's better data, but it could also be because there's increasing competition in the space or there's a different pull for a large company. I haven't seen the early development side as much. I've seen the development. I've now seen Medical Affairs for how some of those decisions are made, but I'd be curious to hear what Jason has seen in some of his experiences as well.  Dr. Jason Faris: Comparing and contrasting a little bit between the two, because I've run early phase studies on the academic side, I'll talk more about that in a little bit in terms of another academic position that I held. So I've run early-phase studies there. I've run early-phase studies in industry as well. And they share a lot of similarities, certainly following compelling science, the excitement about new therapies that are going to be offered to patients. But I think the execution is a bit different, and I would say, when you're running clinical trials in the academic setting, you're meeting every patient that you're going to put on study or at least one of your colleagues is, if you have sub-eyes on the study, that's a major, major difference, right? You're directly taking care of a patient going on to an experimental therapy, consenting that patient, following them over time, getting the firsthand experience and data from that patient interaction, but not necessarily, unless you're running an investigator-initiated study, not necessarily having access to the data across the whole study.  You're hearing about the data across the whole study at certain time points on investigator calls, PI meetings, dose escalation meetings, those kinds of things. But you're not necessarily having access to the real-time emergence of data across the whole study from other people's patients. So you're a bit dependent on the sponsor to provide those glimpses of the data, synthesize that and present overview. So those are some operational differences, I would say, because you're not taking direct care of the patients and having your time split among different commitments in that way I have felt a greater ability to focus on the clinical research that I'm doing in my industry-based role, which I like, of course, but I also miss taking care of patients. I love taking care of patients.   So I think it's always a double-edged sword with that if we can use a sword analogy here. But I think they both offer really exciting options to pursue new therapies for patients, which for me, was one of the fundamental reasons that I pursued medical oncology in the first place. It was really this idea that the field is rapidly advancing. I wanted to be a part of that. I saw firsthand what cancer could do to my family or family members, and I took care of patients in the hospital as an intern resident and fellow where I think there's just a tremendous unmet medical need. And so having an opportunity to contribute to the development of new therapies was always a real inspiration for me.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: With that being said, what led you to go back into academia?  Dr. Jason Faris: This is an ongoing saga, I guess. So after several years of professional growth at Novartis, gaining experience with designing and conducting clinical trials on the industry side, I was actually at ASCO and I learned of an open role for the director of the early phase trials program at Dartmouth's Cancer Center. After extensive consideration, which I think you can see as my trademark at this point, I made another difficult decision to interview for the position, which was focused on helping to grow the early phase trials program at an NCI comprehensive designated cancer center that's unique in a way because it's in a rural area. And it had a new director of the Cancer Center, Steve Leach, who's a renowned laboratory scientist with a focus on pancreatic cancer and a surgeon by training.  I ultimately decided to accept the early phase director position, moving my family away from Greater Boston, where we had lived for about 15 years, to the upper valley of New Hampshire. And while at Dartmouth, I was part of exciting projects, including writing and overseeing an NCI grant called Catch Up, which was geared towards improving access to early phase clinical trials for rural patients. I opened numerous sponsor-initiated immunotherapy and targeted therapy, early phase trials. Just to say a little bit about Dartmouth's Cancer Center - I think they also benefit from tremendous collaboration, this time across Dartmouth College, the Geisel School of Medicine, the School of Public Health. I think they provide really excellent care to their cancer patients. And I was extremely proud to be part of that culture in the GI Group, which was much smaller than the one at MGH, but also an incredibly dedicated group of multidisciplinary colleagues who work tirelessly to care for their patients.  But nonetheless, less than six months into that new position, the COVID pandemic started, and that introduced some significant and new challenges on the clinical trials side in terms of staffing, infrastructure, those kinds of things. In that context, I made a decision to return to NIBR, refocus on clinical research, and hope to harness my background in running clinical trials in both settings, both academic and industry, as well as the resources and pipeline of Novartis to really maximize my impact on drug development. So for me, it was a question of where can I have the maximum impact at this crazy time, difficult time. I saw that my best option was to return to industry to work on studies to try to develop new therapies. Broadly speaking, my role as a senior clinical program leader in the translational and clinical oncology group at NIBR is to design, write, conduct, and analyze innovative clinical trials of early phase therapeutics.  Dr. Jeremy Cetnar: Wow, that's fascinating, very, very interesting. A lot of stress. You should definitely be buying lots of presents for your family for moving them all over the place.  This concludes part one of our interview with Drs. Abrey and Faris. Thank you so much for sharing your inspiring career stories. And thank you to all our listeners for tuning into this episode of the ASCO Education Cancer Topics podcast.  Thank you for listening to the ASCO Education podcast. To stay up to date with the latest episodes, please click subscribe. Let us know what you think by leaving a review. For more information, visit the Comprehensive Education Center at education.asco.org.    The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions.  Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement. 

Marthe Handå Myhre og Jørn Holm-Hansen er begge forskere ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. Begge har forsket på Ukraina og drevet med feltarbeid i landet. I kjølvannet av Russlands angrepskrig, har begge forskerne bidratt med sin kunnskap om både Ukraina og Russland gjennom å skrive kronikker, stille til intervjuer i aviser og opptre på TV-program som Dagsnytt 18. I denne samtalen snakker programleder Jeff Lugowe med Marthe og Jørn om ukrainsk identitet og nasjonalfølelse både før og etter krigen, sammenhengen mellom språk og identitet, og regionale forskjeller i landet. Vil du lære mer om Ukraina? NIBR inviterer til en seminarrekke hvis mål er å belyse ulike sider ved ukrainsk samfunn, politikk og historie. Neste semarinet avholdes 15. juni og ledes av Oleksandra Deineko, som selv flyktet fra Kharkiv og jobber nå som gjesteforsker ved NIBR.

Marthe Handå Myhre og Jørn Holm-Hansen er begge forskere ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR. Begge har forsket på Ukraina og drevet med feltarbeid i landet. I kjølvannet av Russlands angrepskrig, har begge forskerne bidratt med sin kunnskap om både Ukraina og Russland gjennom å skrive kronikker, stille til intervjuer i aviser og opptre på TV-program som Dagsnytt 18. I denne samtalen snakker programleder Jeff Lugowe med Marthe og Jørn om ukrainsk identitet og nasjonalfølelse både før og etter krigen, sammenhengen mellom språk og identitet, og regionale forskjeller i landet. Vil du lære mer om Ukraina? NIBR inviterer til en seminarrekke hvis mål er å belyse ulike sider ved ukrainsk samfunn, politikk og historie. Neste semarinet avholdes 15. juni og ledes av Oleksandra Deineko, som selv flyktet fra Kharkiv og jobber nå som gjesteforsker ved NIBR.

Why is hibernation something that bears and squirrels do, but humans don't? Even more interesting, what's going on inside a hibernating animal, on a physiological and genetic level, that allows them to survive the winter in a near-comatose state without freezing to death and without ingesting any food or water? And what can we learn about that process that might inform human medicine?Those are the big questions being investigated right now by a four-year-old startup in California called Fauna Bio. And Harry's guests today are two of Fauna Bio's three founding scientists: Ashley Zehnder and Linda Goodman. They explain how they got interested in hibernation as a possible model for how humans could protect themselves from disease, and how progress in comparative genomics over the last few years has made it possible to start to answer that question at the level of gene and protein interactions. The work is shedding light on a previously neglected area of animal behavior that could yield new insights for treating everything from neurodegenerative diseases to cancer.Please rate and review The Harry Glorikian Show on Apple Podcasts! Here's how to do that from an iPhone, iPad, or iPod touch:1. Open the Podcasts app on your iPhone, iPad, or Mac. 2. Navigate to The Harry Glorikian Show podcast. You can find it by searching for it or selecting it from your library. Just note that you'll have to go to the series page which shows all the episodes, not just the page for a single episode.3. Scroll down to find the subhead titled "Ratings & Reviews."4. Under one of the highlighted reviews, select "Write a Review."5. Next, select a star rating at the top — you have the option of choosing between one and five stars. 6. Using the text box at the top, write a title for your review. Then, in the lower text box, write your review. Your review can be up to 300 words long.7. Once you've finished, select "Send" or "Save" in the top-right corner. 8. If you've never left a podcast review before, enter a nickname. Your nickname will be displayed next to any reviews you leave from here on out. 9. After selecting a nickname, tap OK. Your review may not be immediately visible.That's it! Thanks so much.TranscriptHarry Glorikian: Hello. I'm Harry Glorikian, and this is The Harry Glorikian Show, where we explore how technology is changing everything we know about healthcare.It's April and spring is well underway, even though it's been a pretty cold one so far here in New England.It's the kind of weather that makes you want to pull the covers over your head in the morning and just sleep in. Or maybe just hibernate like a bear until summer is really here.But when you think about it, what is hibernation? Why is it something that bears and squirrels do, but humans don't?Even more interesting, what's going on inside a hibernating animal, physiologically, that allows them to survive all winter without freezing to death and without ingesting any food or water?And what can we learn about that process that might inform human medicine?Those are the big questions being investigated right now by a four-year-old startup in California called Fauna BioAnd my guests today are two of Fauna Bio's three founding scientists: Ashley Zehnder and Linda Goodman. I asked them to explain how they got interested in hibernation as a possible model for how humans could protect themselves from disease.…And how progress in comparative genomics over the last few years has made it possible to start to answer that question at the level of gene and protein interactions.We've always looked to the natural world, especially the world of plants, for insights into biochemistry that could inspire new drugs. But what's exciting to me about Fauna Bio is that they're shining a light on a previously neglected area of animal behavior that could yield new insights for treating everything from neurodegenerative diseases to cancer.So, here's my conversation with Ashley Zehnder and Linda Goodman.Harry Glorikian: Ashley. Linda, welcome to the show.Ashley Zehnder: Thanks, Harry, we're excited to be here today. It's going to be fun.Linda Goodman: Yeah, thanks for having us.Harry Glorikian: Yeah, I mean, well, you guys are someplace sunny and warm, and I'm actually I shouldn't say that it's actually sunny right now on the East Coast. So I'm not I'm not.Linda Goodman: Don't jinx yourself.Harry Glorikian: But the temperature is going to drop. Like to I think they said 18. So everything will freeze tonight for sure. So it'll, you know, it's one of those days, but. I want to jump right into this because we've got a lot of ground to cover. Like there's so many questions that I have after sort of looking into the company and sort of digging in and, you know, but even before we jump into what you're working on. Right, I really want to talk about hibernation. Maybe because I'm jealous and I'd like to be able to hibernate. I have sleep apnea. So sleep is a problem. But humans don't hibernate. But there's a ton of other mammalian species that that do. And sometimes I do feel, though, that my teenager hibernates, but that's a different issue. So, but, what what is interesting to you about hibernation from a physiological point of view. What what goes on with metabolism or gene expression during hibernation, that's that's not found in humans, but that could be relevant to human health?Ashley Zehnder: Yeah, I think this is a great question, Harry, because I think both Linda and I came to fauna from different backgrounds. I came from veterinary science, Linda from comparative genomics. We can go into our details later, but neither of us really appreciated the amazing physiology of these species. There are some of the most extreme mammals on the planet, and there are hibernating bears and literally every group of mammals. Right. This is something Linda specializes in. But there are primates in Madagascar that hibernate very similar to the 39 ground squirrels that we tend to work with. So it's this really deeply conserved trait in mammals, including primates. And, you know, it kind of highlights for us what our genes can do when they're adapted for extreme environments. And so that's kind of the lens that we take when we look at hibernation. It's how do these species protect their own tissues from being nearly frozen for six, seven months out of the year, having to protect their brains, their hearts, all their vital organs? They're not eating, they're not drinking. They're not moving for these really deep bodied hibernaters. When you think of 100 kilogram animal that's not eating for seven months, how do they survive that? Right. And it has to do with metabolic rates that change 200- to 300-fold over the course of a couple of hours. It has to do with oxygenation changes and protection from oxidative stress and ischemia reperfusion. And so if you look at a tissue by tissue level, you can start to see how these animals are finally adapted to protecting themselves from from damage. And then we can start to say, well, this is similar damage to what we see in human diseases. And that's why this is such an interesting system, because it's so dynamic and because it happens across so many groups of mammals, it really lends itself to this comparative genomics approach that we take to drug discovery.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. Because I was wondering sort of like what ways of healing from different sort of traumas and conditions do hibernating animals have that that humans don't, that we sort of maybe wish we did? It's sort of like, you know, almost Marvel or one of those things where you like go to sleep, you wake up, you've totally healed again, which kind of be kind of be cool. Yeah. So, you know. But when did scientists first begin to think about whether having a better understanding of hibernation might help us solve? Some of these riddles that we have in human health. I mean, it surely it can't be like a new concept. It has to go further back. I mean, what has changed recently to make it more actionable? I mean, is it, you know, omics, costs coming down that are making it easier, computational capabilities that are, you know, making all these come together? I mean, those. What do you guys. What's. What's the answer? You guys know the answer better than I do.Ashley Zehnder: I'll comment on a little bit on the physiology, and I will let Linda talk about the data revolution, because that's that's really what she knows very intimately. So from a physiology standpoint, these are species and not just hibernaters, but a lot of other species that we've been studying since the early 1900s, 1950s. I mean, these are some of our earliest biological experiments and our earliest understandings of biology. We're not necessarily done by studying humans. A lot of that was done by studying natural disease models, right? How did we figure out that genes cause cancer? So it's a little bit of a tangent, but bear with me, it was not by studying human cancer, it was by studying Rous Sarcoma Virus and how that virus picked up bird genes and then turn them on. Right and other in other individuals. So but then kind of this almost the same year in 1976 that we figured out that genes cause cancer by studying chickens. 1974 we figured out how to genetically modified mice. And we sort of figured out that like, okay, maybe we don't need to study natural biology anymore. And so I feel like we sort of lost a lot of those skills and figured out we had humans and we had model organisms and we were done. And I think now we're kind of in this renaissance where people are realizing that actually there's still a lot of natural biology that we can learn from. But it's being powered now by this data revolution and the decrease in cost and sequencing and availability of omics data like RNA. Seq and then I will pitch that over to Linda because that's really what she knows best.Linda Goodman: Yeah, yes, absolutely. You know, Ashley's right. And I think just to add on to that, that there was this issue in which there were a lot of field biologists out there working with these really fascinating hibernating animals. They knew a lot about what these animals could do, the extreme environments they were exposed to, that they could overcome, they could protect all of their tissues. And there was so there was a group of field biologists who knew all that information. And then on the other side, you have all of these geneticists who are studying the genomes of probably humans and mouse and rat. And they weren't really talking to each other for a long time. And I've been in the genomics field for at least a decade, and not until very recently did I even hear about all these amazing adaptations that these hibernating mammals have. So I think some of it was just a big communication gap. And now that the genomics field is starting to become a little more aware that all these exciting adaptations are out there that we can learn from, I think that's going to be huge. And yes, of course, it certainly does not hurt that there's been a dramatic drop in sequencing costs. We can now sequence a reference genome for around $10,000. That was unheard of years ago. And so a lot of these species that people would previously consider untouchables because they were not model organisms with a pristine reference genome, we can now start to approach these and thoroughly study their biology and genomics in a way that was not possible several years ago.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I was thinking I was, you know, I was laughing when you said $10,000, because I remember when we did the genome at Applied Biosystems and it was not $10,000.Ashley Zehnder: Yeah.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. And it took I remember Celera, we had an entire floor of sequencers working 24/7 I mean, it was an amazing sight. And now we can do all that, you know, on a.Ashley Zehnder: Benchtop. Benchtop. Exactly. On a benchtop.Harry Glorikian: So. But, you know, it's interesting, like in a way, studying animals to learn more about disease mechanisms seems like a no brainer. I mean, we share a, what, about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. And for those listening. Yes, we do. You know, I'm sure there's people out there that, like, bristle when I say that. But what is it, 97.5% of our DNA with rats and mice. That's why we use all these things for sort of safety and effectiveness of drugs meant for humans. But. Still, I'm not used to drug hunters starting out by looking at animals, you know? Why do you think it's taken the drug industry, although I'm I say that very loosely, [so long] to wake up to that idea?Ashley Zehnder: Yeah. I think it's I think it's again, this almost reversal of the paradigm that exists today, which is let's take a human disease that we want to make a new drug for. Let's take a mouse and let's try to genetically manipulate that mouse to mimic as closely as possible what we see in the human disease. And those are always imperfect. I mean, I did a cancer biology PhD at Stanford, and there's that trope of like, Oh, if I had a dollar for every time you occurred mouse in a human right, it would need to work anymore. That's replicated across many fields, right? They're not good models. And so we're saying like obviously that doesn't really work for discovery. It's fine for preclinical and safety and you have to use those models. But for pure discovery, that's not where you want to be, right? Instead, you want to take the approach of saying, where has nature created a path for you? Where is it already solved this problem? And I think there are companies like Varian Bio who are doing this in human populations. We're saying, let's look at humans that have unique physiologies and a unique disease adaptations. And of course then you have to find those niche pockets of human populations.Ashley Zehnder: So that's not a not a simple problem either. But the approach is very analogous. What we're saying is we can use that rare disease discovery approach and just expand that scope of discovery. Look at highly conserved genes, look at how other species are using them to reverse how phosphorylation in the brain to repair their hearts after damage, to reverse insulin dependence. To heal, we'll heal their tissues or regenerate stem cells. Let's just see how nature did it right and just mimic that instead of trying to fix something that we artificially created. So it's literally reversing that paradigm of how we think about animals and drug discovery. But you have to know how to do that. You have to know which models are correct. You have to know how to analyze 415 genomes together in an alignment which is really complicated. Linda knows how to do that, so you have to know how to do it correctly, although you could screw it up very badly. So there's a lot of expertise that goes into these analyses and also again, the data availability, which wasn't there nearly a decade ago. So.Harry Glorikian: So I asked this question out of pure naivete, because I'm not sure that I could sort of draw a straight line. But, you know, which drugs were have been discovered through research on genetic mechanisms of disease in animals. Is there, are there?Ashley Zehnder: You know, I think directly it's a new field. Right. So I think, Linda, you and I have looked at some examples of looking at drugs for narcolepsy, looking at dog genetics and studies, looking at muscle disorders in certain species of cattle that have naturally beefed up muscles and translating those into therapies. I mean, there are examples of looking at animals for things like genotype, right, came from Gila monster venom, although that's not strictly a genetic program. Right? So I think this idea of looking at natural animal models is a source of innovation. It's just that, again, the data wasn't really available until fairly recently, but we know the strategy works by what's been done on things like PCSK9 inhibitors in humans, right? It's a very similar approach to that. It's just expanding that scope of discovery.Harry Glorikian: So because you guys raised money and you guys are moving this forward, sort of and I don't want you to tell me anything that's confidential, but. So what was the pitch when you when you put that in front of everybody?Ashley Zehnder: It was really that, look, drug discovery right now is really been hampered by a lack of innovation. And we're really stuck in looking at these very kind of currently limited data sources, which is humans and again, these handful of really imperfect animal models. But we can take what we've learned from working with human genomics and really greatly expand the opportunities for a number of diseases that still don't have good therapies. Right. We've had the human genome for really close to 20 years now. We spent a lot of money sequencing it. And still, if you go back and look at the FDA approvals in the last two years, which I did by hand a while ago, or more than three quarters of those are not new targets. They're new drugs for a new indication or new drugs, same drugs before a new indication or they're kind of meta pathway drugs or they're drugs for which we still don't know the mechanism. It's some small molecule. It's been around since fifties. And so like where is the innovation in the top ten diseases of people still have it changed? So like where I pulled these two headlines right not too long ago, one from 2003, which is like the era of the genomics revolution. Right? And then one from 2019, which was the genomics revolution question mark. Right. Like we're still sort of waiting for it. And so what is that missing piece of data that's really going to allow us to really leverage the power that's in the human genome? And to do that, we have to put our own genes in an evolutionary context to understand what's important. That's been that third dimension of genomics that's been missing. So it's really not necessarily about any particular species that we work on, all of which are amazing. It's really about using that data to shine a better light on what's important in our own genome. And so that's a lot of the pitches, like how are we going to use our own genome better and find better treatments?Harry Glorikian: Yep. Understood. So. You have a third founder, Katie Grabek. Right. So. Tell me about yourselves. I mean, did the three of you get interested in comparative genomics and hibernation? How did you come together? How did you decide like, oh, hey, let's do a startup and get this thing going in this area? So tell tell me the origin story.Ashley Zehnder: Linda, do you want to kick off?Linda Goodman: Sure. I think it all really started, Ashley and I initially started batting a few ideas around. We both had this understanding that that drug discovery today did not look outside of human mouse rat very much. And we both understood there was this wealth of animal data that's just waiting to be used and no one was doing it and we couldn't really figure out why. And we were having trouble figuring out exactly which animal we wanted to study and which diseases we wanted to study. And it just so happened that we lucked out. There was another woman in our lab at Stanford, Grabek, who had the perfect study system for what we were thinking about. She had these amazing hibernates our animals that have exquisite abilities in terms of disease, resistance and repair. And once she started talking about all the amazing phenotypes these animals have, we thought, wow, that would make a great study system to make the next human therapeutic. Yeah. And I think it's interesting that both Katie and Linda have human genetics PhDs. Right. So I think both of them and Linda can expound on this. But from Katie perspective. Right, she she went in to do a human genetics Ph.D. trying to understand how genes can be used to improve human health and shouldn't be rotating the lab of somebody who studied the 39 ground squirrel and said this physiology is way more extreme than anything we see in humans, but they're doing it using the same genes.Linda Goodman: What are those genes doing in these animals that we can adapt for human therapeutics? And so she brought that work with her to Stanford and was really one of the preeminent researchers studying the genetics and genomics of these species. My background is I'm of Marion, so my clinical training is in exotic species. So as a clinician, I treated birds, mammals, reptiles and saw that they all presented with different kinds of diseases or in some cases didn't present with diseases like cancer that were super interesting. And then coming to a place like Stanford to do a PhD, it was working with a bunch of human researchers, human focused researchers. They're all generally human researchers, but you know what I mean? It's a little bit tricky with the nomenclature. Generally, I have my doubts about, you know, maybe there's some chimpanzees doing research somewhere, people studying human diseases, right from a human lens who are completely ignorant of the fact that animals often also had these disease traits or in some cases were resistant to them. So there was this huge disconnect there of of biologists and veterinarians and physiologists who understood all these traits across different species and the people who knew the molecular mechanisms, even though a lot of those are shared.Linda Goodman: And so one of the things that I found really interesting just from a cancer perspective was that a lot of our major oncogenes are highly conserved because these are core biological genes that if you screw them up, will give you cancer. But there's an evolutionary pressure to maintain these genes. And so there's a reason why they're conservative, because they're really important biologically, and that's true across many other diseases as well. So from that perspective, I was really interested in this intersection of human and animal health. I always wanted to do more genomics myself and just never had had the training. Linda had always been interested in veterinary science, and so we kind of immediately started collaborating and saying, Look, look, there's a huge opportunity in this, again, third space, third dimension of genomics that people are not looking at. What do we do trying to start a comparative genomics company? I'm using air quotes here for the podcast listeners is a little bit broad. Where do you start? And I think Katie really gave us that start in saying, here's a model. We have a biobank of samples that are proprietary to fauna. We have an expert in this field. We have a model that's good for so many different diseases. Let's prove that the process works here and then we can expand into multiple disease areas.Harry Glorikian: You know, you got to love, people I think, underestimate that magic that happens when the right people get together and the spark happens, right? I mean, I'll take that. Any day. I mean, I love coming up with a plan and then, you know, working to the plan. But when it happens, when the right people in the room and they're all get excited, those are those are the most incredible start ups, in my opinion. Yeah. So you're starting off with targets in heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, diabetes, very different areas, right? Cardiovascular, neurodegenerative and metabolic. So. Why start with those areas in particular?Linda Goodman: So I think for us it was really again showing showing what we can translate from this model. So some of the phenotypes that we see, the traits that we see in the ground squirrel, which is predominantly one of the species we use for our work, is that they're exquisitely resistant to ischemia, reperfusion injury. So the kind of injury that gets, if you have a heart attack and you go and get the heart attack on block, you get this rush of warm, oxygenated blood back into your heart that can actually be damaging. And that's a lot of what causes damage after a heart attack, what these animals happen, they do this 25 times over the course of a 6 to 7 month hibernation cycle. And if you look at their hearts in the peak of one of these periods, there is an upregulation of collagen, which is cause of fibrosis. There's an upregulation, there's histologically, there's a little bit of damage. It's less than you would I would have, but there's a little bit there. But if you get to the end of that whole cycle and look at their hearts, they look normal and they do it again next year. Right. So you and I could not survive 25 of these attacks over six or seven month period, right? Obviously not. So let's pick the strongest phenotypes we have in these animals and let's show that we can use information from that and come up with genes and compounds that are protective in our more standard models of these diseases.Linda Goodman: And that's what we did really with the first round of data that we had is we generated four genetic targets and two compounds that came out of the heart data that we had from hibernating and that we tested them in human cardiomyocytes in a dish and said if we take oxygen and glucose away from these cells, they get really unhappy and die and we could double survival of human heart cells in a dish. And then we said, okay, great, let's actually move this into animals. And so we used AAV or some of these viral vectors to then knock down genes in vivo in hearts of rats. So we literally tied off a coronary artery and then let the blood come back in and saw that we could almost fully protect these hearts from damage by knocking down genes that we found in the hibernating data. So it was really closing that loop and saying, where are the strongest traits? Can we show that this works? And then it was really figuring out where are the really large areas of unmet need. And so in terms of metabolism, we end up connecting with Novo Nordisk, which is a publicly disclosed partnership. They are very focused on obesity. We have a model that increases this metabolism, 235 fold over an hour. Name another model that can do that, right?Harry Glorikian: I need that. I need that. I need like, because...Ashley Zehnder: We all need that!Harry Glorikian: I could get rid of a few pounds right around here.Linda Goodman: Exactly. So then it's really just figuring out where are the unmet needs, who is really interested in these areas we're looking at and do we have unique data that speaks to those models? And that's really we just try to be guided by the biology and saying, where do we have unique data sets that can answer high unmet needs?Harry Glorikian: Okay. Well, all I mean, all sounds super exciting if we can make the translation, you know, in the right way and find those targets. But. You guys have built up a significant biobank, right? I understand you have a huge database of genomic readout from various hibernating animals. Can you tell us a little more about the extent of that biobank? How did you collect the data and how unique is that database in the industry?Ashley Zehnder: Yeah. Linda, do you want to talk a little bit about the data sources that we're currently using at Fauna?Linda Goodman: Yeah. So maybe, you might be the best person to talk about the Biobank and then I can talk about all the other data sources layering on top of that.Ashley Zehnder: Yeah, I'll talk a little about the BiobanK. So we have yeah, we have a number of different data sources. The Biobank is one of them and probably one of the main ones that we use. So Katie, during her PhD, built a really unique biobank of very precisely time tissue samples from 39 ground squirrels across the whole hibernation cycle. And the reason why that timing is so important is because the cycle is so dynamic. If you don't have really precise sample timing, you end up with a big kind of smush of data that you can't tease apart by having really precisely timed data points, you can separate these genes into clusters and know exactly kind of where you are in time. And that timing relates to the physiological injuries that we study. So we know what time points their hearts are protected because those physiological studies have been done. We've looked at those time points very specifically. So we have that biobank of samples that we in licensed as founding IP at Fauna CANI literally drove it across the country in a U-Haul because we didn't trust anybody to move it. So that's that's now in our freezers and Emeryville with a cadre of backup batteries to protect it.Ashley Zehnder: So that's the founding data that we have. And that's been really crucial because I look at other companies trying to use data for drug discovery, particularly in the early stage. A lot of it is kind of publicly available data or cell lines or kind of shared data sources. And part of what is unique about font, as we literally have truly novel data sources that we're starting with that are wholly owned that we control and we know the quality of those. So that's really the Biobank that we have is and it's 22 different tissues. I mean, it's brain, it's kidney, it's lung, it's hard. It's liver or skeletal muscle. Right? Pretty much every kind of tissue you would want in that founding biobank. But then on top of that, I think what we've done with the other data is super important. Yeah. And so we layer on top of that all sorts of publicly available data and also data we've been able to source, such as human data from the UK Biobank. But I really want to hit on the point of, of why the model species hibernate or data is so different. All of the other data that most people work with is trying to compare animals that are healthy to animals that are diseased, or people that are healthy to people who are have disease. What's really unique about the model species that we're working with is we're trying to figure out why they have these superpowers in terms of disease, resistance and repair.Ashley Zehnder: So it's kind of the other end of the spectrum that we're making this comparison between a normal, normal hibernate or during, say, the summer months and then a hibernate or that has gene expression patterns that mean that it's resistant to many diseases and it can repair tissues when it gets damaged. So it's actually quite different from the normal types of comparisons that others would make. But yes, and then we integrate publicly available data from sources like Open Targets Reactance. And one of the other data sets that we work with that's that's valuable is that we go back through literature that is relevant to the disease, indications that we're going after. And we have a team of curators that mines these papers that where the biology is relevant and we integrate those transcriptomic studies generally into our database. And that that really helps with our comparisons. And I can kind of give you an example of the way that we would do this type of cross-species analysis compared to what other what others in the industry might do if they were just looking at humans or say, just looking at mouse and rat is that, you know, if you're if you're just looking at at a human study and you're trying to say, look, for what genes do we think are involved in heart failure? You would look at, say, transcriptomic, differences between healthy human hearts and failing human hearts.Ashley Zehnder: And then you would have some type of gene list where you'd see the genes that have differential regulation between those two groups. And it fa not we we look at that type of data and then we also look at hibernate or data and then we can compare that. And that's really where the magic happens because we can look at hibernate hours when their hearts are protected during the winter months. So we have an example of these are genes that are involved in protection and then compare that to the summer months where they're not protected. And then we can integrate both of those to analyses so we can say what's really different about a human heart when it is failing to a hibernating heart when it is protected. And we do very fancy types of network analyses and then we layer on all of these data from external sources and the really exciting moments where we see these networks light up with the exact regulation patterns we are expecting that is relevant to our biology. Those are really fun. And I would say the other data source, Linda, that would be good to touch on is the genomic data, right? I think the comparative genomics data. So maybe give a little context on that. I think that really broadens the the views point of what we work with.Linda Goodman: Yeah, absolutely. So that's another data source that we work with. We have a collaboration with the Broad Institute that is one of the leaders of the Zoonomia Project that has in the neighborhood of 250 mammals in a in a big alignment. So we can do comparative genomics across all of these animals. And what we like to look for are comparing the genomes of animals that have a specific phenotype to others that don't. So for example, what is different in the genomes of hibernaters compared to the mammals that cannot hibernate? And we typically do this with how fast or slow evolving genes are, right? So if a gene doesn't accumulate very many mutations in hibernate hours, then it's probably pretty important for hibernation because there's a lot of purifying selection on that versus say, in other mammals that are not hibernaters, like like a human or a rat. It got a lot of mutations in it because it didn't matter as much for those animals. So that's another way of pinpointing the genes that are really important to hibernation. And we know, of course, that some of those might relate to the overall hibernation trait, but many of them are going to be disease relevant because they've had to evolve these genes in a way to protect their hearts and their other organs from these extreme environments they're in during hibernation.Harry Glorikian: So that, if I'm not mistaken, so did the Zoonomia Consortium, there was a big white paper about comparative genomics published in Nature.Ashley Zehnder: Nature last year? Yep. Two years ago. Yeah. A little bit.Harry Glorikian: Yes. Time seems to blur under COVID.Ashley Zehnder: Yeah.Harry Glorikian: How long have I been in this room? Wait. No.Harry Glorikian: But. Can you guys I mean, because doing comparative genomics is not, you know. It's not new necessarily, but can you guys summarize sort of the. Arguments or the principles of that paper, you know, quickly. And then, you know, my next question is going to be like, do you feel that Fauna Bio is part of a larger movement in science and drug discovery that sort of gaining momentum? So I'll, I'll I'll let you guys riff on that launch.Ashley Zehnder: Linda, you're you're the best one to do a perspective on that paper for sure.Linda Goodman: Sure. Yeah. You know, I think this is really born out of the concept that in order to identify the most important genes in the human genome, we need to be looking at other animals and more precisely, other mammals to see their pattern of evolution. Because if you see a gene that looks nearly identical across all other mammals, that means that it's really important. It means that it has been evolving for somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 million years, not accumulating mutations, which really translates to if you got damaging mutations in that gene, you were a dead mammal. Those have been selected out. And that's really how you can tell these are the key genes that are important to to your physiology, the difference between life and death. And you can't understand those things as well by just looking within humans and human populations. We're all too similar to each other. But it's really when you get to these long time scales that the statistics work out where you can see, okay, this has been this mutation has not happened in 100 million years. We don't see it in anybody's genome. So that is obviously very important. And that's just this other way of looking at our own human genome that helps highlight the genes that are going to be important to diseases. And I think, you know, another side to this paper related to conservation and the fact that a lot of these animals with really exciting genomes, the ones that are exciting to people like us, are those that have these really long branch lengths where they're they're kind of an ancient lineage. And that's really where the gold is, because that helps us even more understand how quickly or slowly some of these genes are evolving, and it related to trying to conserve some of these species as well.[musical interlude]Harry Glorikian: Let's pause the conversation for a minute to talk about one small but important thing you can do, to help keep the podcast going. And that's leave a rating and a review for the show on Apple Podcasts.All you have to do is open the Apple Podcasts app on your smartphone, search for The Harry Glorikian Show, and scroll down to the Ratings & Reviews section. Tap the stars to rate the show, and then tap the link that says Write a Review to leave your comments. It'll only take a minute, but you'll be doing a lot to help other listeners discover the show.And one more thing. If you like the interviews we do here on the show I know you'll like my new book, The Future You: How Artificial Intelligence Can Help You Get Healthier, Stress Less, and Live Longer.It's a friendly and accessible tour of all the ways today's information technologies are helping us diagnose diseases faster, treat them more precisely, and create personalized diet and exercise programs to prevent them in the first place.The book is now available in print and ebook formats. Just go to Amazon or Barnes & Noble and search for The Future You by Harry Glorikian.And now, back to the show.[musical interlude]Harry Glorikian: I should say congratulations because you guys did raise a $9 million seed round last fall from a group of venture funds, some in life sciences, some more general. Right. What does that funding do? What is it? What does that unlock next?Ashley Zehnder: You. I will answer that question. I do want to jump back to your other question that was kind of is this part of a larger movement and comparative genomics? Right. I think that's an important question. I think you sort of hit the nail on the head there. We were invited to a symposium in August of 2019 called Perspective and Comparative Genomics that was held at NHGRI in Bethesda. And I think there's a recognition and actually some of our grant funding is also through NHGRI. And I think there's a recognition from the folks who sequenced the human genome, that they don't have all those answers. And so it's an interesting time where we realize that there is this kind of other data out there that can help us really understand that better. And it does feel a little bit like a rising tide. And so that's that's something that I think is important to recognize. But in terms of the seed round, really, that was meant to expand the platform and the pipeline that we built with our initial funding back from Laura Deming and Age One and True Ventures, who led around for us in early 2019. It's really saying like that initial $3 million or so is really to say like, does this work or is this crazy, right? Can we it's just a crazy idea.Ashley Zehnder: And that's what we really started to generate those first few animal studies that said, yes, actually we can find genes and compounds from this data that meaningfully affect not only human cells, but animal models of human disease. And now we're really expanding into new disease areas. We're looking at areas like fibrosis. We're looking at areas like pulmonary disease. We've got some really interesting data coming out of animal models of pulmonary hypertension with a compound that we found on our platform. We've got the collaboration with Novo Nordisk, which of the five genes that they tested in animals? We have one that has a significant obesity phenotype. So I mean, 20% hit rate on a novel target discovery in vivo is not bad, right? So we've gotten to the point now where repeatedly over multiple disease areas, we've seen that between 20 and 30% of our either compounds or genes are hits, which shows us that this is not only kind of a we got lucky in cardiac disease, but actually this is a process for enriching for important drug targets. And now it's a matter of really expanding the pipeline. We brought on a really experienced head of Therapeutics Discovery, Brian Burke, who spent 20 years at NIBR running very early discovery programs and then seeing programs go into the clinic.Ashley Zehnder: He worked on drugs like Entresto and then worked on a couple of startups after that. So he's kind of gotten both big pharma and startup experience, and his job at Fauna is to really look at the menu of things that we're presenting him from an early research and discovery phase and picking the winners and really figuring out how to take them forward and also killing the programs that are less exciting to him for a number of technical or practical reasons. So that's been really, really helpful to have someone come in truly from the outside and take a look at the science at Fauna and say this is as good or better as anything that I've worked on before. I'm really excited to work on this, and that's been kind of a nice external perspective on on the science and the pipeline at Fauna. So that's really what the $9 million is for. It's really expanding a lot of the computational expertise and and progress and Linda can talk a little bit about that, but also just expanding into new disease areas as well.Harry Glorikian: Understood. So, you know, on this show, like, I talk a lot about, you know, technology, data, and how it's all affecting health care, which this all fits into. But one of the things we talk about a lot is how crappy, terrible, I should use, you know, terrible, right, electronic health records are in the lack of interoperability between them. And Ashley, you actually wrote a paper.Ashley Zehnder: I did, yeah, veterinary medical records are just as bad, actually, veterinary medical records are probably a little bit worse, if it's possible.Harry Glorikian: And to be quite honest, I'm sorry, I just hadn't thought about Fifi or Rover and their...Ashley Zehnder: Their medical records.Harry Glorikian: EHR. Is like is the problem bigger, even, when it comes to functional genomics? I'm trying to think of like obtaining and storing and analyzing 'omics of different species. I mean, who's working on this? Is that part of the Zoonomia consortium? Right. I'm just trying to think it through, like, how do you get all this information and then look at it across all these different species. And at some point, you know, look looking at it against humans also.Ashley Zehnder: Yeah. I'll let Linda talk about the genomics side. I'll comment on sort of some of the validation, some of the externally curated data that Linda talked about. I think this is actually becoming a really important data set. It was a little bit of a slow burn to figure out how to get it and to curate it. But there are a lot of studies now coming out and not just your traditional model organisms, but naked mole rats and long lived rock fishes and primate studies and bats and all kinds of people looking at genomics and RNA seek metabolomics and proteomics across these species that have interesting phenotypes. The problem is, every one of those researchers really heads down on their own species of interest, right? Nobody's saying, oh, well, actually, we're seeing the same genetic signature in these bats that we're seeing in the naked mole rats that we're seeing in some of these long lived fish. Right. But that data is not in a very friendly format. So we were like originally we were like, okay, we're going to write some scripts, we're going to try to pull some of the stuff out of supplemental tables. It's going to be awesome. No, no, no. We have very highly trained curators who work on this data and bring it in. And we have a very standard pipeline and a process and a way to normalize the data across different studies and standard ontologies and ways to clean up this data in a way that it can be integrated with the genomics coming out of the platform. And that is a tedious and painful and ongoing effort to bring in all this data.Ashley Zehnder: Now, we have data from well over 330 individual studies, over 30 species. I think Linda, you told me it was like more than 800,000 gene entries at this point that's curated and that's kind of growing month over month. So now that's becoming part of our defensible moat, is that we've taken the last two or three years, again, slow burn, pulling all this data together in a way that it can be reused. And now we can turn a paper around and put it on a platform in a week or two. So we're kind of always scanning for these studies. But yeah, it's, it's, it's out there, but it's not always in a usable format without a lot of pain and effort. And so we've kind of put that pain and effort into getting that data in a place that we can use it. And then, of course, the comparative genomics is like a whole 'nother level of complexity.Linda Goodman: Yeah, so I can talk a little bit about how we do that within the comparative genomics community and how we've done that for Zoonomia. Because I referenced before that we like to do these sorts of studies to examine the genomes of hibernate ers and non hibernate and figure out what's different. And you'd think it would be a trivial question who is a hybrid nature amongst mammals? But it's actually not. And so along with our collaborators Alison Hindle and Cornelia Santer, as part of the Genome Project, Fauna tried to go through and categorize every every genome that was in Zoonomia. So we're talking about around 250 mammals for is it a hibernater, or is it not? And you'd be surprised how often it was digging through literature from the 1970s and someone would say, this animal is not often seen during the winter. So we think it hibernates and it's not always the most satisfying. And so it is an extremely tedious effort, but well worthwhile to go through and say this animal, I'm very sure, hibernates. This one, I'm very sure does not. And then there's this third category of animals that were unsure about we're going to remove those. And it's tedious, but you have to do that part, right? Because if you do the analysis with bad data, you're never going to find the genes that you want. And Linda, I remember you telling me when you were going through this very painful process, I think your threshold for being a perpetrator, quote unquote, was that you could drop your metabolism like 50%. Correct me if I'm wrong, and humans could go down to like 40 like in certain instances, like humans are almost there. You know, it's it's hard to know when there is only one paper about it, but certainly there are some really deep meditative states and humans and low oxygen environments where, you know, we're getting kind of close to the area where we might say that that's a hibernated, but certainly not the duration that you get out of hibernation. But it's it's it surprised me to see how close how much how much metabolic flexibility there really is when you start to look at it. Yeah.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. We've got to go talk to the monks.Linda Goodman: Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, we have that in mind. It sounds like an interesting travel experience. Yeah.Harry Glorikian: So I want to jump back for a second because. You guys don't necessarily have from what I have pieced together, the normal sort of like startup story. Right. First of all, you're an all female founding team, right? Highly unusual, right? Not something I see every day. You guys started at an accelerator program in San Francisco called Age One.Ashley Zehnder: Age One.Harry Glorikian: And then you moved to QB3 and the East Bay Innovation Center.Ashley Zehnder: Yep.Harry Glorikian: And then I think they helped you with some paid interns.Ashley Zehnder: Well, we got some from Berkeley. Yep, we did.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. And then you went through a SBIR grant.Ashley Zehnder: A couple of them.Harry Glorikian: From the Small Business Administration. And then a small business technology transfer grant from the Human Genome Research Initiative at NIH. Right.Ashley Zehnder: Yep.Harry Glorikian: I'm hopeful, hopefully my notes are all correct. Talk a little bit about the on ramp or infrastructure today for sort of seed stage startups like you. I mean, what were the most important resources?Ashley Zehnder: This is such an important conversation. I'm really glad you're asking this question. We had a call with a reporter from Business Insider yesterday who was talking to all three of us about this early founder ecosystems in biotech and sort of East Coast versus West Coast ways of starting biotechnology companies. Right. And that is a whole do a whole podcast on that, let me tell you. But I will say that there are a lot of resources for, let's call them founder led bio. Right. In the West Coast, which is kind of the buzzword these days, but people really supporting the scientists who originate the concepts and training them to be founders as opposed to assuming that you need to bring in an experienced CEO to run a company at this stage. Right. So I think we were very fortunate to meet Laura Deming at Stanford, who is one of the founding VCs. And longevity before that was a buzz word, right? She was one of the first longevity funds, literally Longevity Fund, and is really been a champion of founders, starting companies and really training founders to start companies who are deep science founders. So we started in age one. It was the first batch of age one. We're still very close to that cohort of companies doing interesting things from machine learning and image analysis through pure therapeutics development. And then Laura really helped us, her, her. We asked her later, like, why did you end up investing in us? She said, Well, the science was amazing.Ashley Zehnder: This is totally a field with so much promise. I just needed to teach you guys how to pitch. The science was there, right? So she helped me just how to pitch and how to use less science words in our pitches, which we're still working on to some extent. But then it was this balanced approach of taking in some venture money to really support the growth of the company, but balance with some of this non-dilutive funding for specific projects where it made sense and some of that was some of that in the early stage is validation, right? Having having funding through groups like NHGRI, having an early partnership with a company like Novo Nordisk, which provided also some non-dilutive funding for the company, really validated all of the science that we were doing because we were first time founders, because we're a little bit outside of the normal profile. For me, I don't feel weird being a female founder only because 80% of veterinarians are female. Like, I'm used to being in a room with all women. You go to a bio conference, it's not the same thing, right? So for us, we're just we are who we are. Right. But it's helpful, I think, to get some of that external validation and then really be able to use that to to start to build on programs and show progress.Ashley Zehnder: And then it becomes more about the data and the progress and what you can do with it. So that's a lot of how we started the company. There's I said there's a lot of support in the West Coast for this kind of thing. There's great programs like Berkeley Foreman Fund Talks, which I worked, which I was in as well, just about logistics around starting companies. There's a lot of good startup accelerators. I've got a really amazing all of us, how amazing a network of founders who we can reach out to on different. I got four or five different Slack channels of founders that I could reach out to for all kinds of advice. And usually it's always good to have a company that's one or two stages ahead of you, like talking to folks who IPO'd or something last year is is not as helpful as folks who recently raised a series B, right. And figuring out what those milestones look like and then particularly those that have taken mostly money from tech investors like we have all the lifeforce capital who led our last round is also has funded some very good therapeutics companies, Sonoma Therapeutics and Second Genome and other therapeutics companies as well. So I think it's it's helpful to see how people balance the needs of the companies at different stages in what you need.Harry Glorikian: But so do you guys think that you could have started Fauna ten years ago? I mean, did the support systems exist for starting a company like this?Ashley Zehnder: Well, no, for two reasons. We couldn't have started Fauna ten years ago. One is the data just simply wasn't in a place that the company was a tractable strategy. Everything was still too expensive and we had really shitty genomes for a few species at that point. And B, I think there really wasn't the kind of groundswell of support for deeply scientific technical founders to start their own companies and train them to be the kind of leaders they need to be to run those companies for a longer term. So I think it's a confluence of those things and being in an environment like Stanford that really encourages people to to try startups, it's not a crazy idea. Like people don't look at you like you're your heads backwards. If you start to start a company at Stanford, it's like, okay, cool. Like, when are you launching? You know.Harry Glorikian: I think it's the opposite.Ashley Zehnder: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Like, why aren't you have a company yet? Whereas you know, a lot, many, many, many, many other places like that is seen as a very strange thing to do. So I think the environment plays a huge role. Yeah, for sure.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. I think between East Coast and West Coast too, there's.Ashley Zehnder: That's a whole, we should have a whole 'nother podcast on that.Harry Glorikian: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. Well, I live here and I was I was born and raised on the West and I remember there and I came here and I was like, Oh, this is where you are not in Kansas anymore. Like, this place is different. So, I mean, I'm hoping that the East Coast is actually embracing risk a little bit more and sort of stepping out on the edge. But it's really slow. They don't call it New England for nothing. So. But, you know, it was great having you both on the show. I this was great. I we covered a lot of ground. I'm sure people's heads are spinning, thinking about, you know, you know, different animal species and how that's going to play into this. And I mean. It really does sound like I know we have to do the hard work, but there's a lot of computational effort that has to go on here to sort of. Make sense of this and bring it all together and align it so that you can be looking at it properly and make the right decisions going forward.Ashley Zehnder: Yep. Millions of data points coming together to find drug targets for sure.Harry Glorikian: So thanks for being on the show. And you know, I wish you guys incredible luck.Ashley Zehnder: Thanks, Harry, so much. This was fun.Linda Goodman: Thanks for having us.Harry Glorikian: Thanks.Harry Glorikian: That's it for this week's episode. You can find a full transcript of this episode as well as the full archive of episodes of The Harry Glorikian Show and MoneyBall Medicine at our website. Just go to glorikian.com and click on the tab Podcasts.I'd like to thank our listeners for boosting The Harry Glorikian Show into the top three percent of global podcasts.If you want to be sure to get every new episode of the show automatically, be sure to open Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast player and hit follow or subscribe. Don't forget to leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. And we always love to hear from listeners on Twitter, where you can find me at hglorikian.Thanks for listening, stay healthy, and be sure to tune in two weeks from now for our next interview.

When you hear people use the phrase "It's a hits-driven business," they're usually talking about venture capital, TV production, videogames, or pop music—all industries where you don't make much money unless you come up with at least one (and  preferably a string of) massively popular products. But you know what's another hits-driven business? Drug development. This week, we present the fourth and final episode in the Persistent Innovators miniseries, originally produced for InnoLead's Innovation Answered podcast and republished here for Soonish listeners. It's all about the giant Swiss pharmaceutical company Novartis, maker of more than a dozen blockbuster drugs like Cosentyx for psoriasis, Entresto for heart failure, and Gilenya for multiple sclerosis. Because companies lose patent protection on their old drugs after 17 years, they must constantly refill their pipeline of new drugs—and Novartis has done that by placing a huge bet on the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research (NIBR), its 2,000-person R&D lab based in Soonish's hometown of Cambridge, MA. In this episode you'll meet Tom Hughes, a biotech entrepreneur and former Novartis executive who helped to set up NIBR in the early 2000s, as well as NIBR's current president, Jay Bradner. They explain why the decision to build NIBR was initially controversial even inside Novartis, and how the labs are structured today to take big but manageable risks and ensure that the company can capitalize on biology's growing understanding of the molecular and genetic underpinnings of disease."I find from the top down, our chairman to our CEO, to every commercial leader, there is a tolerance and an appetite for bravery in drug discovery that is really refreshing and honestly very empowering," Bradner says of Novartis. "If you looked at the type of programs in our portfolio, they're not for the faint of heart. And this is for a very specific reason. We worry that if we don't try to [do it] well, then who will?""What Makes Novartis a Persistent Innovator?" was first published by Innovation Answered on February 28, 2022. You can hear the entire miniseries at innovationleader.com or in your podcast player of choice.Logo photo by Sangharsh Lohakare on UnsplashFull transcript available at http://www.soonishpodcast.org/505-novartis

How do big companies stay innovative across many decades, and in different industries? That's been the driving question of our Persistent Innovators miniseries. In the fourth and final episode we turn to company in a very different kind of business: discovering and developing new drugs. And we focus on the global pharmaceutical giant Novartis, formed in 1996 from the merger of the venerable Swiss companies Sandoz and CIBA-Geigy. At its Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, opened in 2002, Novartis invented a new style of biology-centric drug discovery that has changed practices across the industry—and sparked a local biopharma boom that has utterly transformed the Kendall Square neighborhood of Cambridge. Compared to the other industries we've covered in the miniseries, namely digital devices (Apple), entertainment (Disney), and toys (LEGO), the pharmaceutical business is downright cutthroat. Product development is risky, time-consuming, and expensive; competition is incredibly fierce; and even a blockbuster drug can become a flop once the patent expires and a generic drug makers jumps in. On top of all that, drug makers have to operate outside the traditional world of consumer marketing: You take a Novartis medicine not out of any brand loyalty to Novartis, but because your doctor tells you to. The net effect is that to stay successful, a big drug company must keep their product pipelines full and churn out hit after hit—which, when you think about it, is the very definition of a persistent innovator. In this episode, former Novartis executive and drug hunter Tom Hughes explains how Novartis's first CEO decided to rebuild the company's drug discovery effort around a genomic and molecular understanding of disease. And current NIBR president Jay Bradner talks about the structures Novartis has set up to protect and promote high-output innovation. Finally, we speak with Sam Wiley, head of thought leadership and customer advocacy at PatSnap—our sponsor throughout the miniseries—about a few more companies he sees as persistent innovators. Special thanks to our friends at PatSnap and Innovation Academy for sponsoring this miniseries.

Da den norske grunnloven ble skrevet ble ikke samene nevnt med ett ord, enda de var både mange og utbredt i landet. I den nye nasjonen var det ikke plass til flere kulturer, og gjennom lang tid drev staten mer og mer intens fornorskningspolitikk som skulle fjerne kvensk og samisk kultur. Hvordan gjorde de det, og hvilke holdninger lå bak? Ukens gjest er Mikkel Berg-Nordlie. Han har en doktorgrad i Historie ved Universitetet i Tromsø, er fagansvarlig for samisk historie på SNL, og er seniorforsker ved NIBR ved OsloMet. Der forsker han blant annet på samisk politikk.  Musikk: Epidemic Sounds Finn flere podcaster på metrosounds.no/podcast For annonsering kontakt marte.brandt@radiometro.no.

I denne episoden av Konflikt ser vi nærmere på Polens utvikling i EU. På hvilke måter utfordrer Polen EUs prinsipper og politikk? Er en «polexit» realistisk, og hva skjer på grensa mellom Polen og Hviterussland? Dette er noen av temaene du får høre mer om i denne episoden av Konflikt, når styremedlem Ingrid Kongshaug Johannesen tar en prat med Jørn Holm-Hansen, statsviter og seniorforsker ved By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR ved Oslomet.

Jørn Holm-Hansen er forsker ved By- og regionforskningsinstituttet NIBR og Polen-kjenner. I denne episoden snakker vi med ham om en studie han har gjennomført om debatten i Polen knyttet til vold i nære relasjoner. Holm-Hansen tar for seg dragkampen mellom nasjonalkonservative på den ene siden og mer liberale krefter på den andre, både når det gjelder denne debatten og debatter knyttet til LHBT-rettigheter og abortspørsmål.  Les mer: Vold i nære relasjoner som tema i russisk og polsk politikk – De nasjonalkonservative utfordres i kjernesak https://www.idunn.no/file/pdf/67255648/vold_i_naere_relasjoner_som_tema_i_russisk_og_polsk_politikk.pdf Tidligere episode med Jørn Hom-Hansen: Reisebrev fra Nord-KoreaHistorien om BerlinmurenPutin avhengig av sivilsamfunnetHvor går Russland?

Jørn Holm-Hansen er forsker ved By- og regionforskningsinstituttet NIBR og Polen-kjenner. I denne episoden snakker vi med ham om en studie han har gjennomført om debatten i Polen knyttet til vold i nære relasjoner. Holm-Hansen tar for seg dragkampen mellom nasjonalkonservative på den ene siden og mer liberale krefter på den andre, både når det gjelder denne debatten og debatter knyttet til LHBT-rettigheter og abortspørsmål.  Les mer: Vold i nære relasjoner som tema i russisk og polsk politikk – De nasjonalkonservative utfordres i kjernesak https://www.idunn.no/file/pdf/67255648/vold_i_naere_relasjoner_som_tema_i_russisk_og_polsk_politikk.pdf Tidligere episode med Jørn Hom-Hansen: Reisebrev fra Nord-KoreaHistorien om BerlinmurenPutin avhengig av sivilsamfunnetHvor går Russland?

Digital transformations are having wide-ranging and profound impacts within life sciences, creating both opportunities and challenges. One of those challenges is adopting new software systems to drive the transformations. A team from Novartis Institutes of BioMedical Research (NIBR) recognised the need to ensure a good user experience for their in vivo study support groups. The NIBR team, partnered with technology provider, RockStep Solutions (RSS), to tackle the challenge. In this article, the authors present a case study illustrating a successful collaboration that created software to support complex in vivo workflows. Furthermore, they describe the repeatable 4P process they developed to help pharmaceutical companies and vendors replicate this success.

Tässä Sales & Marketing Talk Show jaksossa keskustelemme Jaakon kanssa: ✔️Mitä äänibrändäys on ja minkä takia yritysten tulisi kiinnostua äänibrändäyksestä? ✔️Miten yrityksen brändi muuttuu äänibrändiksi? ✔️Miksi äänibrändäyksen tärkeyttä ei usein ymmärretä ja mitä väärinymmärryksiä aiheesta on? ✔️Mitkä menestyneet yritykset tekevät jo äänibrändäystä ja mitä voimme oppia heiltä? ✔️Miten investoinnit äänibrändäykseen maksaa itsensä takaisin?

I Oslo finnes det en mengde skjulte arkitektoniske perler i byområdene vi bor og ferdes i. Mange av disse er innpasset i omgivelsene og gjør ikke mye ut av seg. Men, stopper du opp og ser litt ekstra vil du oppdage mye fantastisk hverdagsarkitektur og ikke minst historie. I denne episoden forteller Gro Sandkjær Hanssen fra NIBR og Even Smith Wergeland fra Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo om noen av perlene vi omgir oss med i hverdagen. Even Smith WergelandGro Sandkjær Hanssen Arkitekturvettregler Gro og Even forteller også i episoden om turvettregler de har utviklet for å hjelpe oss andre å bli kjent med god arkitektur. Kort oppsummert: De store linjene – hva slags type bygninger ser du?Zoom inn – se etter de særegne detaljeneFinne mer informasjon – undersøk og lær litt mer. Prøv planinnsyn - https://od2.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/kart/#596941,6642882,7 Turforslag I episoden snakker Gro og Even om ulike turmål for å oppleve arkitektur: Akersleva: Fossen og hjulet veveriTandberg Radiofabrikk på Brekke og SkullerudOset vannrenseanlegg ved Maridalsvannet, Kjelsås, tegnet av Geir GrungØkern sykehjemKabelgata, Økern          Kanonhallen på LørenUlvetrappa og Evald Rygs trapp på IlaFreskomaleriet til Sverre Wyller «En blå stasjon» på t-banestasjonen på LørenTransformatorbyggene til Geir Grung og Georg Greve. https://twitter.com/grohanssen/status/1247167009881640965 Følg Gro og Even på Twitter for mer nærarkitektur:Gro på @grohanssenEven på @SmithWergeland

I Oslo finnes det en mengde skjulte arkitektoniske perler i byområdene vi bor og ferdes i. Mange av disse er innpasset i omgivelsene og gjør ikke mye ut av seg. Men, stopper du opp og ser litt ekstra vil du oppdage mye fantastisk hverdagsarkitektur og ikke minst historie. I denne episoden forteller Gro Sandkjær Hanssen fra NIBR og Even Smith Wergeland fra Arkitektur- og designhøgskolen i Oslo om noen av perlene vi omgir oss med i hverdagen. Even Smith WergelandGro Sandkjær Hanssen Arkitekturvettregler Gro og Even forteller også i episoden om turvettregler de har utviklet for å hjelpe oss andre å bli kjent med god arkitektur. Kort oppsummert: De store linjene – hva slags type bygninger ser du?Zoom inn – se etter de særegne detaljeneFinne mer informasjon – undersøk og lær litt mer. Prøv planinnsyn - https://od2.pbe.oslo.kommune.no/kart/#596941,6642882,7 Turforslag I episoden snakker Gro og Even om ulike turmål for å oppleve arkitektur: Akersleva: Fossen og hjulet veveriTandberg Radiofabrikk på Brekke og SkullerudOset vannrenseanlegg ved Maridalsvannet, Kjelsås, tegnet av Geir GrungØkern sykehjemKabelgata, Økern          Kanonhallen på LørenUlvetrappa og Evald Rygs trapp på IlaFreskomaleriet til Sverre Wyller «En blå stasjon» på t-banestasjonen på LørenTransformatorbyggene til Geir Grung og Georg Greve. https://twitter.com/grohanssen/status/1247167009881640965 Følg Gro og Even på Twitter for mer nærarkitektur:Gro på @grohanssenEven på @SmithWergeland

Med Olga Shamshur Flydal, Aadne Aasland og Martin Paulsen. Etter turbulente år med regimeskifte og krig har ukrainerne valgt ny president. Den politiske nykommeren Volodymyr Zelenskyj har fått ansvaret for å lede landets videre utvikling. Men hva er egentlig ståa for det ukrainske demokratiet og hvordan opplever ukrainerne selv utviklingen? Olga Shamshur Flydal er seniorrådgiver i Den norske Helsingforskomité. Hun vokste opp i Ukraina og leder nå Helsingforskomiteens prosjekter i landet. Aadne Aasland er forsker tilknyttet By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR ved OsloMet, hvor han nylig avsluttet et forskningsprosjekt om lokaldemokrati i Ukraina. De skal dele sine ukrainske erfaringer med Martin Paulsen.

Med Olga Shamshur Flydal, Aadne Aasland og Martin Paulsen. Etter turbulente år med regimeskifte og krig har ukrainerne valgt ny president. Den politiske nykommeren Volodymyr Zelenskyj har fått ansvaret for å lede landets videre utvikling. Men hva er egentlig ståa for det ukrainske demokratiet og hvordan opplever ukrainerne selv utviklingen? Olga Shamshur Flydal er seniorrådgiver i Den norske Helsingforskomité. Hun vokste opp i Ukraina og leder nå Helsingforskomiteens prosjekter i landet. Aadne Aasland er forsker tilknyttet By- og regionsforskningsinstituttet NIBR ved OsloMet, hvor han nylig avsluttet et forskningsprosjekt om lokaldemokrati i Ukraina. De skal dele sine ukrainske erfaringer med Martin Paulsen.

Høstens første utgave av "Der livet leves" er et faktum. Og der livet leves, i kommunene, skal det velges 10.000 lokalpolitikere til kommunestyrer og fylkesting på mandag. Det er tema for denne episoden.Forsker ved institutt for samfunnsforskning, Jo Saglie, forsker ved By og regionforskningsinstituttet NIBR, Sigrid Stokstad og Aftenposten-journalist Halvor Hegtun er alle gjester hos programleder Kjell Erik Saure for å diskutere selve høytidsdagen for lokaldemokratiet. Eller er egentlig dagen like høytidsstemt nå som så mange stemmer på forhånd? Dessuten får du høre om eselet Påsan og kampanjen "Lokale valg, lokale konsekvenser". See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Norsk boligpolitikk blir karakterisert som en ulikhetsmaskin. Berit-Irene Nordahl Sosiolog og forskningssjef ved NIBR på Oslo Met mener man bør se til Danmarks vellykkede boligpolitikk. Programleder Ragna Nordenborg.

Jaksossa pohditaan äänimaisemia, ääneen kytkeytyviä uusia teknologioita ja äänibrändäystä. Juuso Pekkisen vieraana on Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulun yliopettaja, äänityön pitkän linjan ammattilainen ja äänimaisemien tutkija Ari Koivumäki. Koivumäen väitöskirja käsittelee äänimaisematutkimusta äänisuunnittelun tukena. Ohjelmassa ääneen pääsee myös äänibrändäykseen erikoistunut Bauer Median Lauri Domnick. Kohtaamisia syvässä päässä. Juuso Pekkinen etsii suurempaa ymmärrystä ympäröivästä todellisuudesta. Hydraatiota intohimoiseen tiedonjanoon maanantaista keskiviikkoon kello kymmenestä yhteentoista.

Susan Stevenson, executive director, and Craig Mickanin, director, of the Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company, Novartis, based in Basel, Switzerland, deliver an informative overview of the incredible advances in gene therapy and transformative technologies that are rapidly changing the techniques medical professionals utilize to fight disease. Sue Stevenson is an experienced director with an extensive history in the pharmaceuticals industry. Her focus is in biologics, life sciences, validation, and cell biology. She holds a BS in chemistry from Western Maryland College as well as a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from the distinguished Wake Forest University. Craig Mickanin holds a BS in biology and history from the prestigious William & Mary University, the second oldest college in the nation, and a well-respected cutting-edge research university. The Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research (NIBR) is the innovation engine and the NIBR team collaborates across various scientific and organizational boundaries, working for therapeutic breakthroughs for all patients. Novartis's stated mission is to utilize science-based innovation to address the world's most challenging healthcare issues. Novartis seeks to discover and develop breakthrough treatments and successful ways to deliver them to the world's population in need of care. Research and development (R&D) are at Novartis's core and a key component to their primary strategy. Stevenson describes Novartis's mission goal as it relates to disease treatment and prevention, specifically regarding cell and gene therapy. She discusses a few of their gene therapy methods, including the process of removing some of a patient's cells, to modify those cells to, in essence, fight a particular tumor type, and then reintroducing the cells into the patient's body so that the cells can get to work destroying the tumor. This cell therapy is an example of ex vivo therapy. Stevenson also outlines some of their early development on injectable options for cell delivery and the clinical studies that are going on currently. The biochemistry Ph.D. details their exciting work that she hopes will bring truly amazing medical advancements to patients worldwide, such as restoring blindness, restoring hearing, and curing cancer, as well as some other in vivo studies that are showing promise. Mickanin discusses his early work and provides some insight into how technology advances have helped buoy the transformative aspect of the field. He discusses current stem cell studies and the extent of their use in the industry. Mickanin details some of the aspects of the CRISPR technology, which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. Mickanin states that the system allows researchers to induce double stranded breaks into virtually any genome with specificity, and Novartis has been investing significant resources into the research. And Stevenson adds how their use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology will aid them in the process of introducing cells that can prevent disease or disease complications. She lays out the intricacies of the CRISPR/Cas9 and her hopes for its use ongoing, in future discovery and delivery of treatment options for patients. Mickanin provides an overview of how ex vivo strategies and in vivo strategies are determined, and the issues that are involved when making a choice as to how to move forward with either for treatments. Stevenson discusses the expectations for the future and MIT studies that indicate perhaps as many as forty new gene therapy medicines may be released by the year 2022.

Gro Sandkjær Hansen fra NIBR og Jørgen Amdam i podkast under ledelse av journalist Jan Inge Krossli

Host: Alan S. Brown, MD, FNLA Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia occurs when the rapid absorption of dietary fat (in the form of chylomicron triglycerides) overwhelms the body's ability to clear plasma triglyceride. In its most severe form, postprandial hypertriglyceridemia can lead to chylomicronemia and a greatly increased risk of acute, life-threatening pancreatitis. Joining host Dr. Alan Brown to talk about this condition and a trial drug treatment in research and development is Dr. Dan Meyers, one of the top winners in the Abstracts Program of the National Lipid Association's Annual Scientific Sessions. Dr. Meyers is currently a Translational Medicine Expert with Novartis Institutes of Biomedical Research (NIBR) in Cambridge, MA. While at NIBR, he has designed and executed first-in-human, proof of concept, and mechanistic studies with novel compounds intended for the treatment of dyslipidemia, diabetes and related metabolic disease.