Breaking new ground: Nathaniel Berlin, Paul Marks, and Val Skinner

Nathaniel Berlin: Where did I go? What tangent did I come off of? 

Gretchen Case: This was just talking about the early days of Cancer Control. 

NB: Yes, right. That didn’t last very long. Rauscher went out, and I think he got [John] Bailar to develop the Control Program. Bailar didn’t last long at it. And Diane Fink came in. When she came in, [C. Gordon] Zubrod and I, [Frank] Rauscher-he was after Baker-we were cut out. I got what money I wanted, and I got the project started. 

So that’s the very early days. But that plan, I thought-you know, Carl [G. Baker] utilized the resources he had, and I think we could have moved farther if we’d been given the opportunity. 

You must recognize, as I did, that there were people both within the lnstitute and outside of the lnstitute who thought that Zubrod and I and Rauscher had too much power. 

GC: Really? 

NB: Yes. 

GC: Did you perceive it that way? 

NB: I thought we were benign. 

[Laughter]

NB: Sure we had power. We had money, we had power. Was it well used? I’m not going to apologize for my use either internally or externally. I made my mistakes, sure. 

GC: But it sounds like you used your power wisely. 

NB: Yes, we set up a Diagnosis Program. I set up a Diagnostic Radiology Program. They didn’t move very far after I left. We did support the development of a Diagnosis Program, a CAT scanner for diagnosis of brain tumors. We developed the & controlled study for the diagnosis using a radiological technique. [Richard] Bolt, [Leo] Beranek, and [David] Newman did it. 

And then Diane Fink took it on, and she lasted a while, and then I think Peter Greenwald got it. 

GC: Peter Greenwald? 

NB: And has changed its character, very much so. In large measure, in large measure scientifically. Major prevention is available today. Major preventions available today that have a base in science. Get rid of tobacco, and the Pap test. My division set up the Minnesota study to test fecal occult blood. That’s all we have that’s very specific. 

The nutrition thing, you’ll have to talk to Peter about. What’s the evidence that anything nutritional has anything to do with cancer? I find it very difficult, scientifically. That’s just me. 

And I don’t know what research we should be doing. You see, the major problem with Bailar is the data that he has on the change in mortality from breast-from cancer in total, the change in incidence, the change in mortality, I wrote up on the paper that I gave you. It was published in ‘95; 1 wrote it in ‘93 and ‘94. There’s been not much to quarrel about in that data. 

And what Bailar said in the mid-’80s when he says, “Today we’ve got to do prevention research,”—but the thing that Bailar doesn’t tell you is what to do. 

GC: He just said that something needs to be done, but not—

NB: Have you seen his interview with The Cancer Letter? 

GC: No, I haven’t seen that. 

NB: Get it. It’s fascinating, because when he said, “Well, we ought to put a third of our money, a half a number,” and they asked him, he said, “Oh, well, that’s a rubber number.” 

Get it. It’s at home on my desk. 

GC: Oh, I can get it from the NCI. 

NB: Get the one with the Bailar interview. If you’re writing a history. [The Cancer Letter, June 6, 1997]