J Freireich loved good science and a good fight

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

When I started my fellowship at MD Anderson Cancer Center in 1980, Dr. Freireich headed the Department of Developmental Therapeutics.

Freireich working with a blood cell separator centrifuge at
MD Anderson Hospital. Photo courtesy of MD Anderson Cancer Center

In the departmental clinical research meetings, the fellows were sitting in the back and observed Dr. Freireich leading the meeting expecting accurate presentation and criticizing the most senior faculty, if needed.

People argued loudly in disagreement, only to be friendly to each other once the meeting was over. I learned soon that for J Freireich, scientific accuracy and knowledge were more important than seniority.

He never let any one of us get away with sloppy, inaccurate presentation.

Over the years I have learned about his multiple scientific accomplishments that significantly impacted the life of cancer patients. I was duly impressed. However, I was much more impressed with his personality as a leader.

He was a man of principles, and he never caved to pressure from administrators. He was always willing to give up political capital if it required compromising his scientific principles.

He was perceived by some as a controversial figure, at times upholding controversial concepts. Nonetheless, he defended his views rationally and with conviction.

Dr. Freireich was among those who pioneered clinical research in oncology as a structured, scientifically-supported discipline. He was among those who developed the therapeutic principles of chemotherapy in cancer.

At the same time, he also understood the changes in the fields and the value of therapeutic disciplines, such as biologic therapies, targeted therapies, and immunotherapies. Even in his later years, he was quick to grasp new concepts, remaining a sharp observer and critic when appropriate.

I see myself among many others who are Dr. Freireich’s proud students, who feel blessed to have had the opportunity to have him as a mentor who had considerable impact on their careers and lives.


The author is a professor at the Department of Internal Medicine,
University of Michigan

Moshe Talpaz, MD
Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

For nearly 25 years, business executive Lou Weisbach and urologist Richard J. Boxer have argued that finding the money to finance the cures for devastating diseases is not as difficult as it appears. To start finding the cures, the U.S. Department of the Treasury needs to issue some bonds—$750 billion worth. Next, you hire CEOs—one...

There is general agreement that the United States spends too much on health care, especially on pharmaceuticals.  But what we spend on drugs is not simply a function of price. If eggs double in price, people can simply cut the number of eggs they eat in half.  Simply stated, cost is the product of (price per unit times the number of units purchased). 
What did President Richard M. Nixon and Senator Edward M. Kennedy have in common? They each played a pivotal role in the passage of the National Cancer Act signed by Nixon on Dec. 23, 1971. The NCA established the National Cancer Program authorizing the initial investment in the NCI-designated Cancer Centers Program. 
When I first proposed targeting PCNA (proliferating cell nuclear antigen) as a therapeutic approach, the response I got was: “No one will ever make a drug against PCNA. It’s undruggable.” The protein lacks enzymatic activity, has a disordered region, and binds to over 200 other proteins within the cell. From a traditional drug development perspective, these characteristics made PCNA an impossible target.
Moshe Talpaz, MD
Professor, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login