Dr. Frank Joseph Rauscher II (born 1931)

Formal portrait, realistic artist rendering of Frank Joseph Rauscher, Jr., National Cancer Institute director from May 1972 to November 1976. The original piece of art hangs in the 11th floor hallway in Building 31 on the National Institutes of Health campus.https://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=2734https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EKHjzCWuxWsWNxGNM3-x-aGA2Wd5Rafu/view?usp=sharing

Wikipedia 🌐 NONE



https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/1130269:4124?tid=&pid=&queryId=1d6a2f78d197a1134d71230c031b662b&_phsrc=llt706&_phstart=successSource

  • Name : Frank J Rauscher Jr

  • Occupation : DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH

  • Marital Status : Married

  • Birth Date : 24 May 1931

  • Birth Place : Pennsylvania

  • Address : 112 VALLEY FORGE, Weston, Fairfield, Connecticut

  • Death Date : 31 Dec 1992

  • Death Place : New York

  • Age : 61 Years

Middle name Joseph - https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/48081543:60901?tid=&pid=&queryId=1d6a2f78d197a1134d71230c031b662b&_phsrc=llt707&_phstart=successSource

1993 (Jan 04) - NYTimes : "Dr. Frank Rauscher Jr., 61, Dies; Discovered Animal Cancer Virus"

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/04/nyregion/dr-frank-rauscher-jr-61-dies-discovered-animal-cancer-virus.html

1993-01-04-nytimes-dr-frank-rauscher-jr-61-dies-discovered-animal-cancer-virus.pdf

1993-01-04-nytimes-dr-frank-rauscher-jr-61-dies-discovered-animal-cancer-virus-clip-1.jpg

By Maria Newman / Jan. 4, 1993

Dr. Frank J. Rauscher Jr., a former director of the National Cancer Institute who discovered one of the most-studied of animal cancer viruses, died on Thursday in a Nyack, N.Y., hospital. He was 61 and lived in Weston, Conn.

Dr. Rauscher suffered a heart attack, said one of his sons, Dr. Frank J. Rauscher 3d.

A scientist for the National Cancer Institute for 17 years beginning in 1959, Dr. Rauscher was appointed director in 1972 by President Nixon. He served in that capacity, and as the first director of President Nixon's "war on cancer," during a time when the disease became the subject of intense medical research as it was taking a fearful toll on American lives.

Under his leadership, financing for the institute grew to $815 million annually from $377 million in 1972.

In 1976, Dr. Rauscher resigned to become senior vice president for research at the American Cancer Society, a private group that was calling for an expanded campaign against cancer. During his 14 years as senior vice president, the society distributed $700 million for biology, cancer and AIDS research and disease control. Insulation Research

Dr. Rauscher then became executive director of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturers' Association in Stamford, Conn., where he directed research on thermal insulation materials to replace asbestos.

Born in Hellertown, Pa., Dr. Rauscher received his Ph.D. in microbiology at Rutgers University in 1957 and was widely published on issues dealing with viruses and cancer.

While with the National Cancer Institute, he discovered a virus that produces a form of leukemia in mice and that became a valuable tool in cancer research because of the speed with which it acts in rodents.

In addition to his son Frank Rauscher 3d, who lives in Princeton, Dr. Rauscher is survived by his wife, Margaret; two other sons, Michael P. Rauscher, of Ridgefield, Conn., and David Rauscher of Weston; two daughters, Mary A. Rauscher and Megan Brooks, both of Westport, Conn.; his father, Frank J. Rauscher Sr.; a brother, Kenneth Rauscher, and a sister, Lois Grigorauk, both of Hellertown, Pa., and two grandchildren.

A funeral Mass for Dr. Rauscher will be offered at 11 A.M. Monday at St. Francis of Assisi Roman Catholic Church in Weston.

1993 (Feb) - Journal 0f the National Cancer Institute : "Dr. Frank J. Rauscher, Jr.: An Appreciation"

Francis X. Mahaney, Jr. / Published: 03 February 1993

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 85, Issue 3, 3 February 1993, Pages 174–175, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.3.174

Source (PDF) : [HG00E2][GDrive]

Frank Joseph Rauscher, Jr., Ph.D., will long be remembered as the man who discovered the "Rauscher Virus," the murine leukemia virus that now bears his name, and for his service as director of the National Cancer Institute and senior vice president for research of the American Cancer Society.

He died unexpectedly on New Year's Eve of a heart attack while driving to see relatives in Pennsylvania. He was 61 years old and lived in Western, Conn., with Margaret, his wife of 37 years.

Dr. Rauscher was known to his friends and colleagues as a kind and compassionate person, a skilled administrator, an accomplished scientist, and a fearless advocate of cancer research on Capitol Hill and at the White House.

"His ability to work with people and combine that with his vast knowledge of cancer research made him a truly outstanding NCI director," said Carl G. Baker, M.D., director of the National Cancer Institute from 1969-1972.

Dr. Rauscher was always accessible to his staff and frequently enjoyed the company of others. Individuals hoping to gain favors from his staff by saying, "I'm a close personal friend of Frank's," were often admonished because Dr. Rauscher's closest friends knew to call him "Dick," a nickname his parents had given him. Dr. Rauscher was seldom called Frank, except by his father, and never "Francis." His brothers and sisters preferred to call him "Joe."

He was bom in 1931, in Hellertown, Pa. As a boy, Rauscher spent his afternoons after school working as a stock boy at Rauscher's Hardware Store, the family-owned business his father, Frank, Sr., started more than 44 years ago. Frank, Sr., now 81, still owns and operates the store.

As a pitcher, he played baseball whenever he got the opportunity. He played for the Hellertown team, the American Legion team, numerous nearby town teams, and the high school. He also excelled in basketball and received a varsity letter in both sports. Soon after receiving a college baseball scholarship, Dr. Rauscher received a minor league pitching offer, but his interest in microbiology influenced him to make a career of science and leave his baseball mitt on the shelf.

Dr. Rauscher received his Bachelor of Science degree from Moravian College, Bethlehem, Pa., in 1953 and his Ph.D. in microbiology and virology from Rutgers University in 1957.

From 1958-1959, he served as assistant professor of virology at Rutgers University Graduate School. In 1959, he became visiting instructor of animal virology at Trinity College, Washington, D.C.

That same year, Dr. Rauscher began his career in a small lab at NCI. In the late 1950s, NCI scientists did not have modem molecular tools, such as genetic mapping and DNA technology, available to them to perform the complex research tasks. Largely, the skills that Rauscher and his colleagues employed were entirely self taught. Sometimes the cancer virologists did not really know what type of viruses they discovered. What were originally thought to be human cancer viruses often turned out to be nothing more than cat viruses that had invaded the culture.

Moreover, most scientists would not accept the theory that viruses could induce cancer. Dr. Rauscher's colleague John Moloney, Ph.D., recalled that, "Often during large scientific meetings cancer virologists were not allowed to present their theories of viral-induced cancer, and the real presentations and cooperation took place in smoke-filled hotel rooms."

In 1962, Dr. Rauscher's announcement of the discovery of a virus-induced leukemia of mice (see J Natl Cancer Inst 29:515-543, 1962), signaled a new era of respect for the cancer virologist. Now leukemia could be induced in mice in just 12 days, something previously impossible. The very short latent period and the high potency and stability of the virus permitted new studies on chemotherapy, biochemistry, and physical properties in one-fourth the time required for other laboratory model systems.

Soon the Rauscher Virus was supplied to more than 800 laboratories throughout the world, and eventually more than 5,000 scientific papers would be published about it.

Dr. Rauscher and close colleagues were sent to the far comers of the world to lecture about their new cancer discoveries—Russia, Japan, and even a special meeting in East Germany, which led Rauscher past "Check Point Charlie" and across the Berlin Wall.

The discoveries of the Rauscher and other viruses eventually enabled Kenneth Endicott, M.D., the NCI director in 1964, to receive a $60-million surge of funding for the NCI's Special Virus Leukemia Program. Dr. Rauscher, who had worked for the National Cancer Institute from 1959, was named head of the program and later NCI's scientific director for cancer etiology.

With the help of leading non-federal scientists, Dr. Rauscher defined the major research objectives of the Special Virus Leukemia Program, and targeted four major research areas: the nature of animal leukemias and their relationships to humans; the hazards of working with viral agents; development of animal and cell culture systems, quantities of virus, and other materials needed for research; and improved treatment for the disease in humans.

Many of the early projects concentrated on developing experimental methods and materials necessary to advance virus research. By 1967, new methods to grow the mouse leukemia virus in large quantities had been developed. This accomplishment led to development of techniques for growing other viruses.

In 1965, Rauscher was named one of the nation's 10 outstanding young men by the Junior Chamber of Commerce. Three years later, he received the Arthur S. Fleming Award as one of the outstanding young men in federal service for his work on cancer and viruses. In 1973, he received the Lucy Wortham James Award for Basic Research in Cancer from the James Ewing Society.

Dr. Rauscher received many awards, honors and degrees. Arthur I. Holleb, M.D., former senior vice president for medical affairs at ACS, called Dr. Rauscher "an exceptionally modest man. He once begged me to stop the praise during an awards ceremony because I was using up some of his time for his research lecture." In 1970, Dr. Rauscher was elected to the Board of Directors of the American Association for Cancer Research. He served as vice president of the World Society for Comparative Leukemia Research from 1967 to 1972. As director of NCI from May 1972 to October 1976, he served on governing and scientific boards of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. He also directed the establishment of formal cancer research agreements between the United States and the U.S.S.R., Japan, Poland, and many other countries.

In 1972, Dr. Rauscher was chosen by President Richard M. Nixon to direct the National Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Program, spearheading the country's research efforts on what President Nixon then called "the war on cancer."

During his tenure, NCI's budget rose from $378 million to $815 million, oncogenes and proto-oncogenes were discovered, recombinant DNA technology, genetic engineering, and hybridoma technology came into being, and new chemotherapy treatments such as Adriamycin demonstrated remarkable results in patients with breast and lung cancer. Under Dr. Rauscher's leadership, cancer control programs were established at NCI, and 15 comprehensive cancer centers were designated.

He left the NCI reluctantly in 1976 because he could not educate his five children on a salary of $37,800 a year. Rauscher joined the American Cancer Society, where he was named senior vice president for research.

At ACS, Dr. Rauscher spearheaded initiatives on interferon research, devoting $2 million to this new field of study. Dr. Rauscher also fostered research and development programs that allowed scientists to receive rapid funding on research that had the high potential for directly benefiting people, but for which there were no pilot studies. Rauscher also developed million-dollar special institutional grants committed to the study of cancer carcinogenesis.

In 1988, when ACS moved to Atlanta, Dr. Rauscher decided to stay in the northeast and became executive director of the Thermal Insulation Manufacturer's Association in Stamford, Conn., where he directed research on noncarcinogenic thermal insulation materials to replace asbestos.

"Dick Rauscher was an exceptionally nice man — and tolerant as well," said Holleb. "The smile was always there. He had a kindly nature — and a willingness to listen to exciting new science or the personal problems of his friends or staff."

Everyone was his friend.

Dr. Rauscher is survived by his wife, five children, his father, and two grandchildren.

—Francis X. Mahaney, Jr.


EVIDENCE TIMELINE

1966 (May 10)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/281269442/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1967 (March 06)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/315569320/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1968 (Jan 14)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/148961964/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1968 (Jan 21)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/148982466/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1968 (March 24)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/252344981/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1968 (Oct 02)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/86134908/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1969 (Aug 17)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/261333257/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1969 (Sep 15)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/317175292/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/317175581

1969 (Sep 26)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/148284469/?terms=frank%20rauscher%20Alice%20moore&match=1

1969 (Oct 05)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/100732073

https://www.newspapers.com/image/100732075/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/100732077

1969 (Oct 08)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/180602338/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1969 (Oct 26) - The Pittsburgh Press : "Front Line in the Cancer Fight"

Mentioned: Dr. Alfred R. Hellman (born 1931) / Dr. Frank Joseph Rauscher II (born 1931)

Note - Only 4 occurrences in all newspapers of "Frank Rauscher" in 1970 ... looks like wiping

1970 (Feb 12)

Full newspaper page - [HN00UM][GDrive]

Mentioned : Dr. Robert Joseph Huebner (born 1914) for Special Virus-Cancer Program /

1970 (March 24)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/214710138/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1971 (Jan 03)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/317068635/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1971 (April 11)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/98945739/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/98945773/

1971 (May 16)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/589321148/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1972 (Feb 14)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/18504848/?terms=%22frank%20rauscher%22&match=1

1972 (May 06)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/275310363/?terms=frank%20rauscher%20nixon&match=1

1972-05-06-the-morning-call-allentown-pg-5.jpg

1972-05-06-the-morning-call-allentown-pg-5-clip-cancer.jpg

1972 (June 25) - NYTimes : "Litton to Run Cancer Research Lab"

By Harold M. Schmeck Jr.; Special to The New York Times

Source : [HN012A][GDrive]

WASHINGTON, June 24— The National Cancer Institute named a contractor yesterday to operate its newly acquired facilities at Fort Detrick, Md., and predicted that, by fall, the former biological warfare lab oratories would be fully at work toward the conquest of cancer.

The contract, for renovation, management and operation of the facilities, goes to Litton Bionetics, a division of Litton Industries, Inc. The first‐year contract is for $6.8‐million. At a news conference today, [Dr. Frank Joseph Rauscher II (born 1931)], director of the cancer institute, said it was the largest single contract ever awarded by any of the National Institutes of Health.

Use of the facilities is part of the expanded national re search effort against cancer Fort Detrick is believed to have some of the world's best facili ties for research with hazardous chemicals and infectious agants.

Dr. Rauscher said the insti tute's work at Fort Detrick would include research on known cancer viruses of ani mals as well as some of the viruses suspected of roles in human cancer. The program will also include studies of chemicals capable of causing cancer and research on poten tial anticancer drugs.

Viruses to Be Made

Viruses and special biologi cal materials will be produced in large quantities for use, not only at Fort Detrick, but also at other laboratories doing cancer research.

Large numbers of small ani mals, mostly rats and mice, will be maintained for the re search at the newly acquired laboratories in Maryland. By the end of the second year of op eration, 30,000 laboratory ani mals will be maintained at the facilities for studies of the life time effects of hazardous chem icals and other potentially dangerous substances. Presum ably, this will be only part of the animal population.

Dr. Rauscher said the agree ment with Litton Bionetics of Bethesda, Md., was an award fee contract, meaning that the contractor has no guaranteed, profit. Only if the Government finds that the company's pro gress warrants it, will the con tractor be premitted some percenage or profit up to a possi ble maximum of 10 per cent, he said.

The over‐all operational con tract is expected to expand in future years, perhaps reaching a legal level as high as $20‐ million a year.

Fast Action Planned

At the news conference to day James C. Nance, president of Litton Bionetics, said the company planned to go into operation rapidly with an esti mated 75 persons on duty by the end of next week; 150 by the end of July and approach ing 300 by 1973.

Bionetics, which became a division of Litton Industries in 1968, has been active as a commercial biological research laboratory since 1961 and has done a substantial amount of previous contract work for the cancer institute. Litton Indus tries has come under sharp criticism recently for its per formance in ship‐building con tracts for the Navy.

While Fort Detrick has been a largely secret facility while it was working on biological war fare research, it will now be open to scientists from the United States and abroad, in cluding some from the Soviet Union and, probably, from mainland China.

Dr. Rauscher said that some virus experts from the Soviet Union might be invited to tour the Fort Detrick facilities as early as this fall.

The cancer institute's opera tion at Fort Detrick will be located primarily in the “high security area” of the former biological warfare research fa cility.


https://www.newspapers.com/image/117493379/?terms=frank%20rauscher%20nixon&match=1

1972-08-04-arizona-republic-pg-13

1972-08-04-arizona-republic-pg-13-clip-soviets


1973 (November) - COrrespondence with Lederberg

https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/spotlight/bb/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101584906X17951-doc

Letter from Joshua Lederberg to Frank Rauscher, National Cancer Institute

Creator:

Lederberg, Joshua

Recipient:

National Cancer Institute (U.S.) and Rauscher, Frank J., Jr

Date:

29 November 1973

Location:

Box: 74. Folder: 18

Rights:

Public Domain

Genre:

Letters (correspondence)

Format:

Text

Extent:

2 pages


1976 (June 13)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/139622246/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

1977 (APril 07)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/566984228/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

1980 (Sep 19)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/334001982/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

https://www.newspapers.com/image/334001982/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

1980 (June 23)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/119953178/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

1981 (Sep 19)

https://www.newspapers.com/image/268747419/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

1982 (July 04) - With Gallo

https://www.newspapers.com/image/291301346/?terms=rauscher%20gallo&match=1

1984 - Impact of chemicals on cancer .. Rauscher / Lederberg

https://www.newspapers.com/image/624507257/?terms=Lederberg%20rauscher&match=1

https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/ocr/nlm:nlmuid-101083016X7-leaf

THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION

on the

HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY

VIRUS EPIDEMIC


HEARING ON Research


February 18, 19, 20, 1988

1988-02-20-usa-gov-presidential-commission-on-hiv-epidemic.pdf


DR. LILLY: Thank you very much. I think if you willpermit us, we will go on and have Dr. Rauscher present his- testimony, and then we'll have a question-and-answer period.
Our next speaker is Dr. Frank Rauscher, who is from theAmerican Cancer Society. Dr. Rauscher has had an extremelysuccessful career in direct biomedical research on retroviruses,and he has been administering research, and he has learned agreat deal and probably knows more than anybody else I know abouthow to do that successfully.
So I would like to present Dr. Rauscher.
The Role or Research Planning
DR. RAUSCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman anddistinguished members of the Commission.
My name is Frank Rauscher, and I presently serve asSenior Vice President for Research of the ener scan CancerSociety. I believe you have my CV.



My background, in brief, is as follows:
I evolved primarily as a viral oncologist inretrovirology through 10 years of academia; 18 years with theNational Cancer Institute at the NIH, and now 12 years with theAmerican Cancer Society in the private or voluntary sector.During this time I have also served on a number of panels relatedto the subject of your hearing.
I have been asked by one of you, one of the mostinnovative scientists in this country, Dr. Lilly, a member ofyour Commission, to comment on the good or the not-so-goodaspects, if you will, of the planning process; in particular, asthe planning process relates and has related to two programssponsored by the federal government which, in many respects, aresimilar to the charge that you have undertaken.
I will do this very briefly and then will, of course,be pleased to discuss any questions you may have.
In 1964, I was appointed head of what was called theSpecial Virus Leukemia Program, which I believe was the firstmajor new program of the NIH that attempted to include planningas a major component of program implementation and evaluation.
At that time, during the middle of the budget year,interestingly enough, the National Cancer Institute received asupplemental appropriation of $10 million with a mandate fromCongress to determine whether viruses were responsible for anyhuman neoplasm, in particular leukemia and lymphoma, and todevise means for prevention.
That charge was not fully realized or fulfilled untilDr. Gallo and now others discovered the relationships of HTLV-1and a form of adult leukemia in the early 1980s. The technologycoming out of that program, I think it is fair to say, providedthe intellectual and technical base for what is now being donewith AIDS and HIV. Parenthetically, Dr. Lilly was one of thefirst scientists supported by that program.
Now in terms of planning, a small number of staff, thatis NCI staff together with advice from outside peer scientists,with approval and overview of the National Cancer AdvisoryCouncil at that time, attempted to do the following, and I findthese are sort of golden threads through any planning process asregards medical research:
First, was to assess the history and state of the artas it existed at that time in viral oncology;
Second, was to determine what critical path might befollowed to attain the objective quickly and with some economy;
8


Third, was to identify and solicit people andinstitutions to do the work -- that can be difficult, by the way;
Fourth, was to peer review, monitor and report onprogress or the lack thereof in the program;
And then fifth, and I think as important as anything,we were charged with updating a rolling or a continuing five-yearplan, if you will. It's terribly important because it helped toindicate, at least to the public, that we were not looking for anovernight kind of success in our attempts to prevent or to curethese particular forms of cancer.
These sub-objectives were accomplished at that time,but I believe a tactical mistake was made, in that the contractrather than the investigator-initiated grant mechanism of fundingwas chosen to support projects in this program. It sort ofconjured up the image of "Big Brother" telling scientists what todo and how and when. Also the program did not have directbudgetary staffing or reporting priority, as the National CancerProgram now does.
Nonetheless, in retrospect, I believe it was a highlysuccessful program, this in terms of its potential and nowrealized impact on high incidence or traumatic diseases thatpeople fear most, cancer and AIDS.
In 1970 to '71, President Nixon, Congressman Rogers andSenator Kennedy committed this nation to a "Conquest of Cancer"program, with all needed funds and with special bypass budget andreporting authority directly to the White House and to theappropriate committees of the Congress.
I was appointed the first director of that program. Itcame to be known as the: National Cancer Program. In that shorttenure, through 1976, we committed something like $3.5 billion inthe quest for improved prevention, cure and rehabilitation asrelates to cancer. I believe this was a relatively small sun,but I also believe it was well used.
At about the same time, beginning in 1970, over 1,000American and international scientists were convened to plan thisattack, a massive undertaking. This followed the so-calledYarborough Commission Report sponsored by then-Senator RalphYarborough of Texas, in which a panel of experts judged thatthere was sufficient available knowledge and technology which, ifbetter and widely applied, would result in more meaningfulbenefit to people than was being realized at the time.
I believe it was true then, and I believe it is truetoday.



But in his State of the Union message and in commentsmade later, the President surmised that if this nation could hitthe moon, we ought to be able to cure cancer. And there werecomments made to the point of let's do it by our Bicentennial.
His conviction and goal, I think, were laudable, but itburdened the program with overpromise and overexpectancy. Wedidn't know where the moon was at that time, much less know howmany moons there were.
So that I urge you to plan, but not to make that veryserious mistake. I believe that planning is important,inexpensive, and could be effective. It gets people together tothink and the process is impressive to the Executive and theCongress. It is an invaluable tool in reporting to OMB, theOffice of Management and Budget, and to the Authorization andAppropriation Committees of Congress.
I believe firmly in the issues of relevancy, priority,need, who and how, as regards planning, and in my own mind thishas come to mean this kind of thing: In regard to relevance, theproject -- that is the grant or the procurement of work to bedone -- must have a reasonable chance of helping to attain theoverall program goal which you have set for AIDS.
The priority has to do with issues of merit andurgency. Money and talent are finite in any given program. Nonation, as you know, can do everything.
Peer review is fallible, but must choose the best betsnow. It is a difficult job, and this has to be re-evaluatedevery two years.
In ‘regard to need, I think a very important point isthat if it's already being done well, don't start a new progran.Duplicate, by all means. Different minds bring different andprobably beneficial approaches to a common goal. I do not thinkthat in this kind of science, there is any such thing asoverduplication. It certainly is not a problem. The more mindsbrought to bear on a given problem, the better our chances ofsolving that problem.
And in terms of "who", you have got to get the verybest people with the best track record and promise. Twist arms,if you have to, to get people coming into the progran.
And finally, in regard to "how", for the most part,review, fund, and monitor investigator-initiated grants -- thatis, throw it open to the scientific community and theirimagination.
10



But there is another side to that coin, and I think itis a very important one, and this can be a bit tricky, and thatis if you can get a group of peers, if this committee, based onpeer advice, can agree on what has to be done, and what can bedone now, then I would go out and solicit people to do exactlythat.
So it's a two-pronged attack. You throw it open andlet people run with their imagination as to what they think oughtto be done. But if there are things that can be identified, thenI would make them the number one priority. This could be notonly basic research, but the development of drugs, thedevelopment of viral reagents, et cetera.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my written statement, andI will be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
(Dr. Rauscher's prepared text is included in theAppendix. ]
DR. LILLY: I would like to start the questioning to myright down here. Dr. Lee, would you like to?
DR. LEE: Dr. Rauscher, what kind of recommendations doyou have for who should set these rules up, who is going to dothe planning? Who or what are we going to suggest in the way ofa committee, a group from the Institute of Medicine? What areyour suggestions in that regard?
DR. RAUSCHER: Well, I think again there are somecommonalities here, at least in my experience. Not only theprograms I have mentioned, but also within the American CancerSociety. Now the buzz word is "strategic planning," and I findthat people who have this capability are different from those ofus who are trained in laboratory or at the bench or who work inhospitals. There are people who do this and they do it verywell.
For the most part they don't understand or they don'tknow the science and they, I think, would be the first to admitthis. So it is terribly important that you get the very bestscientists in the country at the beginning to sit down with thepeople who know how to plan, who know how to develop rolling twoto five-year updatable plans, if you will; who know whatreporting requirements are going to be.
There's a report to OMB, there's a report to thescientific community, there are reports constantly to the public.They are all different. And they have to be handled differently.At least this is what I am continuing to find.
11



In our reporting, for instance, to the public on theneed to have better early detection for colon and breast cancerin premenopausal women, as an example, that kind of planning is~- that is, for the science -- is much different than the kind ofplanning that goes into reports to the public that supports thatresearch in the first place. So you have got to get a plan, andpeople who know how to plan.
DR. LEE: But who? We know the best scientists, butwe don't know who is going to plan this research effort. Dr.Fauci doesn't want to run a one-man show, according to my recentconversations with him. Who is going to do this? Is there goingto be a czar? Is there going to be a committee? Is it going tobe the American Cancer Society?
DR. RAUSCHER: Well, you need a professional planner,and it would seem to me that you have to have a committee. Youknow, you are talking about two things, at least: prevention ofthe disease, as well as cure or treatment of the disease. Youmay wish to have two sub-panels that plan within those fairlylimited umbrellas.
The planning process, for instance, at the CancerSociety. I am a member of the team. There are seven or eightother people that are scientist-physician members of that tean,and then we have people who are trained in the planning process.Virtually every comprehensive cancer center in the country has anoffice of planning. They must do this in order to report well totheir sponsors, the National Cancer Institute in this case.
It is a process whereby you meet as often as possible.Planning is nothing much more than a road map, the development ofa road map, and as you solve some hurdles, you strike them fromthe plan, and as you recognize you weren't as smart as youthought you were in the beginning of the process, you change theplan. It's a guideline for scientists doing the work. It isinvaluable in terms of committing finite resources. You can't doeverything, and even though we may not be smart enough today toknow everything that has to be done, choices have to be made.And in my judgment, the only way you can do this is by having areasonably flexible plan.
DR. LILLY: Since we are running very late, I wouldhate to interrupt, but I would like to ask that we try to keepour questions brief.
Dr. SerVaas, questions?
DR. SERVAAS: I would like to ask, would you be able toprovide to the Commission lists of other groups much smaller thanthe American Cancer Society, but in the private sector? Are they
12

a factor? The smaller groups who raise money as you do, and aredoing research? Could you tell us if these groups are importantin cancer and AIDS research now?
DR. RAUSCHER: There are something like 80 groups,believe it or not, in the country that raise funds for cancerresearch. There are a number of these that are very prominent.I'd like to think my organization is the best. There are othersthat are very good, however, but which are very much smaller.
The Leukemia Society, for instance, is a very well known and verygood organization, much smaller and more targeted. They, too, doplanning. Dr. Gallo, as an example, has been a member of theirpanels, and so have I, from time to time.
So, yes, if you need a list of these kinds of organiza-tions for the record, I can certainly provide that.
MR. CREEDON: Dr. Groopman, I wonder whether there isenough research now underway that in your judgment isspecifically with respect to the AIDS problem. Are we currentlydoing enough? Are there enough people involved? Is there enoughmoney involved? Is there enough activity underway, or are theresome areas where we should be doing more?
DR. GROOPMAN: That is a complex question. What Iwould state is that the two areas of potential need currentlyare, .to follow Dr. Rauscher's comment, to open up with atremendous degree of flexibility, funding of investigator-initiated projects. I think there are excellent and wellstructured programs requesting grants-and through contractmechanisms or cooperative agreements which obligate thescientists to work along a structured or set path. And those, Ithink, are in place and there are a number of initiatives fromNIH and so on along those lines.
I don't know what the budgetary distribution is forAIDS research in that sphere versus investigator-initiated socalled RO-1's.
The second area which I think is important, which youhighlighted, is the idea of recruiting new scientists and newminds to work on the problem, and I think in order to do that,and in order to particularly train both young scientists and newgenerations of physicians to care for patients, as well asindividuals, to do laboratory research. There have to befacilities to both handle the virus, which is a clear bio-hazard,and to be able to do both clinical research and laboratoryresearch. The kinds of money for bricks and mortar which haveto be obtained in order to do the research on a virus of this,nature and see an increasing number of patients to my knowledge
;, doesn't exist: there is no source for these funds at this point.

13



I think that facilities is one area which is limitingour ability to respond to research initiatives.
MR. CREEDON: How big a need is there? I mean do youhave any idea of number of facilities that are needed? What kindof money are we talking about?
DR. GROOPMAN: I think the way that Cancer Centers weredeveloped 20 to 30 years ago throughout the United States withthe construction of facilities for basic research, as well asfacilities for clinical care, it would be opportune at this timeto consider establishing actual physical laboratory set-up aswell as clinical liaisons.
I couldn't estimate, I am not knowledgeable enoughabout money to be able to say how much a cancer center wouldcost. Dr. Rauscher would probably be more expert in that area.But one could easily envision 10 to 15 institutes or centers likethis which would allow for expansion of laboratory facilities andfor clinical research.
DR. RAUSCHER: It is very difficult to give you a firmfigure. Let me just say there are something like 70 cancercenters in this country, of which about 20 are so-calledcomprehensive centers. That means they do everything, from allkinds of research through patient care, through communityservice, public education and the like. It is not uncommon fortheir annual budgets to exceed something like $100 million, atthat level of being comprehensive.
Fortunately, the physical plant attendant to thosecenters was in pretty good shape at the beginning of the programin 1971. On the other hand, some of the specialized facilitiessuch as you will certainly need, and I agree with my colleague,in order to contain the infectious nature of AIDS, the hazard ofHIV, this could well run into several hundred million dollars, ifthat is the way this nation is going to go, if we need thosekinds of facilities.
That is by no means a lot of money or too much money.That's the ball park figure, anyway.
DR. LILLY: Thank you.Dr. Conway-Welch, do you have a question?
DR. CONWAY-WELCH: A very short one. You mentionedinvestigator-initiated research projects. I think many of us areaware that the NIH research process certainly has its strongpoints in terms of quality control but also has its limitationsin terms of length of the process and the expertise that you needto get into the process.
14



. Do you have some recommendations you could give to theCommission in terms of particularly one or two areas that areunder researched and that could benefit from a shortcut processof investigator-initiated research within the researchcommunity?
DR. GROOPMAN: I would say two areas that might bepotentially shortcut and are complex would be, first, developmentof appropriate animal models, and second, some of the more basicstudies on the function of the gene products. There are initia-tives along those lines but I think they could be expedited. Tobe able to get particularly young or new investigators into thearea, a grant review turn-around time of say three to four monthsas opposed to 8 to 12 might be beneficial.
DR. CONWAY-WELCH: Thank you. ‘Dr. Rauscher?
DR. RAUSCHER: I think another part of your questionhas to do with funding mechanisms. It is one thing to be able toidentify that which peer review says ought to be done, these areour best bets, and it is another thing to be able to get thatmoney out very quickly.
When I left the National Cancer Institute in 1976, itwas beginning to take something like the better part of two ‘fiscal years. You received the application and if it had to dowith a procurement contract-wise, there were all kinds ofregulations that may have taken about 24 months before you gotany money out of it.
That really is serious and has to be looked at. My ownorganization now, for instance, is able to award up to $75,000within something like 45 to 60 days. We set up differentmechanisms to do this.
As far as I know, not a single program like that existsor probably can-exist in the Federal Government, because ofprocurement regulations. Somehow, you are going to have to cutthrough that time.
DR. “CONWAY-WELCH: Thank you.DR. LILLY: Dr. Walsh?
DR. WALSH: Two very brief questions. One, based uponthe progress that has been made, if you were asked to grade wherewe are in these research efforts on the basis of an A to anF,what grade would you give it?
DR. GROOPMAN: I think when one gives grades, oneusually creates a curve, a class. I think that is importantbecause what we have is a perception and the reality of the
15



disease as a very terrible and major event in the United States.
That is for real and I can speak to it on a personal basis havingcared for literally hundreds of people with AIDS in the past six
years.
On the other hand, when you put in context how much isknown about this virus and how much progress has been made interms of characterizing its genetic base, how it binds to cells,actually identifying the binding protein, beginning to do indepth studies on its genetic regulation and so on, I think wehave a considerable knowledge base which has been accumulated ina relatively short period of time and one contrasts that withwhat the general state of knowledge is in a number of humandiseases and in other viruses.
I would say Bt/A-.
DR. WALSH: I think it is important that we recognizethat we have done a remarkable job with all the difficulties thatyou have both pointed out. I think both the Federal and privatesector has done a remarkable job.
My second question is was there any coordination or anyreason for coordination between the designation of the so-called19 research centers for AIDS and the existing cancer centers thatwere in place?
DR. RAUSCHER: Yes, I think to a large extent they arenow, unlike what I think was going on in 1970/1971, having verygood coordination among cancer centers. There is very goodinformation exchange. There is so much information, it is almosttoo much. Nobody keeps their data locked up any more. It ischaracteristic of science to want to wave a flag and telleverybody what you have done. I think that kind of thing is veryhealthy, not only in this country, but the sharing of informationamong countries.
It seems to me that is beginning to happen with whatyou folks are trying to do.
DR. WALSH: I think that is very good. That isencouraging. I agree with you that if it is a B+, we should gofor an A+, in anything as dangerous as this disease. I am veryencouraged by what you have said.
DR. LILLY: Dr. Crenshaw?DR. CRENSHAW: Dr. Groopman, could you explain to us
more fully the role of macrophages in infection with AIDS as itis understood today?
16



DR. GROOPMAN: As I said, macrophages are a form ofwhite cells which are quite important in body defense. They areone of the primary cells encountering microbes and they ingestthese. They also present the protein of the antigen of anincoming microbe to important immune cells such as lymphocytes.It is clear they have this binding protein, the CD-4 protein, ontheir surface. That appears to be one way that the virus canenter the macrophage and as I said, it is not fear whether thevirus could enter the macrophage through other routes rather thansimply binding to that protein.
What is interesting about the virus is that it does notappear to be particularly cytopathic or destructive to themacrophage. It appears to live within it in a latent formwithout destroying it, which is different in some ways than itsexistence within the helper lymphocyte.
It also appears that one of the major cells within thebrain that is infected is the macrophage. Clearly, theneurologic disease that is associated with HIV infection is verysevere and very crippling. How the virus within the macrophageis either transmitted to other cells within the brain or whetherproducts of the macrophage turned on in some way by the AIDSvirus interfere with neurologic function is really not known.
I think we are just beginning to understand the biologyof the virus within the macrophage, but it is clearly an area ofresearch over the next two to five years, which should proveimportant. As I said also, there is controversy whether drugslike AZT or other agents are as active in the macrophage as theyappear to be within the lymphocyte.
DR. LILLY: Dr. Watkins?
CHAIRMAN WATKINS: Thank you for calling "Dr. Watkins."Everybody calls me "General" and so forth.
{Laughter. }
I'd like to close out this particular group with thisone observation and I was very much in synchronization with you,Dr. Rauscher, on strategy building and planning as an adjunct tothe technical aspects of dealing with this disease.
In fact, the Commission is really being tasked to lookat our charter very carefully to build a national strategy todeal with this infectious disease. That is what it is all about.We are trying to surround it now. We are picking out these fourelements as almost partial modules to slip into a nationalstrategy. We know we have to be relevant to what is going on ina nation that is concerned with AIDS, so we are trying to build
17


these modules incrementally and package them up in such a waythat downstream, we can put it altogether in a national strategy.
This country tried to do something similar when welooked at computer microchip development. One of the things wehad to do was try to put incentives into the system. To beat outthe next generation of supercomputer microchips, we had to get-the Congress together to say we are going to eliminate orexclude certain anti-trust rights, for example, and bringresearch groups together in a much more cooperative andcollaborative way. We had to deal with such things as protectingintellectual property rights, to get over the business of vyingfor grants, awards, and international prizes, and try to pull agroup of people together, the best in the business, in acollaborative way, to share in both the burdens and benefits offinding new answers to the questions.
It seems to me that if we are going to go into buildingfacilities, we better be thinking in terms of the planning, andthe strategy elements, and the information exchange, and thecollaborative effort as the first order of business.
I am wondering if you have any ideas, either one ofyou, as to what we might recommend in a much more specific way,either changes in regulations that might be impeding or settingup obstacles to progress along these lines, or changes in thelaw, or just an announcement of a leadership role to pool thesevarious entities together that now seem to be somewhatfragmented and disconnected.
We need your thoughts on information exchange, sharingviews, where are you right now, and are there elements that canbe centralized, not necessarily all research information, butenough of it to facilitate the kind of research that might beappropriate in the early stages of an infectious epidemic like:this, that might be a template for the future. We need to set upa model for the nation for when the Secretary of Health and HumanServices declares a national health emergency, so that we canpush certain buttons and things would begin to move in a muchmore coordinated and integrated way.
Can either of you give us any ideas? We don't have agreat deal of time left on this panel because of technical delaysthis morning. If you have already given thought to this inspecific terms as to how we might set up a set. of principles .surrounding such a collaborative effort across the spectrum ofissues I just raised, it would be very helpful to the’ Commissionto know what that would be. We would appreciate hearing bothfrom your point of view, Dr. Groopman, at the Deaconess Hospitalin Boston, and your point of view, Dr. Rauscher, as Vice-President of the American Cancer Society.
18



DR. GROOPMAN: That is obviously not a short answer.Two things that immediately come to mind are to have longer termforms of support than are generally given. I think one has totake a long term perspective in terms of commitment of resourcesto research and following up on Dr. Walsh's question aboutwhether we get an A, B or C and so on. A lot has been donerapidly but I think the reason people perceive or believe a lothas not been done or enough wasn't done is because of theseverity of the disease. It is probably going to take a numberof years, many years, perhaps a decade or more, to really arriveat therapies that lead to cure or vaccines and so on.
I would think initially one could consider developingfunding mechanisms which are more long term than the standardthree year forms of grants which are general Federal grants,occasionally five year grants. One finds scientists oftenspending 20 or 30 percent of their effort writing grants andapplying for money and spending a good deal of time which couldbe spent in research along the lines of searching for grantrenewals and refunding.
The other is possibly setting up collaborative workinggroups that work on a specific topic related to a grantinitiative. There are a number of initiatives, and I think manyof them are excellent in scope, that come out of the NationalInstitutes of Health. One should study the function of thegenes. One should study the interaction of the AIDS virus withthe macrophage and so on. Once those initiatives are given out,it is not clear to me that the results of the work or theinvestigators are tied together in a collaborative way.
There are advantages obviously to competition. Compe-tition is a stimulus and is important in productivity. At thesame time, there should be a balance in terms of collaboration,and there may be mechanisms that could be set up whereby one isobligated upon receipt of the award to regularly interact,communicate on a six month basis or a yearly basis with the otherindividuals who had been recipients of that award either, inBethesda or some other area that would be conducive to it.
Those are two things I think could allow for moreeffort to be put into research as well as more collaboration.
- DR. RAUSCHER: Just to be very brief, I would agreewith my colleague in everything he says about research. I thinkyou will find there is so much competence in the country andenthusiasm that, naturally, people will begin to integrate andtalk to one another perhaps more than they have.
I would repeat one other thing I said before and thatis in some way, the funding agencies have got to let up on someof the restrictions that now apply to the granting or the
19



contracting process. When you are talking about a minimum of tenmonths before you can get money out to fund that bright, new andimportant idea, all the way to the two and a half years forcompetitive contract procurement, that is a major impediment todoing what you want to do.
One example of this has been mentioned already and thatis you want to award grants for a period longer than three years.
One other example is the NIH has what is known as oneyear spending authority. That is, there is an appropriationevery year and if they don't spend the money within that year, itgoes back to the Treasury. What you always want to have is aprogram manager or leader with far more flexibility than that.The Department of Defense has "no year" authority. In otherwords, they get a $1 in this year and if they don't spend thatdollar, ten years from now they still have the dollar. AtomicEnergy used to have two year spending authority and NIH has one.
I think that is one thing to look into, reduce some ofthose restrictions on how money is spent. You can still maintainadequate peer review.
DR. LILLY: Thank you, and thank you both for aninteresting presentation and discussion.
Dr. Anthony Fauci is our next speaker this morning.Dr. Fauci is the Director of the Institute of Allergy andInfectious Diseases; has been and continues to direct a researchlaboratory in his own right, even while bearing this very largeadministrative responsibility. He is going to talk to us todayabout the federal role in the support of biomedical research.