He exercises his inveterate vocation, that of professor, at the University of California. He investigates what dictates his desire to play – lately he has been given by mouse models with cancer – and leaves the work of curing for other medical colleagues, but not before supplying them with discoveries such as that of oncogenes, which earned him the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1989. His name is Michael Bishop, and he smiles with such frankness that everyone who is next to him in this room at the Juan March Foundation cannot help but feel at ease.
–What is an oncogene?
-A normal gene that has been damaged in such a way that it contributes to the development of cancer. For example, we have many genes that control cell reproduction. Some of them work as accelerators of this reproduction. If it is damaged in such a way that it cannot be turned off, it becomes a runaway accelerator. There we have an oncogene. There are also genes that act as a brake and can become faulty. In both cases they contribute more to cancer than to normal cell function.
–Are you born with them?
-Usually not. Throughout life, there are agents that damage our genes. Tobacco is the best example. There are many chemicals in tobacco that can damage genes and, if they find what we call a proto-oncogene, they turn it into an oncogene. Very occasionally, genes are damaged already in the sperm or an egg. So it is a family cancer, and it is inherited from one generation to another. The latter represent 5 percent of all cancers. If that is the case, the person is born with a defect in all his cells and transmits it to his descendants.
–Do all cancers follow this oncogenic mechanism?
– At the moment there is no reason to think that there are cancers that are not based on this type of problem. Genes differ somewhat from each other and from cancer to cancer, so perhaps the group of oncogenes in breast cancer is different from colon cancer. They are like the different branches of the same family.
–In what line of research do you work?
-None of those directly involved in curing cancer. I am in the part that comes before: providing the targets for the therapists.
–Can it be explained better?
-In my laboratory we try to produce model mice where cancer is identical to human cancer. Then we can test experimental therapies in the mouse and know that they are working exactly as they are going to work in humans. In this way, the results are reliable.
–What are your tips for preventing cancer and how long until we can cure it?
-There is only one answer to both questions: more research. We cannot cure most cancers yet because we do not understand their mechanism. And we cannot prevent cancer because we do not understand its causes. If you want to prevent lung cancer, get people to quit smoking. If you want to prevent skin cancer, make people stop burning their skin, but how do you prevent breast cancer? I do not know; we need more research. Colon cancer? I don’t know, we need more research. Prostate cancer? I don’t know, we need more research.
As for curing cancer, we can cure some leukemias, some local tumors with surgery, a breast or colon cancer, if you catch it early, but if it has metastasized, there is no hope. So we need more research, much more research.
–One of the few agents that has been clearly shown to cause cancer is tobacco. How do you react when someone approaches you and starts smoking?
-I try to walk away discreetly. Tobacco is extremely irritating to me, although I do not feel any hostility towards those who smoke. They deserve understanding and encouragement to quit.
–What would you do if you were diagnosed with cancer?
-Visit a specialist. There is often hope. Furthermore, I believe that oncology will become an obsolete branch of medicine, because cancer will be, in time, a forgotten disease.
–Regarding your professional career, you started, like any doctor, practicing in a hospital …
-Certain.
–But he left it …
-I was frustrated. There were very few diseases that I could treat effectively: some infections, with antibiotics … But we couldn’t cure heart disease and we couldn’t cure cancer. So I decided to dedicate my life to trying to do research that could improve our treatments. The reason we didn’t have better treatments was that we didn’t understand the disease. I wanted to do science on the mechanism of the disease that would help us to finally design better treatments for someone else, not me.
–His initial vocation, however, was to be a teacher.
-Yes, until I discovered that, in the American academic system, the professor does research, in addition to teaching. And I asked myself: research? What is that? I came from a small town, I didn’t know anything about university life, so I tried research at the School of Medicine and fell in love with it. I have devoted myself to it ever since. But I also love teaching. I have always been a teacher and I still teach.
–What was the first article you published?
-It was for the magazine of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. For me it was like being born again. (Laughter) Before I published it, I was a doctor; later, scientist. That article was about the molecules involved in the reproduction of the polio virus. The study of viruses led me to cancer research, because I learned that there were viruses that cause cancer in animals and there was a hypothesis that there might be viruses that cause cancer in humans.
–And he was on the right track.
-Absolutely, since studying these viruses led us, Harold Varmus and me, to the discovery of cancer genes in normal cells, the oncogenes. This contribution was what earned us the Nobel Prize. Later, I totally abandoned viruses and devoted myself only to the study of genes.
–Are you still seeing Harold Varmus?
-Of course, I see it continuously. We worked together until he moved to head the National Institute of Health. I live in San Francisco, that’s my luck; and he lives in Washington, that’s his misfortune.
–How was your relationship with him when you were discovering oncogenes?
-Do you know the word consubstantial? It is a theological term. To be consubstantial means to be an integral part of each other. And that’s how we were.
–Looking at the titles of articles that you have published in the last year, it highlights the variety of topics that you have covered and with how many people.
-I’m like Picasso, I try many different styles. (Laughter) As a scientist, your interests evolve throughout your career. The scientist who has spent twenty years researching the same topic is no longer original. If you want to move with the pointer, you have to change your specialty, your techniques and your interests. For example, working with mouse models is something new for me. I’ve been at it for five years, and I think it’s very important to do it now.
–You mentioned Picasso. Is the scientist something of an artist?
-One of the important aspects of being a scientist is the sense of freedom and play. You have to continually live with the will to seek new things. Every great scientific discovery was actually born out of heresy. If I look at the history of art, what I like are the great changes, someone who did something that no one had done before: Cubism, Fauvism, Miró, … It is those kinds of radical changes, the thinking of a totally different way, which translates into scientific discoveries.
–Is this your first visit to Spain?
-No, the third.
–What opinion do we deserve?
– (It takes time to find the words). I like the liveliness of the Spanish, their spontaneity. And Madrid is a very elegant city, with a wonderful cultural history. I love art, for example. My wife and I collect works of art, on paper, because we cannot afford oil paintings. And some of my favorite artists are Spanish, so I like Spain, I respect it, and I just wish I could come more often.
–It is said of you that you are addicted to reading as well as painting.
-Reading is what I like the most: literature, history, biography. My second hobby is classical music. I love it, I’d be listening for hours. If I don’t listen to at least one concert a week I suffer a severe psychological reaction.
Gonzalo peynado
This interview was published in June 1999, in number 217 of VERY Interesting.
